DeletedUser
ecolitan the rule was clarified by Archangel snail on the 12th. I waited 7 days before action was taken. as not only with this rule clarification was posted but also a notice to bring the whole rules for review for all players.
And Mike... yah thats pretty much it. That covers rule 5.
The push rule that Archangel posted covers more of an angle though. But as of right now I am just enforcing rule 5 myself at this time. Archangels clarifications are
2) Playing on a shared connection
Creating a new account or having a friend create a new account or using secondary accounts to give forge points to push another players great building.
We both are explaining different things. I said this before. This may be why there is confusion. Me and him are both talking about the same thing only slightly different. People are thinking they are the same thing so are confused seeing we are giving different information about the same thing....
Rule 5 was always there..... thats what I am enforcing.
His clarifications are the same but more add ons to the rule.
I am not disagreeing with what is being implied or enforced now. However - in that deleted thread players specifically asked what was new about rules/enforcement. The answers were TOTALLY different than what you have given this week.
I get what is being done. I agree that what is being stated this week makes much more sense. But that other thread DID state (not imply) that cross world trading was ok so long as the account was not a dummy account. My only point is for those that thought the change involved what THAT thread stated, having that thread to point to would be fair.
There are two reasons for deleting the thread. First, to remove the confusion that the mods in the thread created about the rule. Agree it was not good. BUT, the confusion was OFFICIAL and all players had so it should be available to players that fit the description I laid out above - if there are any. The second reason is to remove, as "evidence", a defense for players that were trying to play within rules but were given bad advise. Just wondering if the first can be reached without the second here.... It is a fair statement to say that the directives given by the mods in that thread are part of the rules until they are "trumped" by your return.
If, in fact, there are TWO things going on. Then this thread defines cross-world trading of FP and that is fine. But the deleted thread defined pushing ABSENT trading and should stand for that unless those rules changed now too? (see ggryvi above as an example).