Clan rules - Theft and deliberate building removal by Lord

[hungry_wolf]

maybe could be nice, but l will never blame another or game itself for a mistake of mine. be a Duke means be responsible, no excuses. can be justified for a bad recruitment, but not for a lord nomination.in no war game there is this kind of protection by game mechanics or rules

[madmaniacal1]

There are no rules to protect against such as this, and in fact, this has been discussed in multiple past threads. In all cases, the ruling was the same:
Items in clan buildings are not protected. Placing items there gives all clan members legitimate access thereof.
Clan Lords have the ability to sell buildings. Granting that rank is the same as granting permission.


Thieves and spies, and traitorous lords, teach an invaluable lesson. Trust too easily, and you will lose. It stinks to see such, but at least they learned it here, and not IRL...

[TangledSwerve]

There are no rules to protect against such as this, and in fact, this has been discussed in multiple past threads. In all cases, the ruling was the same:
Items in clan buildings are not protected. Placing items there gives all clan members legitimate access thereof.
Clan Lords have the ability to sell buildings. Granting that rank is the same as granting permission.

Thieves and spies, and traitorous lords, teach an invaluable lesson. Trust too easily, and you will lose. It stinks to see such, but at least they learned it here, and not IRL...

And a fantastic way to ensure a culture of dishonesty and malciousness remains strongly embedded in game.
Far too much is allowed to slide in this game and this is yet another example it. Extreme deception and sabotage being condoned as a legitimate form of play provides a safe haven only for the absolute worst kind of players and further atrocious in-game conduct.

[Storms7]

I do encourage players to publicly call out these types of actions so that others will know not to trust players who conduct themselves in this way.

However.

Join a clan at your own risk. Trust others at your own risk. Certainly do not promote someone to the rank of Lord if you don't trust them. Spies joining enemy clans to empty and possibly sell their buildings is actually a part of clan politics. This has always been this way.

It is what it is.

[SellSword]

And a fantastic way to ensure a culture of dishonesty and malciousness remains strongly embedded in game.
Far too much is allowed to slide in this game and this is yet another example it. Extreme deception and sabotage being condoned as a legitimate form of play provides a safe haven only for the absolute worst kind of players and further atrocious in-game conduct.

Don't assume I disagree with you.

[Leone]

To answer everyone, the perpetrator did not have permission from the Duke to do any of these things. He simply ransacked the buildings, took their, admittedly meagre holdings (10 magic trunk) Then proceeded to delete all but one of their builds, before presumably leaving the clan. Granted, being Lord is to a degree a level of power given in trust, but I find it curious that it's regarded as within game rules when abused in the manner described.

However, if so, then let it be known that Arthas_M was the player who decided this was an acceptable course of action to take against a fledgling clan.

I'm pleased you've named and shamed. I know this player arthas_m via another unsavoury incident towards a friend ingame. It's completely unrelated to this one, but it builds up a picture and I hope as many players as possible see his name and so are forewarned.

As for this specific case, unfortunately he has acted within the rules and , as others have mentioned, perhaps the duke will learn from this. Historically, to be a Lord in a clan took time, trust and proving yourself time and time again. The Lord is the player the clan looks up to when the duke is absent- that sort of thing.

Perhaps the duke promoted the player without going through some of these checks and balances? I don't know.

Having said that, should this be a catalyst to revisit this rule? Yes, I think perhaps it should. Although the player arthas_m is within the rules, his conduct is treacherous and deceitful. Let's all be mindful of this as well.

[TangledSwerve]

I'm pleased you've named and shamed. I know this player arthas_m via another unsavoury incident towards a friend ingame. It's completely unrelated to this one, but it builds up a picture and I hope as many players as possible see his name and so are forewarned.

I've heard similarly bad references of Arthas_M from three other players since this post. In fact, I recall encountering him last week on one my alts, also. He took it upon himself to spawn-block and otherwise be an unpleasant foul-mouthed little oik. I had even taken a number screenshots at the time with the intent to report him, but decided against it, because seemed rather trivial. I may reconsider doing this now.

As for this specific case, unfortunately he has acted within the rules and , as others have mentioned, perhaps the duke will learn from this. Historically, to be a Lord in a clan took time, trust and proving yourself time and time again. The Lord is the player the clan looks up to when the duke is absent- that sort of thing.

Perhaps the duke promoted the player without going through some of these checks and balances? I don't know.

It's almost certain that inexperience led to this situation. Even so, builds (or removals) are rarely permitted without the express permission of the clan leader. Arthas_M knew exactly what he was doing. I understand it was a considerable shock for the rest of the clan when they discovered what he had done.

Having said that, should this be a catalyst to revisit this rule? Yes, I think perhaps it should. Although the player arthas_m is within the rules, his conduct is treacherous and deceitful. Let's all be mindful of this as well.

Well, there needs to be a rule to revisit, in this case. I'm astonished that it is has long been regarded as within the rules of play. Deceptive, dishonest & destructive behaviour of this manner should never be enabled and it does lend to a particularly toxic gameplay environment that should and could be easily prevented.

[Barkley]

Did any rule tell him to get promision?
Well I do agree selling all isont good but I totlay agree to it being dukes fault.
Who ever Duke was, everyone makes mistakes..

This is very definition of toxic gameplay, if there is no rule against it - there should be. And it should absolutely not be accepted as part of play, clan or not.

Trust is easily abused and the fault absolutely does not lie entirely upon the shoulders of the Duke. This broad acceptance and dismissive attitude of particularly dishonest & malicious gameplay feeds a basis of player that could be significantly diminished - if there were clear & irrefutable rules regarding it.

Until then, players like this will have free reign to ruin the game for others. And frankly, that's not something I will ever abide by.

Yes you are absolutely right but no rule tells him to not.
I agree this should exist you just have to understand there is nothing against it currently.

[TangledSwerve]

Yes you are absolutely right but no rule tells him to not.
I agree this should exist you just have to understand there is nothing against it currently.

I am not failing to understand this, Barkley...

The very essence of this individual's actions is echoed by far too many in game. Change won't happen if everyone sits in subservience, parroting the same thing. The fact is, these sort of players should be the minority - so why give such opportunity to significantly reduce the enjoyment of many? As form of gameplay style, it is malicious and antisocial. Not something any administrative team or game developer should wish to foment. It's also a gateway to further disreputable behaviour, scamming, spawn-killing - you name it. And it's a hell of mixed message to send to everyone else.

[madmaniacal1]

Yes you are absolutely right but no rule tells him to not.
I agree this should exist you just have to understand there is nothing against it currently.

I am not failing to understand this, Barkley...

The very essence of this individual's actions is echoed by far too many in game. Change won't happen if everyone sits in subservience, parroting the same thing. The fact is, these sort of players should be the minority - so why give such opportunity to significantly reduce the enjoyment of many? As form of gameplay style, it is malicious and antisocial. Not something any administrative team or game developer should wish to foment. It's also a gateway to further disreputable behaviour, scamming, spawn-killing - you name it. And it's a hell of mixed message to send to everyone else.

Then why not eliminate all "antisocial" or "unsavory" behavior? No more siege. No more PvP. A player's spawn cannot kill or be killed by other players. Oh, wait... That removes every "social" interaction in the game...
There IS NO magic fix for it.