Exhortations to Destroy H?

Rasak wrote: Ashtar wrote: Personally, my dealing with H? members has always been courteous, fair, and dare i say right down friendly.   Shhh... Don't tell everyone. We like it to be a surprise :D

Aww C'mon. How can an alliance who has one member who grows bonsai trees and another who wanders around with a tee shirt which has


LAWN
HAS
THE
BODY
OF
A GOD
written on it  -  be normal

Tordenkaffen wrote: What are you on about?

Gilthoniel wrote: ...and lets not forget George W Kumomoto yay !

Ouch. I'd prefer George H.W. Kumomoto... ;)

Gilthoniel wrote: As a fairly new player I am bit worried by this part of the discussion between KP and TD.   I read that the Code of Conduct states: "Each person may only have 2 Illyriad accounts per server."

Nothing I said is in contravention of the Terms of Service.  Shame on you for suggesting otherwise.

Inactives, by the very term, are NOT sat accounts.  Sat accounts are Active.  As Rill said, I would much prefer members continue playing, but they don't.  Every alliance experiences players that drop Illy.  The current inactive deletion policy does put a countdown on how long an alliance will have to make good use of inactive accounts in their alliance.

Also, every so often, an "inactive" will pop back into Illy and resume play.

Avion wrote: Gilthoniel wrote: ill own up to not having thought about the title of this thread before entering my post.  I think you may have missed the point of my post though - which is:- relying on lax rules ( or the application of them) concerning inactive accounts to control territory ...or for that matter to amass armies is not good practise for alliance leaders and not a fair way to maintain ranking or territory at the expense of others. But didn't Rill just point out that inactives in Alliances get deleted by the system?  So any "advantage" to the alliance is short term, isn't it?  And if all Alliances know about this "flaw" and "exploit" it, then where's the unfairness? (Oh, and just to maintain the topic of this thread:  "Down with H?!")

 Its a funny old game

For your benefit Avion - here is a link to the latest " Enforced Account Removal" and from it you can see that it possible to maintain large scale inactive accounts for up to 90 days.  Whilst the introduction of  a new automatic time limited policy is a step in the right direction - 90 days is a very long time. For me, as a gamer, that is far too long.

http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/6july2012-enforced-account-removal_topic3771.html

 The argument that Avion poses - ie everyone now knows about it can start exploiting it is irrelevant, as far as I am concerned, because large scale alliances may have been utilising inactive accounts for months or even years. They have a massive head start - so where is the equalty or fairness in that.

..and just to buck the trend of the thread;

KP for President of United States of Illyria
Starry for Queen of the United Kingdom of Harmless? and Toothless?
...and lets not forget George W Kumomoto yay !

ps - this will be my last comment on this thread




Edited by Gilthoniel - 16 Jul 2012 at 15:13