Guilds Remove Rule 18 Or Enforce It +98

Yea that's why I said there should be clear definitions to what a subguild is first
But it's limited, so a guild wont be able to attack 10 terrs at the same time with subs but instead only 3 times in their own guild

 

Still, not every guild who has the power to do 3 attacks even uses subs, and the problem still exists of guilds getting completely overrun if they have an inacitivty lapse. At least when using subguilds for offense, it comes at the cost of soulpoints (sometimes), time to set up, and also taking warrers away from the host guild, weakening its own strength as a strategic cost of broader attack range. all those 3 aspects get nullified under this proposed feature's purview. Thats what i mean by creating an even worse, controversial and more one-sided environment for the megaguilds if implemented: it makes it even easier and less costly to use the same kind of tactic being criticized here.

 

Hey guys me again and you know because being a guild leader as a mod or upper is a big advantage, you can cheat as much as you want and bend the rules. So how about everybody dupes items and justifies it as Oh we didnt know it was cheating

________________________________

Also im making a petition for all guilds to anjse the hell out of thus by making one big guild and seeing how many terras we can take then split into like 3000 guilds also rule 18 for being crap we hate you 3000

 

Right then, I've held off on replying for a bit so I could see the entirety of your points here @AmbassadorArt but I feel like now's a good time to respond to all of it. Also, I'm tagging you simply so I don't have to quote each point individually out of laziness.

So essentially, you've always been a guy who advocates for power and equality for the small guilds. In theory, that's great, hell I thought the exact same thing back when I managed Federation's territory splits. However, looking back, that's not always the best solution. Yeah, equality and fair opportunity are great at base, but when they've been pushed to such extremes as they have in Wynn, it ends up being the opposite.

Currently, the biggest flaw in my opinion in the guild system is that you can take a random group of three people with good builds (honestly that last part is slightly optional considering how everyone uses 50s now), give them 5LE for a guild and they can keep pace with the top guilds in the game in a one-on-one battle. This is an example of exteme equal opportunity and fantastic for the small guilds, but on the other side it's also awful for literally any established guild. Hell, this is also why subguilds are even possible to make on the fly. A big guild can spend years leveling (see: Fox, Hax, Imp, etc) and be threatened in a 1v1 with a guild made literally today. That is awful design and makes it completely pointless to level your guild except for some mobs no one uses, a few pretty characters in chat by your name and a banner that realistically is a massive scam. There needs to be an incentive for the larger guilds to run, otherwise it's useless. This is why subguilds exist: to counter this over-balancing that the guild system has because realistically the top guilds have no advantage at all except for more money to defend with and some more players, which is surprisingly little in the grand scheme.

To conclude this.. rant? Answer? Post, I guess, I'll leave you with a bit of a story. Back in Fed as I mentioned before, I really tried to make it as fair as possible for every guild with territory distribution regardless of the size of the guild. In my thoughts I figured everyone would be super happy because everyone had a (relatively) equal chance to grow. Needless to say, many weren't. At first I shit on the big guilds for being greedy, but eventually I realized that they were just unhappy that they were being treated as an equal to some new tiny guild that just joined the alliance, and they felt as if I was disregarding the countless hours and effort they put in to building up their guilds. I made things too equal (tons of unnecessary ffas too) and in the end it just caused a lot of anger and disputes in the leader chat. Smaller guilds deserve a fair chance, but not totally so.

I realized that while equality is good at base and in concept, when there's thousands of hours of effort involved, the bigger guilds maybe do need a bit of an advantage. They worked for it, and they deserve it.

In case you're curious btw, I consider any guild past level 50 and with a relatively active playerbase a big guild. Maybe level 55 or so. Don't take this as me just being like "haha ur viceroy and just wanna defend fox", I really just want to justify big guilds as a whole getting some sort of advantage.

 

Well, prepare for one last essay to reflect my ultimate conclusion on the issue, and to respond to @Goden a very small bit as well. I am leaving everything on the table here before leaving this thread for good.

