[APPROVED] [Zoe] Aetius banlist appeal

Mapmaker: https://atwar-game.com/users/profile.php?user_id=220219

Reason for the ban: Error: You're banned from joining this game Possible reason: wfer https://prnt.sc/rpmr7f

Reason for the appeal: I did not respect the walls he made T2 which is not obligatory to do so. Plus I do not deserve to be banned from all his maps for that particular instance.

[DENIED] denied (denied) hopefully denied.

Time to send Aetius this so he has another reason for you to stay banned



its published by pyrrhus but whatever most of the times they make the maps together

As someone who was in that Wars of Religion game, you honestly just have to learn to play by the rules and not abuse wfs. That act to gain a cheeky little advantage, caused a game where 15 players joined to fail.

On top of that, it is not the only instance where you did something that I heard people complain about. In my opinion, an unban is applicable only if you change your behaviour ingame.

Napisano od smegma lover, 15.05.2020 at 09:50

Mapmaker: https://atwar-game.com/users/profile.php?user_id=220219

Reason for the ban: Error: You're banned from joining this game Possible reason: wfer https://prnt.sc/rpmr7f

Reason for the appeal: I did not respect the walls he made T2 which is not obligatory to do so. Plus I do not deserve to be banned from all his maps for that particular instance.

I am neither for nor against the appeal. It is Aetius' decision alongside the moderators.

But there is a question of principle here. Is 'not respecting walls made on turn 2' truly "illegal" ? There are no explicit rules on the map to state this.

Personally, ofcourse, I believe that you should always respect wfs in scenarios. That is good practice. My question to Aetius, however, is when did this become law?

Napisano od The_Empirezz, 15.05.2020 at 14:11

As someone who was in that Wars of Religion game, you honestly just have to learn to play by the rules and not abuse wfs. That act to gain a cheeky little advantage, caused a game where 15 players joined to fail.

On top of that, it is not the only instance where you did something that I heard people complain about. In my opinion, an unban is applicable only if you change your behaviour ingame.

Napisano od Sid, 15.05.2020 at 14:11

You can ban someone from your maps and scenarios if that person deliberately joined with the purpose of trolling, leaving early, wallfucking, griefing and/or with the intent of interfering with the other players' ability to enjoy the map or scenario; or if he broke a specific scenario rule for a second time (insulting the mapmaker is not a valid map or scenario rule; you can ban him from your games for that and report him to the mods);

I agree with the consequentialist argument that because it clearly caused a game to fail, any person doing so should be banned.

But, we also have a deontological question - to which rule did she break?

She did not (I believe) join with deliberate purpose to troll etc.
And there was no specific scenario rule except for wallfuck which is just a common rule. Perhaps exploiting wf turn 2 needs to become a common rule? @sid
So what about "intent of interfering with the other players' ability to enjoy the map or scenario" - perhaps this is the rule she broke. But even then I feel that "taking advantage" is not a particularly strong case for this.

I would recommend:

Exploiting wf turn 2 in scenarios either becomes a common rule (perhaps as an extension of WF) we can all agree to...
OR
she gets unbanned because no specific rule was broken

I love how people clearly ignore Alex ss...

Can we also ban this guy from playing 3v3's and 2v2's

You should be unbanned because wall fucking is a unique element of the game that should be respected, not used as grounds to ban someone.

Wall fucking is a function of the game and if it was not, then it would either not exist or a rule would exist against it that would be, presumably, rigorously enforced. The atWar administration has failed provide a distinction between the grounds that are most appropriate for banning in one's capacity as a host and in one's capacity as a mapmaker. Until this distinction is clarified, all users who have been banned from any map because of wall fucking should be immediately unbanned.

Additionally, the term "wall fucking" should be renamed; instead, it should be referred to as "unit moving" ("UM"), in order to remove the negative connotation that it simply does not deserve.

"Hey, you unit mover! Fuck you!"

"He just unit moved me!"

"Nice unit move"

I sent Aetius a PM.

Yes he did join just to troll, and he abused wf of t1 walls, he is also a known troll so there is no reason to unban.

Say you are sorry and you won't do it again and I will unban you, so everyone knows next time you troll you did it on purpose.
In many maps there is literally not enough room to wall so when someone exploits this they are a person of uh..poor character. Ideally aw would have the wf capability turned off on t1 by default to solve headache (although now that I think of it this could lead to new forms of trolling)

Napisano od Aetius, 16.05.2020 at 09:50

Say you are sorry and you won't do it again and I will unban you, so everyone knows next time you troll you did it on purpose.
In many maps there is literally not enough room to wall so when someone exploits this they are a person of uh..poor character. Ideally aw would have the wf capability turned off on t1 by default to solve headache (although now that I think of it this could lead to new forms of trolling)

I agree with turning off wf T1. Maybe as a feature. As for the trolling part, I rarely do that anymore. It has been quite a long time since you've banned me. I definitely won't do it again.

Napisano od Sid, 16.05.2020 at 01:29

I sent Aetius a PM.

I see that since nobody has answered my question as to what rule she had broken, are we all in agreement that exploiting wf turn 2 is an acceptable ban reason?
If that is the case I will ban people who do that in my maps also and just refer to Zoe vs Aetius (2020) case as legal precedence.

Up until now, I thought, as Aetius states, that it is 'poor character'. I never thought it was a legitimate ban reason.

The screenshot shows cities that were captured on turn 2, if cities are protected by walls they can't be taken until turn 3

wfing any time t2 and beyond is good gameplay

OK I think Zoella made his point and promised not to do it again, case closed, now Aetius is free to do as he wants