2kcastle
Luxor Admin
Supreme Prosecutor
Posts: 1,067
|
Post by 2kcastle on Aug 14, 2007 19:09:18 GMT
In that case then 2kcastle, what would be an appropriate amount of compensation to pay the third party? With me becoming a diplomat I want to keep the gray areas in my knowledge at a minimum. Thanks. I always look at compensation from an individual point of view, the first thing that helps me decide is the other players attitude to the situation, anyone starting their mail with "WTF you owe me compensation ) is very unlikely to get what they want, If i feel compensation is owed then i look how many isles the person asking for it has and what they've lost, for instance a player with 2 isles thats lost 300 lws will feel that loss much more than someone with 200 isles, so i'd be more willing to pay them the full compensation.
|
|
|
Post by Gornall on Aug 14, 2007 22:29:35 GMT
Ok thats fine.
That was my major argument with Doku. He lost insignifactly compared to his size but still wanted a big chunk of compensation for my size.
A coloship and 120LWS is a big chunk of resources for me. Especially considering what I'd lost aswell.
|
|
Sol
Luxor Member
I pledge alligeance to the corn-growers.
Posts: 1,610
|
Post by Sol on Aug 15, 2007 19:30:29 GMT
Should we put this in the KoM section? So they can read it too. Useful info if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by Gornall on Aug 16, 2007 0:25:49 GMT
Definately worth going in the KoM section.
We need a forum that everyone can access for things like this. Non sensitive information.
Possibly the public forum? That way any disputes we can link them to it for future reference aswell.
|
|
Arminius
Morkin Admin
Ich bin Bl?cher
Posts: 4,148
|
Post by Arminius on Aug 16, 2007 7:35:31 GMT
We should present it in a more unified way in the outside section of the forum. Don't want any internal disagreements to become known to our enemies.
|
|
Shendemiar
Morkin Admin
Mmmm, free goo!
Posts: 6,751
|
Post by Shendemiar on Aug 16, 2007 11:34:44 GMT
Someone should write a conclusion of this thread and we use that and moe this thread back where it came from... (it came from the desert)
|
|
|
Post by Gornall on Aug 18, 2007 12:42:17 GMT
We should present it in a more unified way in the outside section of the forum. Don't want any internal disagreements to become known to our enemies. Yeh sorry, but once everything is ironed out we should get it public so people know where we stand. Its a bit of an unorthodox policy compared to most other alliances so definately needs to be spread about a bit.
|
|
Arminius
Morkin Admin
Ich bin Bl?cher
Posts: 4,148
|
Post by Arminius on Aug 18, 2007 13:02:17 GMT
Of course. We just shouldn't make the internal discussion public.
|
|
eproxy
Luxor Admin
Oceans old & new
Posts: 1,941
|
Post by eproxy on Aug 18, 2007 20:19:11 GMT
If i feel compensation is owed then i look how many isles the person asking for it has and what they've lost, for instance a player with 2 isles thats lost 300 lws will feel that loss much more than someone with 200 isles, so i'd be more willing to pay them the full compensation. I never let size factor into my decisions negatively; only positively. I won't disciminate against a large player (they'll usually be treated as per my rules) however I might discriminate for a smaller player (ie. bend the rule and send them some compensation).
|
|
|
Post by Gornall on Aug 20, 2007 21:26:10 GMT
If i feel compensation is owed then i look how many isles the person asking for it has and what they've lost, for instance a player with 2 isles thats lost 300 lws will feel that loss much more than someone with 200 isles, so i'd be more willing to pay them the full compensation. I never let size factor into my decisions negatively; only positively. I won't disciminate against a large player (they'll usually be treated as per my rules) however I might discriminate for a smaller player (ie. bend the rule and send them some compensation). Naturally, giving the small guy a break once in a while is always nice.
|
|
eproxy
Luxor Admin
Oceans old & new
Posts: 1,941
|
Post by eproxy on Aug 20, 2007 21:41:40 GMT
Coming from the small guy! Even as a player with a larger account I still love my LWS as much as you! I can still remember the stories behind most of my isles.
