DeletedUser
Guest
I would say that in real life you can have "Diplomatic Refugees", however not in this game as it is not based on real life and its complexities of diplomacy. The main reason for defining a Grepolis Refugee here was due to their troublesome nature of denying a player kill. If you are not attacking a player, it is pointless attempting to define them as refugees, since it becomes pure speculation and opinion.
"Diplomatic Refugees" can be labeled based on a whim - there is no factual proof as it is a matter of opinion that one is a "Diplomatic Refugee" and thus is completely subjective. Find any excuse and bam - there u have one. Poor decisions are just a show of poor leadership and it may certainly make subordinates feel disgusted, but without game action to back it up it is irrelavent. This is a game which has game mechanics that determine if someone can be a refugee, not peoples opinions without something to back it up. There are personality conflcits that can play a big role in how someone 'views' another, however there are no grounds to class someone as a refugee simply because someone else didn't like them. This game is not based on real life. Once a player is attacked there is a possiblity of them being refugee if they join an alliance for protection afterwards. Players who leave or get booted 'because of their poor leadership' or due to being 'unpopular' does not prove they are refugees, as its pure speculation/opinion to say so - even if they join another alliance. Without being attacked prior to joining another alliance for protection, they cannot be objectively classed as refugees. Its impossible to confirm otherwise.
This thread is not about the make beleive, nor is it about people who are masters of manipulation. It is about establishing factual grounds to define a refugee, not someones opinion about what makes one.
"War Refugees" (as you put it) can be backed up through Battle Reports and Defensive Battle Points. There is no subjective opinion associated with someone being attacked with forces (this can be proven) and then joining another alliance (this can be proven) for protection (this is where some subjectiveness may come into it as they can get protection either through new alliance label, associated PACTs, forces/troops, etc. or they may not. If they do, those that helped know by action, or inaction through a PACT, that help/protection has been given and thus is no longer a matter of opinion but a matter of how truthful players are about it.).
"Diplomatic Refugees" can be labeled based on a whim - there is no factual proof as it is a matter of opinion that one is a "Diplomatic Refugee" and thus is completely subjective. Find any excuse and bam - there u have one. Poor decisions are just a show of poor leadership and it may certainly make subordinates feel disgusted, but without game action to back it up it is irrelavent. This is a game which has game mechanics that determine if someone can be a refugee, not peoples opinions without something to back it up. There are personality conflcits that can play a big role in how someone 'views' another, however there are no grounds to class someone as a refugee simply because someone else didn't like them. This game is not based on real life. Once a player is attacked there is a possiblity of them being refugee if they join an alliance for protection afterwards. Players who leave or get booted 'because of their poor leadership' or due to being 'unpopular' does not prove they are refugees, as its pure speculation/opinion to say so - even if they join another alliance. Without being attacked prior to joining another alliance for protection, they cannot be objectively classed as refugees. Its impossible to confirm otherwise.
This thread is not about the make beleive, nor is it about people who are masters of manipulation. It is about establishing factual grounds to define a refugee, not someones opinion about what makes one.
"War Refugees" (as you put it) can be backed up through Battle Reports and Defensive Battle Points. There is no subjective opinion associated with someone being attacked with forces (this can be proven) and then joining another alliance (this can be proven) for protection (this is where some subjectiveness may come into it as they can get protection either through new alliance label, associated PACTs, forces/troops, etc. or they may not. If they do, those that helped know by action, or inaction through a PACT, that help/protection has been given and thus is no longer a matter of opinion but a matter of how truthful players are about it.).
Last edited by a moderator: