@Vick11

Just Saying: If you call for more room for descretion there will be more room for
corruption possible, instead of black and white rules with possible amendments that are
clear on what is what.

The original EULA is back when you had to have 30 accounts to make a fleet. Even then most
people in a enforcing position (even police officers) look at the spirit of the rule.
Since Police Officers and TNF mods are both teams that enforce rules it's a good analogy.

What if an attacking fleet with well over 60 members show up and only take 4 tiles but the
tiles are all on the first row, would that be a waste of time to the defending fleet,
where the attacking fleet leader would get a ban? Although if a less that 30 man fleet
attacks and they go 4 rows deep in tiles and get over 12 tiles take that would have been
more of a successful try to take the harbor then that 60 man fleet. However, the >30 man
fleet are a "fake" fleet because their lack of members, and they are clearly black and
white in the rules "wasting time".

Just something to think about

"Read splids post, then say that. Your saying it would be ok if he used Network with over
30 accounts in Network, not 30 players. I bet he would still be banned."

Thats what I was trying to get at when I asked what would have happened to us if TTF had
"rented" the harbor. We clearly have more then 30 accounts but active players are far less
then that.

@jhempsrt4

Very few rules are perfect and I play mediator here and in RL, but the way in which this
rule was used is implemented wrong as the rule does not state anything to do with
the current situation.

If you look at the rule it states that the attacking fleet should not waste the defending
fleets time by attacking with less than 30 members so my scenario including FAWK would
result in their fleet leader being banned, as a 37 man fleet (containing approx 10 BB/CV6
accounts) would waste a real HA fleets time - and by real HA fleet I mean the likes of
JEDI, BS, AH, AGILA, AA, VETS, RS (Kaiser server) to name a few.

I could also go one step further and say would a Nelson based fleet that attacked a
harbour with 30 members and had at best one BB5 account be considered wasting the defending
fleets time? Shouldn't their fleet leader be banned?

If you wish to be completely anal about the rule then all 30 members of a 30 man fleet
should be forced to attend a HA when they declare of the leader should be banned, that
would not happen.

Here is an example of what I mean, 7th attacked several harbours before its death, and the
attacks where only attended by between 15-25 members. Shouldn't the fleet leader have been
banned for that?

"The rule is "30 members to declare" and he broke it."

There is more to the rule you know. The rule isn't simply a number. If it was, yes the
hypothetical situation with FAWK having 27 people would BREAK THAT RULE. Not
only that, but it would also be breaking the second half of the rule also if you want
to interpret it in the manner that Vick did.

What Clemo is saying is that the "rule" that Vick enforced is simply not a rule. It's
not a gray area either. It's not in the rule, in the rule's purpose, or even implied by
the rule. THE RULE DOES NOT PROTECT POTENTIAL ATTACKERS. That's just it. There
is no clause in the rule that states, "You shall not hinder another fleet from declaring
on a harbor and having a successful harbor assault." You can't punish someone for
trying to get under peoples' skins.

EDIT: AFK hosts should be banned for "wasting people's time."

LOL I have no idea what altsien jr. is saying.

Clemo, I agree the rule isn't perfect. It is far from it. Then again, what rule is perfect?
All the rules have some gray area, or some extra circumstance that changes the way
the rule is enforced.

The mods chose to ban Rehor in this situation, and I can see why. I think a resetting
of the declarations would have suffuced, or perhaps they could have given Rehor an
ultimatum. Something like: Get 30 level 100+ accounts in your fleet by tomorrow or
be banned. Something like that. And from what I understand there was a whole lot
of talking to various people done before the punishment was decided and handed
out.

I am just playing devils advocate here. The mods banned him, not me. I never even
complained to a mod or anything of that nature. Hell, I was looking forward to
frigate rushing him.

People wouldn't complain if it was a serious attempt at a fleet. No one would have
complained if FAWK got the declaration, as long as FAWK is a big enough fleet to put
up some kind of fight. (I have no idea who they are)

Everyone agrees that Network never stood a chance. Not even a little one. There
have only been a few people that said they would have tagged up with him for the
weekend, while there was no fleet penalty, or tagged alt accounts into Network.
But, no where near enough people to turn Network into a serious fleet.

Vick, you'd make a great politician. You've managed to either ignore my question or answer
it by going around it.

Please answer my question properly: The rule is being used because a one-man-fleet took a
harbour when it was empty. Will a fleet leader be banned if his/her fleet attacks and
shows up with less than 30 members?

You are using a rule that does not cover this current situation, so surely the above
scenario is also covered in your eyes? It would be wasting the defending fleets time as
stated in the rule itself, so surely the answer would be a YES.

What eula rules?joke?Do think how many is escape of eula's golden rules ?;when $DE is
check the under18 age?
We have in forum kids with stupid comments a snakepit,is ok i love humanity,before
jhempsrt4 exilate jedi or sindher-caez call my with other name with no on prove
-put my IP (beg for tnf) or lick my big balls and tiny balls of rehor and continued yours
bulls**t.

As I recall the answer on the naming conventions was caveated with a date and IDs created
before that date like lordmichael would not be challenged? I was not in the policy level
at that time and the memory is ticking on a bit, but I do seem to recall that.

Personally, I would like to see a re-write of the EULA in some respects and some of that
work is running in the background, but I also do not think we want to be totally hard over
and massively inflexible application of black and white rules. The game, the environment,
the issues that get raised are just not able to fit in to rigid categories at times and
quite often new scenarios crop up that dont really fit what we have at the time. So I
think we need some room for discretion. It is a challenge though how that gets built
sensibly in to a set of rules that we can all understand.

*Point is, Network fleet delayed HA for 1 week. *

OK, leaders of the fleets that where going to declare on London, post here to see who was
after London.

I wonder why nobody stopped and think the other way around?

The one man fleet "Network" didn't waste anybody's time atacking an empty harbor,
but what about the fleet that is obligated to waste his time atacking a 1-man fleet?

If he didn't attack the empty harbor, another larger fleet would have declared and we
would be getting a real HA this week at london. But instead fawk will start the process
of FFFFFictory his way into the harbor this week instead of last week.

Point is, Network fleet delayed HA for 1 week.