ENT Gaming

Based on this ban request denial: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=21111&start=10

I am assuming if someone purchases a replacement courier it's acceptable to unshare? I am still unsure about this fact.

If this is the case, the rules should be written:

The following are prohibited
...
Unsharing: of a courier that has been crowed by another player (unless control was abused or you purchase a replacement courier)

I put the changes in bold.

You seem to be complaining about a mod's decision.

Unsharing courier when someone upgraded for you, is a rule breaker. Unless you abused the bird somehow.

Unsharing when you bought and upgraded yourself...is fine.

If the person who unshared bought a recipe for unsharing to the other person...it looks like a fair trade, so I do not see the problem here.

Many people think rules have to be so specific...this is not civilization laws irl...its a dam game. Rules at ENT r simply guidelines for users and basis followed through by mods' judgement when making decisions for ban request/appeals.

Rules r usually designed due to unfairness and abuse of certain language/gameplay/mechanics/glitches.
If you can explain why unsharing + buying the other person crow recipe which is a transferable item for unsharing is under one of these categories i mentioned, fire away.

That may be how it appears, but really what I am doing is suggesting a rule be more specific. I am simply requesting the rules be updated to include the results of the BRQ mentioned.

Maybe summarizing that BRQ might help to illustrate a case where the rule update may help:

In that game, I ignored the sharing party because they were starting to flame and then they unshared when they realized it. So although a recipe was bought, I never knew any concession was made. However, it seems that regardless of if it is communicated, just purchasing a courier is sufficient to unshare. If I knew that was a rule, I may have actively searched for a replacement courier, instead of focusing on the game. Although, normally I try to discuss the unshare with the offending party, I did make an error by typing !ignore twice instead of !unignore to talk to the party. Purchase of the replacement courier was also never communicated in the chat log. Still, I feel he didn't need to unshare because I didn't violate any shared control, which explicitly is what the rule currently states.

I just think it would make sense to update the rule so there is no confusion about the unshare rules to others. Thanks for your reply.

I see. But, regardless how things went...unsharing would only result few hrs ban I believe.
You guys won the game. The accused violator didnt play tat bad nor fed, so save your breath.

For the specifics u want to be noted for the rule...ppl's actions vary case by case, and mods will judge accordingly.

Cheers

It doesn't matter if we win or lose, I've reported allies who maphack/excessive flame/vk abuse, so what's the difference? After a quick search I find 1 - 5 days for unsharing.

The "specifics" I am requesting are an exception to the rule and it would be helpful for that to be explicitly written.

Cherio

okok, I dont see big problem adding the "unless purchased replacement"

@aRt)Y Who would be able to update rules? Is this suggestion reasonable?

@aqf PM me again if I haven't changed them till tomorrow.

Great, thanks.

@aRt)Y bump

@aqf I edited the part you mentioned here.