It's not just about equality, good sir, but also fairness,but "fairness" does not necessarily revolve equal. IT's one thing to use one subguild as a second angle of attack, and another to use 10+ subguilds for an unfair advantage on both offense and defense. Plus you must keep in mind the "established guilds" already have dozens and dozens of lands in headstart, so you have an advantage that way too. The fact that literally every protest here has come from your side of the aisle says something: our two sides of the aisles will NEVER agree on this, and its pretty much partisan issue over something that is objectively unfair. I could go into a deep ideological debate Goden, but again, I do not want to over-derail the purpose of this thread.

Regardless, the base point of this thread remains the same: There is a rule, which in its current properly documented writing, is getting shat on royally, and something needs to be done about it, whether it be enforcing the rule, updating the rule on the official ruleds thread properly, or abolish it. No matter how you dice it, certain guilds are acting unethically in the public eye by abusing the rule as its currently written on the official wynncraft game and forum rules thread, because they know in the back of their minds that it's a sham rule, whereas many players on the server do not. The ethical thing to do would be to discontinue the use of self-feeding subguilds (or preferably all subguilds on both sides of the aisle) until a verdict is presented by a higher administrator. Or preferably Salted himself as he is the only person able to actually edit the Official Rules thread to include the udpated rule, or abolish it to end this nonsense.

I see this controversy as an insult to the moderation system: that an addendum to the rule originally presented by a now-retired Dev in a thread locked for being a flame war, is being enforced in the place of what is "official" in text on the rules thread. It is not properly on the books, and that is the source of much of the outrage. In my opinion, given the argument by two moderators that "we cant conclusively decide what is a subguild" is a shortsighted reason, as there are some cases where there is literan on-the-book proof of "host guild leaders" admitted certain guidls are expressly subs, so in some cases it *is* known and therefore rule18 should be enforced on them. And also given that argument, I wonder why rule18 was ever created in the first place, cuz right now it's just a red herring written as a rule, and advocates for proper justice and ethics are shaking in their chairs about what's being allowed to happen here.

I would vouch for this like any other rule that would be being violated in such a blatant manner, and regardless of the guild(s) involved, regardless in their stance on the guild game. This is not a partisan issue; this is a fundamental issue that is highlighting the lack of care overall for enforcing guild rules in the uppermost levels of management, while also causing much community unrest. The voices here in this thread are among the minority of the total; there are many quarrels being exchanged ingame, in discord, and even little jabs in shout bombs. Honestly at this point i dont care whether it becomes enforced or abolished, it just needs to end as soon as possible. There just needs to be a singular consensus from the highest level of server management, and for them to alter the Official Rules Thread as appropriate for said consensus.

TLDR: You know what should be completely equal? The level of enforcement for rule 18 in comparison for every other rule in the Official Rules Thread. Otherwise, take it off! Until this happens, I do not foresee an end to this cycle of Rule18 offenses and the subsequent lashes and backlashes, many highly partisan, over a rule that is written in the same format and location as all other server rules that are regularly enforced daily.
======
======
It is now that I take myleave from this debate at the current time. If one is to reply, please address the post as a whole and don't just pick and choose certain words here to try and justify your points. Offer the same level of attention to response as I did in composing this, and for future posters on this thread, please remain civil with your content as it is the best way to ensure an action of closure. Adieu.

~AmbassadorArt
Not simply wishing for "equality," but moreso for fairness, justice, and closure.

 

I would like to add that the below were also user as subs
Fluorine [FNE]
Gilded Sparrows [Spr]
Ram Ranch [RMR]
Odysseia [Oys]
Panic [PaN]
Restive [xux]
Arisen [Ris]
I Corps [LFX]
Caeruleum Order [Cdr]
Got more to add to this list?

