Author Topic: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence  (Read 4011 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Spanish

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 386
  • Infamy: 106
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • 2h Cav Star of the year award winner.
    • View Profile
  • Faction: The official Drama Llama of Knights_Hospitaller
  • Game nicks: Hospitaller_Spaniard, BowPersona, Span
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #15 on: April 19, 2013, 11:33:28 am »
0
Hmm smoothrich seems unhappy, I wonder why that would be.


All of the admins that we're on the server discussed the problem at hand a problem I wasn't even aware of until Kesh popped into hosp TS. The thing is that it wasnt even a bug we really intentionally took advantage of similiar to the case of when Hosps sieged a castle with glitched walls, that broke from catapults on the inside but were perfectly fine on the outside. It wasn't the defenses fault that the castle broke but it still gave them a huge advantage by forcing the attackers to rely on ladders which came to the point that we couldn't even get onto the castle walls. Hosps took quite a loss at that battle we complained about it but we didn't blame the defense for abusing it. They just did what anybody could and played around it.

Granted the situation here is different but its shares the same similarity that it wasn't the defenses fault that they got stuck with a bug that crippled the offenses ability to take over the castle. We all saw this and forcing the Defense to pay for a bug and forcing them out wasn't something any of us wanted to do. So blaming it all on Canary is not called for as it really should be blamed on the Devs for not fixing a known glitch or really anything in strat. I also would of liked a siege that wasn't horrendously flawed as the Occitan battles following were much more enjoyable  than having to deal with such a convoluted mess.
My horse is named pebbles and we like to try.

Offline DUKE DICKBUTT

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Renown: 138
  • Infamy: 119
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #16 on: April 19, 2013, 11:42:37 am »
+1
I believe the rule is if you are in an unplayable area, you must do your best to get out, or go spec/quit.  Normally, it doesn't take Canary an hour to enforce this on battle, I wonder why it did here.

There is no question of fault here, we are not trying to place blame.  But, if we must, it is the devs or map makers.  We have addressed this issue many many months ago and nothing was done.

Offline Malaclypse

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1299
  • Infamy: 146
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.
    • View Profile
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #17 on: April 19, 2013, 11:48:40 am »
0
I believe the rule is if you are in an unplayable area, you must do your best to get out

Well, I think the vast majority of those who spawned back there, including myself for a number of lives, tried to get out and indeed did get out (though our lives outside of said spot were usually short, violent affairs). A few times I just randomly spawned at another flag somewhere else in the town for no apparent reason.
You think you're pretty smart with your dago mustache and your greasy hair.

Offline FRANK_THE_TANK

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1312
  • Infamy: 339
  • cRPG Player Sir White Knight
  • FluckCucker
    • View Profile
  • Faction: A Free and proud Peasant of Fisdnar!!!
  • Game nicks: FRANK_THE_TANK
  • IRC nick: Sippy sip
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2013, 12:03:27 pm »
+1
Ten years I was a referee for the NHAHA (volunteer) and I have never seen a bigger display of dilatory in my life. It is almost as if the admins went out of their way to waste as much time as possible JUST to say that they gave it "due process". I have handed out real life suspensions to athletes after careful review in less time and with even more unclear rules/precedents. Absolutely shameful.

You made me look up a word!!! Bravo sir, and thank you for extending my vocabulary. I had thought it not possible to learn anything but insults on this forum!
Fammi un pompino!

I think I have ball cancer in my right nut :(
Good news everybody! It's not nut cancer :)
Bad news everybody, I got dumped :(

Offline MrShine

  • Ragdoll Basher
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1156
  • Infamy: 193
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Fear the stache
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: MrShine
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #19 on: April 19, 2013, 02:20:38 pm »
+1
Please spare us the tired argument of admins being placed in bad positions, wherein they have to hurt somebodies feelings. The position you volunteered for is one where you can not always make somebody happy, if you can not accept that, then perhaps you are in the wrong position. Also who else should be blamed? Canary was the highest ranking admin in the server, it is his position to make the tough calls that the other admins can not or will not make. Expecting people to actually do what they volunteered for is not that unheard of.

