Pie lacks any due diligence

The problem was not the transparency itself but the transparency showed the lack of any due diligence on your part. There was no concrete proof, there were no concrete agreements as some guy (something with hell in name? cant see now with deleted post…) clearly laid out. It is also very clear there is no objectivity in the admin team.

Deleting the whole post is not solving any problem.

Now I am off again, I’ll read up in a few weeks again. Still praying this game will find a way to become healthy again.

We spent an entire week on this and found more than enough proof. “Lack of any due diligence” is grossly inaccurate.

We do not need proof of “concrete agreements”, we need proof of illegal coordination intended to gain an unfair advantage. We found it many times over.

The fact that you disagree based on an incorrect interpretation of our rules is irrelevant; we’re not looking for your opinion on the validity of the conclusion.

The post was deleted specifically to address concerns of public shaming, hence it “is not solving any problem” is also inaccurate. A simplified version will be put up soon.

You’re entitled to your opinion that there is no objectivity in the admin team, but I am confident that our actions and focus on improving our enforcement policies proves otherwise.

1 Like

Maybe share that other proof then? People would support your actions if there was proof of market aid, proof of attacks. But showing no proof and then make a statement that you spend X amount of time gathering more proof is not doing anything.

Everything is fine…

We shared plenty of proof of illegal coordination intended to gain an unfair advantage.

What you are asking for (market aid, attacks) is a higher burden of proof than is required. Your interpretation of our rules is flawed.

You’re making a claim that there is no objectivity amongst our staff. I am proud of our team for working hard to ensure otherwise.

The fact that you would equate me to the Iraqi Information Minister says more about your statement than it does about mine.

Why do you need proof of attacks or market aid? Did you not read the messages? You cannot share intel or coordinate with another family. Him telling the other player that I had 90% of my fleet stationed alone should have been worthy of a ban. The fact that people don’t think that is IA makes me wonder how much IA activity those players are committing themselves.

Really then why did you say this:

Showing YOU proof is not due diligence… your argument then (even though you for some reason claim it wasn’t) is Pie wasn’t being transparent enough, but he had friggin copied and pasted all of the messages.

YOU CANNOT COORDINATE OR SHARE INTEL WITH ANOTHER FAMILY… Sol did, he knew he did which was why he told the other player he had to speak in code because mods/pie can look at his messages… and he received a measly 3 day ban.

I agree lol, 3 days? Is it over reaction or under? I cannot honestly tell… :smile: what I will say is while I don’t agree with IA being a bad thing if it gives people hope at some fun in a stale Galaxy, an IA that targets a specific person over personal grudges shouldn’t be tolerated.

:stuck_out_tongue: every diplo talk is a violations than… :stuck_out_tongue:

Nope, not every diplo talk includes sharing intel.

If you’re ever unsure, feel free to ask the @moderators. When in doubt, send as little information as possible.