List of actions considered abusive : Différence entre versions

Version du 22 septembre 2016 à 19:29

Here is the list of actions which often happen in March of History and are considered abusive (and can be punished by the referees and admins). This list is non exhaustive.

1. Create an account to come back in a March of History game from where we have been banned or we have left is forbidden.

Breaking this rule will cause the player to get permanently banned from the corresponding game.

Why this rule?

We have witnessed the following practices which do not respect the spirit of fair-play:

• At the beginning of a game, one would play with family A, offer a treaty of vassalization and more to B so that it is very advantageous for B. One would then leave the game and choose B, accepting the treaty and thus having an unfair advantage.
• During the course of a game, one would use the fact that another player has quit/been banned to one's advantage to get the family of the player who has left if it was better

2. Multiaccount is prohibited.

Whatever the reason is, to play on more servers than the game allows for one account, or simply to boost a main account on a game.

Why this rule?

It's all about an obvious fair-play, multiaccounts break the game balance and the egality between players.

3. Give one or several title(s)/town(s) and/or all or part of your fortune before leaving the game.

The player who gets such a gift can get punished.

Why this rule?

This tactic has been used several times to favor a side during a war, or at the beginning of a game to help a player build a large territory very quickly and recruit a lot of mercenaries to wipe out his neighbours.

4. It's forbidden to declare war:

• to vassalise the titles of a friend who is vassal of an "embarassing" liege, but from who he doesn't want to be felon;
• to declare a reconquest or felony to a friend to get his titles or lands which are already targeted by a war from a true enemy;
• declare war to surrender immediately and force peace to temporarily avoid an opponent.

Why theses rules?

The situations described here are non exhaustive. This rule is about what is usually called the fake wars. It includes wars between friends to avoid some consequences from the treaties (felony, title gifts (see rule 5.), tactics to avoid war goals to be applied, etc), these wars are obviously forbidden.

4.1 It is forbidden to start "multiple wars".

That means aim each opponent in a separate war, preventing them to group together, or to prevent an ally or allies to join a war by declaring war to them.

Ultimatum rules

How can I do if I want that Paul, ally of my enemy and blocking the path, joins the war? If I declare him war, there is "multiple wars". So what can I do? Only one solution: ultimatum. The ultimatum is a private message sent to the target giving him 36 hours to join the so-called war. A copy of the ultimatum is sent by ticket to the referees. The ultimatum urges to join a war in which the target can be effectively invited (the target is directly allied with one of the war protagonists). The ultimatum is sent by a protagonist of the war. If after 36 hours (from the message sending) the target has not joined the so-called war, you are authorised to declare him war.

"Multiple wars" or not "multiple wars"?

• 1. Your target is allied of one of your enemies, send him an ultimatum.
• 2. Your target is in war against one of your allies, join your ally's war.
• 3. Your target is allied of one of the enemy of your allies, join your ally's war and send an ultimatum to your target.

If your target is not in the situations described in 1., 2. and 3., then you can declare him war directly.

Why this rule?

Blocking an opponent or isolating from others is of course most of the times a viable tactic. However, the admins' will is to have grouped wars.

5. During a war, it is forbidden to:

• give a title/city to an House not sharing all of your wars;
• give a city going to be sieged or currently under siege;
• give a title vassal of a title aimed by a war;
• modify the va(va)ssalages and liege of a title aimed by a war; as well as in the year following the end of the war;
• place an army or armies not taking part in a war on any place to block troops taking part in the aforementioned war (a maritime path, for example);
• intentionally use any method to prevent a clause from taking effect (for instance: bankruptcy so that one can't pay a tribute, keeping towns which should be given back, provoke the lost of one title aimed by a war and so on…).

Why these rules?

In the spirit of fair-play. The methods listed above go against the dynamic of wars, sieges as well as right of passage when a war starts.

6. At the end of a war, the war protagonists have the duty to grant a right of way to their former opponents.

Why this rule?

Block the armies of his opponent on your territory, forcing him to dismobilise them, after he won or lost the war, is clearly a non fair-play behaviour.

7. It is forbidden to give a city or title to get rid of the vassalage link and thus be able to attack the former vassal/liege.

Why this rule?

The transfer of cities has been designed as a bargaining chip. Using this possibility to declare war on a non-felon vassal or suzerain is abusing this design.

Nota Bene

This list is a compilation of the actions which are most often witnessed and will get additions if need be. However, keep in mind that an attitude disrespecting fair-play, or any abusive behaviour, will be punished by the referee, even if it is not listed here. Do not forget either that it is up to you to correct an unintentional abusive situation that you caused and that a punishment can and will be applied if you refuse to do so.