Grundgemunkey

so which clans were on this US deal then ?

its not about the port .... its the abuse of game mechanics and alt abuse that the tribunal is about .... we will take the port back when it suits and we will do it in the way the devs intended .. by raising hostility and beating you in the port battle .... not by a underhand use of alts that let you take it unopposed .to gain lord protector status and victory marks that go with it

clan is entitled to drop a port to neutral of course ..... what you failm to understand is we couldnt raise hostility against Bluefield it was British ,,,, and there you have your answer to who owns the port ,, if the devs want to change the mechanics so clans from same nation can fight over ports thats a different matter HAVOCS/ RIVALS abuse meant we couldnt raise hostility or even join a port battle to defend a GB port

i dont know if we want the port ... the reason for this tribunal is to prevent people using alts to break the game .... theres enough alts in the game to do so any clan that owns enough ports can change nation and leave alts behind ... using the same abuse Havoc /rival did they can break a nation ... and ultimatley the game .. Havoc deserve a punshment to disuade others from doing same ,, and kiling NA I dont think attacking bluefields and giving you the reward of content is suitable

your alts denied us access to rvr ... its pretty straightforward

nothing to do with you

so what your saying is you did it out of spite .... because we wanted it ,, you abused the games mechanics using your clans GB alts so we couldnt have it .... nice

nothing wrong with transfer of port ownership between nations ,,it happens every week in NA......but the nations involved have a choice tro do this ..... your clans GB alts took GBs choice away by abusing mechanics

the clan in question were alts of dutch players .. your talking as though we betrayed them when the reverse is fact ...

whos flag does it have ? Rival were not the only clan to raise hostility for that port or the only players in the port battle when GB took it ... other GB playesr lost lord protector status and victory marks because Rival decided to go to dutch nation and havoc ... the honourable thing to to would have been to set it as nuetral and give those players a chance to fight .... you chose otherwise and decided to abuse a game mechanic .. and gain lord protector status for havoc players without risk

there is no rule ... there was no rule about what LV did ... thats why theyy are exploits ... why would you punsish one exploit and not another .... its not like they took all british clans off their friends list by mistake ......just befor dutch attacked what a coincidence

I didnt like LV and sorry he delibratley abused the game mechanics for his own benefit ,,, and the punshment he got was deserved .. Havoc have done the same through a different method .. any less of a punishement will show the devs are not even handed

not at all they took the port under their main accounts ... these were then switched to dutch nation ..so would have lost lord protector status .. as their alts remained in GB nation but didnt have lord protector status they wouldnt have got any marks ... so they were farming as they created marks from scratch by abusing game mechanics and getting their alts to lock out rest of GB nation

really i think you can .... by taking Bluefields ... dutch players gained lord protector status ... Dutch players using their GB alts locked other GB clans out of the port battle ... leaving Havoc with a no risk enviroment to gain lord protector status if thats not farming i dont know what is

no you farmed victory marks by taking the port that we could not defend because of your mechanic abuse ... it probably isnt comparable to Sorrys action its worse the french at least had a choice your game breaking abuse left us with no choice

my apoligises Ive no idea of french internal politics .... but the HAVOC players with GB alts were asked when are french giving you saint loius .. the answer was "in a couple of days" Redii has confirmed this in this thread .... maybe as a matter of honour the french nation will defend Saint Louis ... otherwise you are complicit

we asked the US to take in a deal that gave them their florida ports ?? why would we have defended it ...2nd since we were removed from friends list we couldnt defend it you 3 man port defence was rivals own making ... Rival and Havoc abused game mechanics to set up a non contested port battle .... Sorry were punished for doing same when french had no cannons ... this time you even manged to get rid of the ships ... an equal punishment at least would be consistent ... from the devs for everyone involved in Bluefields port battle

so you dont have a deal with the french to take saint Louis ....hypocryte your gb alts have loose lips

we wanted to retain the port as GB ... we wanted its resources to belong to GB not dutch alts .... we asked Rival to set the port as neutral on several occasions ... so another Gb clan could take control they refused .... we had to ask another nation to help us out ... the US agreed ... Rivak are an ALT clan made up of dutch playes ..there is no betrayal

Rival are dutch players using GB alts .... you say Rival handed over to dutch because they couldnt protect their port from attacks ... if they hadnt unfriended all british clans we could have defended the port .. GB players could not enter the port battle to defend a GB port the whole problem is that the port made money ...and rival were using the profit from the port and its resources to fund Havoc .... these same players were then using ships built with profits and resources made as GB alts to raid GB players at Jamaica ...

