Got my first suspension EVER! SWEET!

[Bad Monkey]

Howdy Chums,
Sorry about the suspension.

Have to say, though I understand rules about fleet crashing, this is just BFG arbitrary enforcement.

The rule being enforced would seem to be this: "pre-arranging for a player to destroy ships left on a planet"

I didn't get in on this, but I know nothing was pre-arranged.  [the player] left the game and changed all his planets to "retired."
If that's not an announcement to everyone, I don't know what is.

At what point would his ships be fair game?
at (i)?  That's absurd.  I would notice "retired" within a few hours, but because we're in the same alliance, I'm not allowed to probe and attack him?

[Sam Carter]

Howdy Chums,
Sorry about the suspension.

Have to say, though I understand rules about fleet crashing, this is just BFG arbitrary enforcement.

The rule being enforced would seem to be this: "pre-arranging for a player to destroy ships left on a planet"

I didn't get in on this, but I know nothing was pre-arranged.  Game-over left the game and changed all his planets to "retired."
If that's not an announcement to everyone, I don't know what is.

At what point would his ships be fair game?
at (i)?  That's absurd.  I would notice "retired" within a few hours, but because we're in the same alliance, I'm not allowed to probe and attack him?

I do not believe Jason would suspend without some sort of proof, even the player anouncing my fleet is at xxx, is considered as pre-arrangement, even though anyone can pretty much probe every planet to check..
Jason would only suspend if he saw there was a such an arrangement.. I know many that have got away with retirement parties, that Jason would not suspend wiithout the proof

[Bad Monkey]

I do not believe Jason would suspend without some sort of proof, even the player anouncing my fleet is at xxx, is considered as pre-arrangement, even though anyone can pretty much probe every planet to check..
Jason would only suspend if he saw there was a such an arrangement.. I know many that have got away with retirement parties, that Jason would not suspend wiithout the proof

Good thing then that we have this level of transparency...otherwise we'd have to operate on faith.

but, then, it's also good I have complete faith in BFG...My faith works as intended, and isn't actually a bug, though I'm going to fix it in the next patch.

[ian8144]

I was in the same boat as caseman.

Its stupid that all your guilty of is knowing the player who is quitting, as he renamed his planets "retired" so ofc he will get attack. If others attack him its fine, but as we were the same alliance its pushing...

a retiring player being hit within 2hrs of renaming his planets ... by his own alliance mates , is always suspicious

[Bad Monkey]

a retiring player being hit within 2hrs of renaming his planets ... by his own alliance mates , is always suspicious

Perhaps I'm mistaken.  I can only judge by what I saw and remember.

The player in question renamed his planets 40-some hours ago.
I noticed the DFs yesterday, 20-some hours ago.

so...within 20 hours, not 2.

[ian8144]

I wasn't watching so I can only go by what I was told by someone who was .... very carefully

[ML1]

I have no dog in this fight and find it humorous.

But, to say that BFG would only suspend if they had a valid reason is not only stupid, but asinine.

I was suspended once because I complained on the message board about a player being dropped In between attacks during a tournament.

The offending alliance of "high paying, high profit for BFG" tried to blow smoke that I had set the account up as a duplicate account just to get war points.

Rather than actually look at IP log ins.  They just suspended me.

Only after constant bitching by my alliance and myself did they go and look.  " my bad, suspension revoked".


While I agree pushing is not right, and like insider trading, at best you can suspect but never prove.


To believe that BFG has any other goal other than to drive revenue is mistaken

[Kemp_InYourFaceGameing]

All cards on the table here

The moment your suspension is up I will personally see to it that your resources go to good use.

 I hope you change your minds before then.
 


      On another note

Is it legal to ask if it's a 3 or 7 day?  Kappa

[Bad Monkey]

But, to say that BFG would only suspend if they had a valid reason is not only stupid, but asinine.

Also having personal knowledge of suspensions based on accusation with no proof, I second this...ok...actually you're seconding me, because I already implied that this was the case.

[renykeny]

I gave my account to mama for free..i have never sold an account..she had a very good account already, but I picked her to give it too as she plays about the same aggressive style as I do...she is also fair and extremely honest...a truly decent person..two members of my alliance quit...I did not hit them as that's illegal..you guys are mostly top experienced players and know this...so no whining...oh..and no, I'm not a big spender..have fun and remember its just a game!

[Bad Monkey]

two members of my alliance quit...I did not hit them as that's illegal..you guys are mostly top experienced players and know this...so no whining...oh..and no, I'm not a big spender..have fun and remember its just a game!

Ken, unless things have changed in the time since I last played, there is nothing illegal (nor has there ever been) about hitting alliance members.  I've hit many the alliance member, in SFCO, SDE,  and this uni.
What make's it illegal is if the retirement is announced in the alliance board and not to the general public. 
We, also, had an alliance member quit, and waited until (i) because she had announced and bid her farewells on ONLY the alliance board.  Given the level of inactivity in this Uni, no one was surprised to find her ships still intact, waiting to be blown up by me and a friend.

This was not the case here...As was stated, he changed the names of all planets to "retired,"  thus announcing it to everyone.

[Astrovanman]

Haha, you guys are still talking about the same crap, years later.  WTH, I will pop some popcorn and watch for old time sake.

[lugo]

We, also, had an alliance member quit, and waited until (i)

Yes waiting until an alliance.member account has gone (i) before hitting them is quite legal

[Bad Monkey]

Jason, Jan 27, 10:18:
It is not illegal to let other players know that you are quitting, as long as you don't actively set up a retirement party.


In other words... post on your alliance boards..."I am quitting" and anything that comes after is perfectly legal!

Thanks BFG!!! smartest ruling ever seen

Latest update

And tell me what is the difference it these statements

a)   I am quitting, my fleet will be in xx.xx.xx and you can hit anytime
b)   I am quitting, my fleet is on planets
c)   I am quitting, will move my heph to xx.xx.xx
d)   I am quitting, will leave my heph in xx.xx.xx
e)   I am quitting, you know where to find my fleet
f)   I am quitting!!!

Which one is against your rules?

reply
Jason, Jan 27, 15:36:
All but f would be considered illegal.

Interesting, if true...This would be contrary to what I remember rulings being 5-6 years ago, but not a violation for this case.

[renykeny]

yup..the two guys that quit just posted on our boards...so nope...not the same!  personally I agree if planet names changed..but I still wouldn't myself....bfg is just a lil erratic about enforcing rules...and there is no real profit in hitting players in a uni like this anyways..mostly I was posting because someone called out mama...I offered her my account rather than just deleting it...and had to convince her...