Posts by jomuecke_DE

    room for cheaters :D lol.
    I would call it trainingground for cheaters!!!
    No wonder that all these cheaters then overflowed all our "clean" servers after learning how in past.


    Can't believe that this is your serious. How ingenuous people have to be, that this move is a good idea to get other servers clean, or that this have no affects to other servers.

    No worry, increase such handlings and TL will lose its insentives at all.


    Wow - speechless i leave behind!

    first before i come up to topic: Why is it so difficult to find this Thread, when you don't know that it exist, or even when you know that it is somewhere. Iread this thread minutes ago, went to the Rules page and want to come back, opened Forum in a new window and tried to find it on normal way. NOTHING


    So i have to ask my allymates to pass me the link again.


    But back to topic.


    i really can understand why interpretation of the rules getting liberal more and more. It is fact, no one can judge things like friendly farming (of multi or "friends" acc) or friendly chiefing and so on, if it's done on a cheating intent or if it's normal gameplay. For Example chiefing. Who could say for 100% sure if it was friendly or not? Nobody beyond the 2 accts.


    But i also think, and thats why we have a wide range of interpretation now, that many intentions of the origin rules get lost by translation from german into english into russia etc...



    The wording is not exact the same, also the meaning of used words.
    Even the Subjects and Objects in interpretation are not the same how it is written.



    For Example:
    in german is written -
    "Dabei darf mit jedem Account nur zu seinem jeweils eigenen Nutzen gespielt werden"


    There is clear defined what could done with the acct. "NUR zu SEINEM jeweils EIGENEN Nutzen" This Means the Acct not the Player/s who played the Acct. So every interpretation, if something makes the player happy or he/she is agreeable is in range of the rules is quite simple wrong. It is not written that it have to fit to the Players benefit, it is written it has to be done for the benefit of the acct.


    In english:
    "An account must always be played for its own benefit."


    Same thing it is adressed to acct not to the players benefit.


    But to show up what i mean.


    In german it is used the word "nur" = only
    In english it is used the word "always" = immer


    "nur" and "immer" have quite simmilar meaning in this context, but NOT the same.


    So we could go through the whole rules there are minimal variations by using words in translations which haven't the exact same meaning.


    So it is no wonder, that we all have a different view/perception what the rules are really should say.


    "Accounts that exist solely for the benefit of other accounts may be permanently banned."
    "Accounts, die ausschließlich für den Nutzen anderer Accounts bestehen, können dauerhaft gesperrt werden."


    Same thing:
    eng: solely / deu: ausschließlich
    But in english rules as in german rules, that means when the acc do one thing for the acct benefit, everything is fine, which contradict the first sentence of rules in complete.


    BUT.
    eng: may / deu: können
    should be translated in both version like "can" or "allowed to", which means it could be deleted by TG but it don't have to.


    So the last sentence kill this rule at all. Maybe or not sanctioned, is all what shows up :)


    The whole Problem is, that this in origin wonderful rules, over the years get an other face by various interpretation and the try to fit this rules to all different mechanics of the game. Thats impossible. In PTP it is necessary that it is opened to these strategies that you can chief villages from ally mates, cause nobody can judge if it is friendly or not. But the thing i don't understand then is, why do we have restrictions by chiefing an ally mate (the acc have to zero the loyalytie at his own before can chiefed by ally mate) and if the chiefed acc is not in the ally then there is no restriction like this.
    If it is really wanted that in PTP this is a regular way to play in a team, there should be no restriction like this.
    (simmilar to chiefing arte villages in same ally, it should be possible to change)
    Then it is clear that the chiefed vil/acc is part of the team (ally) and it is okay to play for the benefit of the team.
    But if i forced to manage accts out of my alliance, cause this is the easier way, it forces the Preample of the rules:


    "An attempt to circumvent the game rules will be treated as a violation of the game rules and punished accordingly."



    Cause all we know, the mechanics in the game (restriction for chiefing in same alliace) is also part of the rules.



    So i'm wondering if it would be better, to create additional / different rules for example special needs at the Special Servers.
    It can't be covered all with the origin TL rules.

    Full respect for this choice.
    Last weeks were full of fun and thrill. Thanx TM a lot for this.
    It was a pleassure.


    And now take this server and win. Show this crumpy random bunch (aka lords a-z / Ba) how the cookies crumble....