bcortell

In regards to this: Is that the final solution to the warring for XP? If so, this does not clearly explain the rules any more than the non-answer before. If you are trying to say that warring nations for XP is against the rules, why not just explicitly say it?

Some of us have been playing as long, if not longer, than anyone else in TE. What you think are the norms of war can change. We've warred for more than a month straight; we've made people admit to being defeated; we've used all available spy attacks; we've done it all before. Ignorance is not bliss, in your case.

"Specify Otter"

No. The war must continue.

Stop bitching if you're just going to look for peace three days into the war.

Three weeks in and no update. Here we go:

[02:13] Inst As of right now, I am willing to sell my soul to Confusion if the end result of this war is unacceptable. [12:19] <Inst> As of right now, we have no intention of making your war anything other than a tech raid.

They are. In addition to that, Inst's: threatened to bring in other AA's that would require Inst to sell his soul and make this look like a tech raid, and assumed we're flag running 10 days into the round. How well do you think any of that will work out for him?

I know. It will be funny watching the nations (and their other world aliases) that make up Mume turtle this war. If that's the case, which, knowing how Inst runs his AA's, fair enough.

Nope. It was just advice since it's a requirement for posting in this section of the forum, and some people can be stickler's about it.

Don't forget to add your TE info to your profile.

Inst should know better.

Not good for war.

Yes. They do what Rob was asking about. They're able to accept and kick people from the AA.

The culture and implementation of this system have nothing to do with the other. The autodelete of PM's would be solved by having AA announcements. (Though, if a player is inactive, I'm not sure they'll read the AA announcement either. But again, it doesn't have any merit in implementing this system or not.)

They are not very different. AA's are the same thing in TE as they are in SE. As someone else pointed out, admin would have to change a couple things around, but that doesn't mean that the AA system would be different.

Admin could go by OWF posts or the wiki to determine if someone that isn't gov/the leader is trying to take the AA before the rightful person. This was only a problem for a couple AA's when it was implemented in TE, and it was handled quickly. I don't see it being any type of a difference maker on whether or not it should be implemented. The AA leader can assign multiple people to manage the AA (however many they want). This would be an AA problem, not an admin problem. Have enough people to allow members/recruits to be accepted in case someone is away. In TE, the admin is able to select who the new leader is. (leader, as in, person with rights to the AA) If they assign someone that isn't the rightful person, I'm sure a simple PM to admin could solve the problem. Admin can remove them from the AA, allowing the rightful person to have the controls of it. It seems you have some big misconceptions on how this works without knowing much about it. You might want to explore TE a little to see how it actually works.

If it gets implemented how he's suggested- kicking everyone off every AA and letting the AA leader let people back on once it's created- the easiest way to prevent high NS raids (and any NS raids) is to just have your AA go into PM before the reset. Once they're back on the AA, have 'em leave PM. Easy solution which nullifies your concern. Again, if you're concerned about inactive members, send them a message before the reset to hit PM, then they can take as long as they want/need to join the AA without fears of getting hit. Having inactive members shouldn't be a concern of admin for implementing this system. That is not his nor anyone but that player's fault. If they aren't active enough to be interested in these changes, it speaks for their interest in the game overall. Holding back improvements in the game because of those that care least about it doesn't seem logical in any way.

You're right. Keep the faith, Cleveland bro.

I thought there was something posted about you saying how TOP won't surrender. Glad that worked out for TOP.

You're still around? Calling someone irrelevant when they're part of the group of AA's you're targeting to get into your sphere-

What makes you think that was mean?

We are pulling DoD away from Toposphere.

That is rich. Good luck getting those AA's as allies.

Two things are funny to me about the leaks- they have a leak and can't even fix it (their admin is away on a trip or something) and the AA's/blocs they think they can make part of their Toposphere. Their have some grand delusions.