Added; I presume Morkin now has two very different approaches for colonisation then? Bearing in mind I still find the one that doesn't take into consideration clearing the isle is a tad absurd.
|
|
inyati
Morkin Admin
Aqua profunda est quieta
Posts: 4,310
|
Post by inyati on Aug 28, 2007 14:59:43 GMT
aaarrrrggghhh, I guess its my mistake, but I keep hearing that there is an alternative Morkin Island Takeover Policy, so I'd like to make things clearer: There is no alternative Morkin Island Takeover Policy!!!In fact Morkins Takeover Policy has not been estabelished. If you consider my first post as pretending to encompass the Morkin Policy, then you misinterpret the thread (but that could have been my mistake). My first post serves as a kickstart to the discussion and as a platform to work on. IT IS NOT and DOES NOT reflect MORKINS FINAL POLICY over the matter. That is why I locked 2kcastle's 'alternative' thread. There is no need for creating alternative policies, because there is no Policy yet estabelished. As I've said, my first post serves as a kickstart to the discussion, and as I state in the first reply, it was open to argument. In no way is there a final print or even a possiblity of alternatives to spring about until someone posts something along the line: 'first post has been edited to show final outcome of Morkin's Island Tackeover Policy'. My feverously defence over the points that I presented was intended to put them to test and see if they worked. I dont think all that I posted is valid and I do think that 2kcastle and others give much better lucid ideas to try and create a common platform for the alliance. That said, it has been asked for someone to sumarize what has been discussed, and I was hoping someone would try to jot down Morkin's Island Takeover Policy (which doesnt mean it has to be my approach to the problem), and submit it to final aproval. When thats done, then, and only then can we say that Morkin has an Island takeover policy that is common to all 4 alliances. My absence here for some time is not due to lack of interest on the matter, but due to the fact that I thought ideas where still maturing as several colonization issues arouse during the discussion. The wait was also due to the fact that some diplomats needed the time to get used to these disputes to form a better opinion, and I beleive that this thread actualy helped these new diplomats in solving the issues. So now would be a good time for these experienced diplomats to get back here and place there ideas so we ould rap this up. I can offer my help in presenting another way of displaying this policy (its not an alternative ), but maybe there are people much better equiped to do so, as I'm not a colonizer and have no diplomatic experience in the field.
|
|
Shendemiar
Morkin Admin
Mmmm, free goo!
Posts: 6,751
|
Post by Shendemiar on Aug 28, 2007 15:02:56 GMT
Yes, someone wanting extra kudos should compile the final post about this, guidelines are quite well established.
|
|
Clausewitz
Luxor Member
Veni. Vidi. Vici. Mori.
Posts: 1,437
|
Post by Clausewitz on Aug 28, 2007 15:26:35 GMT
Off the top of my head, Inyati, but I haven't scoured this thread as much as I should to do it justice...
1. Islands that are cleared in declared warfare are considered a de facto claim. "Vulturing" islands is not honorable nor tolerable.
2. Islands that are cleared after they go rulerless, with a reasonable statute of limitations, are considered a claim - assuming colonyships are inbound. --> This is to prevent the "race to clear" that DIGG uses, and thus clears islands at 10 days of inactivity - a "race to the bottom" that inevitably would lead to driving any new/young/vacation players from the game. Meanwhile, it also acknowledges that if I clear 2500 spears off an island and my first attempt fails, I would be reasonably upset if somebody else stepped in a grab it, then giggled "tough cookies lolz!"
3. Rulerless islands are rulerless. Prior ownership (former friend, alliance mate, etc) does not constitute a claim.
4. Double-colonisations are entitled to the first person who colonised the island, with compensation due if no cats were used. Compensation reversed if cats were used to create the double-colo conflict, with the cat'er owing the cat'ee for the additional coloship they must spend on the isle.
This is just a poor attempt to capture the spirit of your draft, as well as SB's. Definitely needs some polishing and refining, assuming it does effectively capture both perspectives...
|
|
2kcastle
Luxor Admin
Supreme Prosecutor
Posts: 1,067
|
Post by 2kcastle on Aug 28, 2007 16:11:00 GMT
4. Double-colonisations are entitled to the first person who colonised the island, with compensation due if no cats were used. Compensation reversed if cats were used to create the double-colo conflict, with the cat'er owing the cat'ee for the additional coloship they must spend on the isle. I'd like to see this as the first person to build the main house to lvl 2 or higher rather than the first person to colonise, but i may be in the minority.
|
|