Sure, and taking a players resources is also an act of war. But as for GB'n, I dont believe these "soft" violations should be grouped into that description.

Well you are welcome to your opinion Zues, but I don't think it's any more *"soft"* than not giving get ready turns.
How does a player know he's not being suckered into allowing the trespasser into striking position of himself?

Then there is also the possibility of the trespasser being in the way at some point not to mention getting a free look at a future opponent.
Again though, I was at war with my trespasser's clanmate ...
how do I know how much information he gave to him about me?

Then again as I mentioned, there is the uneasiness of having an opponent's clanmate within striking distance of me causing me to make errors in judgement

and overall there is the matter of giving an advantage to a possible future opponent to allow him to get ahead in the same game ... all softees I know, but plenty to consider.

PS:
Please allow me to clarify ...
I'm speaking of trespassing in force with an *army*, not with a *scout*.
Even Requiem considers scouting non-agressive.

rex

Last Edited : Monday, 31 August 2009 - 14:27

All those things are true. But anyone whether ally or enemy may lie cheat or steal in a war. That doesnt make them a GB'r.

Anyone that trespasses on my land when im at war will get 1 warning to remove themselves from my land,if they take any of my resources ,that will be treated as an act of war and treated as such.
Im sorry but if someone wants to pilfer my mines while im fighting another player expect an agressive response,I would never do such a low act,I will wait until that castle falls and then attack the victor without warning.
Cheers Angie

And thats your right Princess. Im not saying its right or wrong. Just that its not GB'n.

If your lands spread all across the map and your not able to defend them thats a problem with your strategy. Not an act of GB'n because someone took advantage of it.
Of course its an act of war, thats the game after all, but i dont think its right to label a player a GB'r because they took advantage of it.
To me GB'n is intentional teaming up to take out another player

If you do what your saying it is definatly intentional.
and trying to cripple a player while he is at war with another is a low act.
This is based on all terms being equal if I had 3 castles and was at war and overpowering another player and you had 1 castle I would call it fair but only just fair.
Cheers Angie

For a while I thought it was being implied that I was being off=-topic, but let's assume that I'm at war as I mentioned that I was and someone insists on traversing my territory against my wishes;

So that after giving fair warning, I'm forced to attack him to try to discourage him.
Now let's assume that the trespasser dosen't retreat, but instead seizes the opportunity to take the offensive against me (keeping in mind that it's his clanmate with whom I'm already involved).

If that isn't at least a second degree gang-attack, then how would you call it? You have half-way admitted that a player has the right to object to a trespasser So doesn't he also have the right to object forcefully if the trespasser continues to trespass?
Then can't it be called premeditated gang-attacking if he returns a bouncer attack with an agressive attack?

Now put the shoe on the other foot and suppose it's the trespasser that's at war with another and it's he who receives a bouncer attack for trespassing against the wishes of the owner ...
will you then accuse the bouncer of gang-attacking you if you don't just leave, but instead engage him in combat?

PS:
On the matter of someone taking my resource building while I'm at war, I repeat that I wouldn't get bent about it if I knew it were rightfully his or if he messaged me to say: "now we're even for my piles you took ".
Of course if I felt violated in any way that's a different matter.

rex

Intentionally taking someones resource because they werent defending is not the same thing as intentionally teaming up with someone to attack another player.

If you take something and then leave to battle elsewhere its your fault for not leaving protection behind. The game isnt called "I got it first so you cant touch it now because Im on the other side of the map and thats against the rules", its called war and stuff like that happens in wars.

Protecting newbs, or vets for that matter from GB'n is important, but its just as important to make the game fun for them. And unwritten rules(opinions) that change from player to player dont do that.

I think we all should be very careful with what we brand GB'n or else we could lose new and old players

Ive made it clear what I define as gangbanging,so all of you now know my veiws and also now know what to expect if you cross that line
Cheers Angie

Rex,

Caln mates working together in a FFA camp IS against the rules. Thats been established long ago.

Princess,

Labelling all kinds of aggressiveness as GB'n is wrong imho.

The game is called war people, not diplomacy, or war with rules, or anything else.

If you expect new players to curb their desires for combat because of your own personal rules you can expect them not to play here long

Well I was speaking hypothetically ...
there was a trespass, but there was no attacking ...
except I didn't like the surprise it must have been to Sage

and if I weren't at war already with his clansman and beating him until I got involved in another venture, I may have attacked the trespasser;

but I am saying that because I was beating his clanmate, I sensed that the trespasser may have been trying to bait me and otherwise distract me.

As a matter of fact, I did end up doing something really dumb later in that game because I didn't like being made a party to Sage's defeat.

PS:
Zues,
that's the point I've been trying to make ...
folks commit all kinds of transgressions, but only tend to see the one's made against themselves.

rex

Last Edited : Monday, 31 August 2009 - 18:45

Baiting, distracting, all of that is part of war and therefore part of the game. And not GB'n. Imho of course.

Ah wow Zues,
do I have to repeat myself?
Take it from the top ...
it can turn into a "GB'n".

rex

I understand Rex, but it doesnt follow that it WILL happen.

CAN and WILL are two different things and to stifle a players aggresiveness because of what MIGHT happen is not good for the game

Let's get something straight ...
I'm all for FFA ...

PS:
to make a long story shorter.
At no time did I ever accuse someone of gang-attacking although it has happenned a few times to me.

rex

Last Edited : Monday, 31 August 2009 - 19:32

I here ya Rex, Im trying to pin this term down now before WoK starts. Im not accusing anyone or advocating anything

Yes it is bad for the game to stifle agressive playing, but being a bully on the game map

and being a bully in the forums
or even in private messages are two different things.

Two can be called harassment under certain conditions.

PS:
No personal offense implied.

rex