 

think VnE was mentioned in the thread already but slide it on there

 

Subguilds are a fair way to make use of your numbers advantage. A guild that has an active community with dozens of people SHOULD be allowed to use that advantage. As of right now, it's ridiculous that a guild with only 3 people online can keep pace with a guild that has like 15 people on. An inherent flaw in the war timer capping out at 3 warrers is that it's literally useless to war with more than 3.
The more people you have, the more of an advantage you should have. It's that simple.

As someone who has warred against guilds using feeders and subguilds on dozens of occasions, it is entirely possible to counter them.

If you have to whine to the mods to fix something another guild is doing that you personally see as unfair, you don't deserve to beat them in the first place.

Rule 18 needs to be completely removed, not enforced or changed.

 

As far as I know when Jpresent left, I used to talk to him, and it seems that the whole plan for revision of the guild was abolished. If you say that, then at least a year or more it will happen.

________________________________

How you can think VnE is sub guild lol?

 

oys aint a sub get yo fax straight

 

imo if all the small guilds are just "overthrow the big guilds" and don't really have anything that makes you different than one another y'all are the sub guilds as you're abusing a large number of players in order to attack multiple times at once. Y'all should just make a big guild and fight fair and square.

 

I'll make the same offer to you as I did to Ayanarch,in terms of discussing on PM's/DMs about the hilariously large number of thing wrong with this statement as to not risk possibly inciting a public flame war talking politics in this thread that is meant to discuss either enforcing or terminating rule18. I find given the source of this ocmment the "fair and square" term to be very unfitting and kind of hypocritical, which is why I'm speaking up and offering to privately debunk a few things for ya.

EDIT: Ok, I'll make exactly one rebuttal here: the Fair and square comment. It's not really "fair and square" even if we wre all to make one big guild becuase #1: we'd be starting from scratch in terms of level, and #2: Fox would still have a 40-ish land headstart. ERN would have a 61 land headstart. Imp would have 70 land headstart. It's literally impossible to win that kind of uphill battle without multiple guilds. At least we're using real guilds and not subs, so really, we are very very different, and in very different circumstances, each individual guild who's challenging is fighting disadvantaged by default.

 

You can get to level 40 alone in less than a week tho

 

Ex-Avician here. I don't have a unique standpoint to offer on subguilds so I'll just agree with Goden here. I'm seeing a lot of essays so here's another one. I want to defend Fox's use of subguilds. My argument is simple: we're not the only ones who use it.

I'll use this as a starting point for a subguild definition:

Essentially, a guild is a subguild if it predominantly feeds a "host guild" and warrers from said host guild are also transferring back and forth across the two guilds in question. I'd like to discard the "made in the middle of… getting raided" part to support my point later in this post.

I'll focus on Hax since I'm 100% sure they do it and have been for a minimum of 6-7 months [edit: VnE was a subguild only during Dec-Jan 2019 as far as I know] but I'm sure this applies to many other prominent guilds as well.

VnE is a dedicated subguild. [edit: they were once, but not always] If it's still possible, check war logs in Dec-Jan 2019. For about 2 months straight in those logs, VnE doesn't undertake a single war that takes place outside of Hax's claims, and it is always fed back to Hax. You can also catch prominent warrers like BapCai repeatedly transferring between Hax, the main guild, and VnE, gaining Captain+ ranks in both guilds. (The other player I can name off the top of my head was banned and I'm not sure if I should bring them up). More relevantly, it's also worth noting that they appeared recently in the war against Fox, also siding with Hax.

If subguilds were against the rules, then AVO could have wiped Hax out of the jungle long ago. As a warrer on Avicia's side during that period, AVO was putting out more warring activity than Hax was; they weren't all that active and at times showed huge lapses in their response, and even when they defended they would sometimes show up with only 1 warrer, hence easily getting outpaced by a much smaller guild like AVO. What helped Hax keep their territories at the time was an overwhelming number of guilds undertaking the exact kind of toxic feeding behaviour that everyone here is trying to antagonise: VnE, as I have stated already, was involved, as were BLA, BCr, ANO, TNL and xsm. (AVO was also opposed by ASh, BYS, Oce and ECP although I can't confirm they were feeding and it's possible that they attacked with legitimate reason.)