This tribunal has been started based on three sets of facts, firstly, the use of alts to disrupt GB Nation chat on a regular basis. Secondly, these alts removing all friendly clans from their friends list once the decision had been made to flip Bluefields Dutch so that the port battle was uncontested. Thirdly knowing that the port battle would be uncontested due to their exploitation of game mechanics; players from the Dutch nation entered the port battle to obtain risk free Lord Protector statuses. We would appreciate the devs clarifying their position on this for future reference as this may be the first time it has happened, but it won’t be the last. For several days British players have tried to get these players to openly state their identity on their alts and British players have collected evidence of Mr. Pellew and Liam790 stating on GB Nation chat that they are alts. Unfortunately, we were unable to get such an explicit statement from NameTBA but we do have screens that show him speaking as though he were a different person which can be posted if that would be sufficient grounds. Mr. Pellew – https://imgur.com/a/YfvR5b2 Liam790 https://imgur.com/a/rtrZMwz Ink has stated “that open admission to being a spy in a enemy chat can result in a partial or permanent chat ban” (http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/25456-alt-abuse-trolling-nation-chat-after-chat-ban/?page=3). It is now widely known and accepted both in GB and throughout the server that the alts of Mr. Pellew (Glaedr), Liam790 (Master of the Fishes) and NameTBA (Pleb of the Sea) used game mechanic to “restrict” and “inhibit” users from the GB Nation from “enjoying Steam service, software or other content” by creating a “false identity for the purpose of misleading others” in breach of Section 4 of the Steam EULA (the Steam Online Conduct) by using alts to prevent British players from defending one of their ports. Mr. Pellew states here that he controls who gains entry to the port battle https://i.imgur.com/qntWckS.png Admin has stated previously here (http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/17643-very-suspicious-behaviour-in-pb) that “the person who enters the battle should fight in it” and that by preventing the opposition from entering the port battle due to breaking game mechanics via alts, the Dutch players in the port battle (we don’t know who they are but you could check) breached this rule because they had absolutely no intention of fighting or risking anything by entering the port battle, only of obtaining a Lord Protector status. British players were willing to defend the port battle but were removed from the friends list of RIVAL to prevent entry. The intention of the friends list seems to be to determine which players enter the port battle, not whether players enter the port battle. The GB clans argue that clans are not the owners of ports (since they cannot switch them to a different nation but can only turn it neutral) but that they simply hold the port in trust on behalf of the nation they play. It is the responsibility of players to use game mechanics to act in the best interests of the nation. As the players of RIVAL had only the interests of the United Provinces (or themselves) in mind they were in breach of this and should therefore have relinquished control of the port to neutral when they switched to the Dutch rather than using alts to maintain control of the port, or by allowing the British to attempt to defend it in their absence. As they refused to hand over Bluefields the situation arose whereby the decision was made to give away two ports (Ayamonte and Cabo Canaveral) in the best interests of the nation so that we could regain control of Bluefields. This was done in the hopes that the Americans could flip the port before the Dutch (but were prevented) as there is no in-game mechanism which allows other clans to prevent alt clans from abusing mechanics. The US players were happy to help GB players out as they were sympathetic to the plight we found ourselves in, having been in a situation where dead clans controlled ports. Clans who leave the nation usually abandon ports, by either relinquishing the ports to the control of another clan (KBEAR to RSC via neutral) or by allowing them to go neutral or by allowing other clans to defend the port (RUBLI/TALER). These instances are not in breach of the Steam EULA as a chance was given to other players to contest the outcome. The Bluefields case is different however, because RIVAL/HAVOC had no intention whatsoever of fighting anyone (not even AI) and that they knew they wouldn’t have to “fight in it”. They controlled the friends list via alts and didn’t even risk losing to AI. They were not concerned with content or fighting; only obtaining control of the port through a truly uncontested port battle. The GB clans would like to request clarification on the rules regarding this and would like to know whether clans own the port or hold them in trust. If they own them, can systems be put in place so they can be handed to whoever and if the latter then control of the port should be turned to neutral (or GB (worth a try)) so that the port can be contested via the ordinary manner of a port battle against neutral therefore allowing all nations to contest it. Even if no action is taken in this case this tribunal will at least serve the community in establishing and clarifying the alts and port battles rules.

once the port becomes known ..they pretty much become like any other port ... maybe ports appear only these litle islands just for a couple of weeks then dissapear .. and another unknown port appears elsewhere on the map

reason we lose is they make the same mistakes over and over again and dont seem to want to listen ..its not just rvr but pvp too ... there are some good people in every clan but the others make the same mistakes and dont sem to be capable of either wanting or be able to recognise why they lose 1 they wont get on TS .. even if its just to listen to whats going on ... 2 they are scared of losing ships so stay at extreme range 3 they escape at the first hint of things going badly 4 they bring ships not fit for purpose to port battles 5 they dont follow orders in battle go wandering off for what they think is an easy kill and get isolated 6 if you critise any of the above your just whining the port battle last night look at the composition of the fleet ... our port battle fleet was taken apart by 6 first rates ... if there had been 6 first rates in the port battle you have to assume that the same would have happened .. Im tired of repeatedly saying the same things over and over again ...if you want someone to lead you have to be prepared to follow .. the majority dont want to ...

as far as i know it was empty ...how do you think we won lol

what a suprising result ..... who could have predicted that people would start escaping to save their own ships ..rather than work as a team ??😀