Harriet Oleson
Well-Known Member
About what happened in Kansas, actually it wasn't only a matter of multi digging but also of cheating : almost all the former town members of the main multi digger's town were banned, as well as a lot of other toons, all similar with each others. (Nobody has to believe me on words, you can just look at the reports of 29 Jul 7:30 pm and 5 Aug 11:00 pm : if you check the profiles you can see most of their former town members got banned as well as lots of their "similar friends" from other towns).
There were also lots of others things but well, I won't enter into details (too long to explain, and mainly based on personal observations not necessarily easily/publicly checkable anymore).
Actually, I'm part of the players who think even small towns/alliances should have the right to try their luck whatever big alliances tell, but in Kansas it wasn't at all only a matter of a small town which wanted to play the game. And in all of that, from what I know the moderation isn't allowed to talk about cheating cases. So I'm not 100% sure the FF team took into account the cheating background of all of this, but in my opinion they should have and I hope they did : I think that's even mainly what should have motivated the new restrictions, and not only the battles themselves.
I'm precising all of this because when we only look at the frequency of battles, we may indeed wonder if the new restrictions were really needed, but the frequency of the battles is only a part of the story. In my opinion these restrictions were needed, and I'm saying this while the recent battles were at the advantage of my alliance : my alliance lost 5 forts before the multi digging, and continued to lose forts when the multi digging ended. At least with the multi dig, we weren't losing any, so it had its advantages lol. But once again : this time, there were cheating and trolling, difficult to talk in favor of these kind of battles ...
In the end, I can't tell for Colorado or other worlds cause I only play in Kansas. But if I had to take as example what happened in Kansas, I can tell what's being told in public isn't always the whole story : difficult to have an opinion about the team's actions when we don't know the whole thing.
There were also lots of others things but well, I won't enter into details (too long to explain, and mainly based on personal observations not necessarily easily/publicly checkable anymore).
Actually, I'm part of the players who think even small towns/alliances should have the right to try their luck whatever big alliances tell, but in Kansas it wasn't at all only a matter of a small town which wanted to play the game. And in all of that, from what I know the moderation isn't allowed to talk about cheating cases. So I'm not 100% sure the FF team took into account the cheating background of all of this, but in my opinion they should have and I hope they did : I think that's even mainly what should have motivated the new restrictions, and not only the battles themselves.
I'm precising all of this because when we only look at the frequency of battles, we may indeed wonder if the new restrictions were really needed, but the frequency of the battles is only a part of the story. In my opinion these restrictions were needed, and I'm saying this while the recent battles were at the advantage of my alliance : my alliance lost 5 forts before the multi digging, and continued to lose forts when the multi digging ended. At least with the multi dig, we weren't losing any, so it had its advantages lol. But once again : this time, there were cheating and trolling, difficult to talk in favor of these kind of battles ...
In the end, I can't tell for Colorado or other worlds cause I only play in Kansas. But if I had to take as example what happened in Kansas, I can tell what's being told in public isn't always the whole story : difficult to have an opinion about the team's actions when we don't know the whole thing.