Given the issue with Hax, this comment really isn't relevant anymore. It doesn't matter what the guild is itself if there is no change in its behaviour. I'd be amused to watch someone argue that Hax 'fairly' retaliated with 5+ "real guilds" (plus VnE), which indeed is a "very very different" strategy from a moral viewpoint.

pfft

But seriously speaking, if this isn't outright false, then it's difficult to believe when you encounter guilds like Hax.

If you want to argue that subguilds are unfair, fine [edit: ok guess you don't argue that] — but what you can't do is pretend to be the saints of this movement and try to claim that we (Fox) are unjust cheaters just for using the same tactic that such a huge proportion of opposing large guilds have been abusing long-term. In my opinion, subguilds are fine as-is (see Drew's comment a few posts above), but I am okay with an alternative solution.

 

ITs kind of a joke that you think @Qzphs by pointing blame at hax for "doing the same" makes your side any less guilty? Also again, you're using the statement "subguilds are unfair" and "subguilds are against the rules" when that is NOT what th argument is here! The argument is that one side, mostly Fox, is using subs in a way that is Disobeying the currently as-written in the official game and forum rules thread rule18, not that ANY kind of subguild use is inherently bad. Stop shoving words into our mouths and actually read between the lines, and not just paraphrase to better fit your side's case. Also Hax was using one guild (VnE); Fox these past couple days were using 10+

Also your AVO in jungle argument is largely flawed, because ASh, ECP, OCe etc. are full guilds and not subguilds, so idont exactly understand where you're trying to get with that. VnE was being used for Offense in recent times, which is NOT what Rule 18 pertains to. And yknow if Hax was using VnE in such a manner too, that doesnt mean it's also okay for your guild to do it too. If anything, both sides using it makes the existence of this thread even more important and further supports why there needs to be a clear and cut change, removal, or enforcement of the rule 18 listed on the rules thread. Cuz this is insane. If a rule is on the ruels thread, it should be enforced, and if not, it should be erased; bottom line.

 

You may be mistaken, VnE is because I created some new players to help train them and help them all. And I am the owner of it, I have commanded its war activities and we used to have a claim for ourselves, but it was due to the issue of a core member no longer playing. Because they were the ones I helped lvl higher so they listened to me, so just because they listened to me and attacked it would be considered subguild? I didn't say it as not a guild sub now, but it was actually a single guild but ppl created it in Hax.
One more ridiculous thing is that you bring Hax into the example about 2 years ago, it is true that they used it. But later there was a law to ban it, and they did not use it at this time. And most of the people who started use subguild first in this war were Fox, pls not trying to justify by blaming the two parties who used subguild or putting all their sins into Hax.

 

nice sub dude

gotta love how defensive all the Fox members get in this thread, keep ruining the game kids, don't worry everyone thinks you're very cool (as evidenced by this thread)
nah but fr, shit like this genuinely just makes the game boring, they don't even care if it ruins the fun for others, they just want to win lmao

 

thank you for your contribution of literally nothing except insults to the thread

honestly I don't care if you're gonna shit on my guild but at least intertwine it with something half relevant to the topic at hand, thanks

 

I'll respond to BapCai and AmbassadorArt's comments towards me:

In response to BapCai:

Thanks for the explanation on VnE's origin. I'll take back my statement that it is a "dedicated subguild", but my point that it once served as a pure sub remains unchanged.

At the time I personally checked Wynndata and I swear I saw your name under Chiefs; if the owner was your alt then that's even more suspicious. It's irrelevant though so I'll drop that matter.

Also much of the logs should reveal that you were the primary warrer (along with 1 other player whose name I've forgotten, and who has also alternated between VnE and Hax). I doubt your claim that new players "listened to [you] and attacked" but again it's irrelevant.

I don't know about "2 years ago". I'm 100% sure that VnE did nothing but act as a sub for Hax in Dec-Jan 2019, even if only on a war front (I've already acknowledged that VnE is legitimate outside of this).

saying that implies the other side also used subs, which contradicts Art, but that's not the point here

Uhh, okay. It's true, but I talk about this in my response to AmbassadorArt.

The case I brought up is done and dusted at this point. I'm not trying to attack Hax when I say all this; my main point is to defend Fox, on the basis that many guilds other than Fox do the same. Hax is an example but is neither the sole culprit nor the primary one, and I bring them up because they're the guild that I have personally encountered using it.

I'll format that statement to re-emphasise. I apologise if I offended you through that misunderstanding.

In response to AmbassadorArt:

Of course I'd tailor things to fit my side's case. That's a legitimate thing to do. What I'm not doing is "shoving words into [your] mouths". If I've said something that you feel isn't in accordance with the original source then let me know and I'll be happy to rectify it or explain myself, but I in no way have intentionally attempted to manipulate information to create a false image of the situation.

Ok…? Let's just exclude anyone else from this discussion, clearly they're not relevant and should not require any consideration. The right way to approach such a profound issue with Rule 18 and the use of subguilds is to execute a one-sided prosecution against "one side, mostly Fox".

But my serious response would be that I legitimately believe that Fox is justified by the fact that other guilds use the same strategy. Not subguilding in our position would not render the situation any more fair, so I have grounds to claim this. Of course, this isn't objective anymore but in this light you can no longer call my opinion "kind of a joke".

In theory, it's not okay. But until something more effective is done to resolve the situation, you could very feasibly argue that subguilding is our only way as players to create balanced and fair gameplay. You can refer to Drew, as I said before, for justification that it's possible. Facing a never-ending lineup of megaguilds that abuse subs, the only way for any individual guild to create a fair playing field is to use it themselves.

Perhaps your argument is that in the recent war, your side didn't use subs while we did. This looks unfair when it's presented alone, but I've already made an effort to begin the representation of a much larger picture through my case with AVO vs. Hax. It's still basically fair if every guild uses subs defensively, even if it appears unfair between two sides in a single battle.

maybe you don't use subs defensively because you have no claims to defend in the first place, but it's not a legitimate point to bring up nor am I prepared to defend this point at all so don't worry about it

And as Catherine says:

at this point subguilding is effectively a part of the warring meta. As long as the rules don't change, you're going to have to deal with this choice: you can lose and complain to us with no real resolution, or you can follow the meta and hold your own in accordance with what could likely turn out to be a workable ruleset.

You state yourself that subguilds are against the as-written rules. Everything in my argument remains intact as long as this is acknowledged. If you want to criticise my assumption that their usage is unfair then I will take it back; I agree that point was rather irrelevant.

Being a full guild does not automatically eliminate the possibility of a guild serving as a sub.

The general consensus in this thread is that there is no real line you can draw on subguilding. using 1 sub isn't theoretically going to make you any less guilty than using 10+. It sounds even more ridiculous to claim that it is ok to abuse sub usage with the justification that another guild uses more.

Also Hax technically used many guilds for the purpose of subguilding, even if those guilds aren't defined by you as subs. I've stated this already, both in this post and in my previous one.

My bad for claiming otherwise. It's true that VnE has been rule-abiding in recent times, so I'll take back that point. I continue to insist that VnE once served under Hax as a dedicated sub for an extended period of time, and that there is evidence in war logs to prove this should you have the determination to trawl back that far.

And to conclude,

It's quite agreed upon that something should be done to resolve Rule 18 properly; but you can't guarantee it will happen, nor is it the be-all-and-end-all, and if this movement fails then I continue to hold my original argument in defense on Fox's utilisation of subs.

 

yeah your guild abuses subguilds to defun to the war system for literally everyone, there you go intertwined with the thread topic, Viceroy.
keep pretending you don't ruin war, it's fun watching kids lie to themselves.