Who exactly are you accusing here? Coming from a admin no less. Do you, MrShine, have proof of somebody abusing bugs? If so, why are you not enforcing the rules then?

That we even got into this situation is a sad display of the general lack of consistent leadership from our admins and even more of a lack of attention/caring from the developers.

My point is there was no "right answer", so any admin call is essentially weighing which action is the least abusive.  It's not a matter of "it's a tough call people are going to be mad at me", it's a matter of "there is no correct call". 

Also, don't play coy.  We all know strat has had plenty of crazy bugs, and I'm sure nearly every faction has been on the giving & receiving ends of those bugs.  With that in mind, we can either play the game a) where everything goes, taking advantage of absurd bugs that we know shouldn't be there or b) play the game in the spirit of how it was designed to be played.  All I'm saying is Hospitaller chose b), and hopefully that example can be followed for the remainder of strat from all factions.   This is a situation where our community needs to police themselves, not call for a higher ruling from admins like some sort of supreme court.

Holy crap I have a youtube gaming channel! https://www.youtube.com/user/MrShine12345

Offline Turboflex

  • Duke
  • *******
  • Renown: 648
  • Infamy: 212
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Ravens of Valhalla
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #20 on: April 19, 2013, 04:20:58 pm »
0
strat has bugs that aren't always fixed in a timely way, and strat is dying.  News at 11.

Hospitaller decided to cede the castle when they didn't have to.  They did this because they felt that using the bugs to win a hollow victory wasn't worth it.  They could have easily said "fuck it", and continued the cycle of bug abusing.

I think that's worth repeating, they (eventually) chose to give the castle up over winning.  Afterall, what's the point of winning something when no one cares or plays?

People are bitching about how long it took to come to a decision; please realize that this was a shit situation that was one big gray area where no admin decision would have been received happily from everyone.  Think of the end result as a compromise, both sides didn't get everything they wanted, but the end result of the battle was changed.  Also blaming Canary is dumb, not only was he not the only one discussion things, admins shouldn't be put in a situation where massive strat bugs force them to choose who wins and who loses in the first place.

The light at the end of the tunnel is maybe both sides can try to stop abusing things like this for the sake of winning.  Obviously we all want to win, but this is a situation where you have to ask yourself "at what cost?".  We're the c-rpg community, and we aren't that big.  If you are a dirty snake who abuses known bugs to win, you're going to find yourself short on playmates.

Hospi still had a very low chance of winning. What would have happened was with timer out we would have killed your final 300 tickets eventually. We had plate on, you were naked and coming through a very limited choke that was surrounded. We were building healing tents too so even if you managed to land a cudgel hit it on someone they'd heal it. It would have taken another hour but we woulda killed those 300 tickets it eventually with you guys on 60 second respawns.

So I am glad Hospi finally conceded and spared us all that long tedious ordeal of another hour of peasant killing at 2am but it really should have been conceded 1 hour before when you ran out of gear and we had complete control of the city with the only thing preventing a flag cap being the unreachable flag.

Offline Wesleysnipes

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 371
  • Infamy: 196
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • SQUIDDONKULIOUS
    • View Profile
  • Faction: AoW squid
  • Game nicks: Wesley
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #21 on: April 19, 2013, 04:26:44 pm »
+1
It was clear FCC had complete control of the city. It was a matter of an unreachable flag that spared Hosp for some time. I think most players on FCC side including me were mad about the admins decision( that took way too long ). Also we are blaming Canary because he doesn't give a shit about FCC( everyone knows ). You can side track or stand up for your fellow admin. But I know Canary is biased. If it was Chaos in FCC's position Canary would jump on it right away like a bird to a worm. In NA1 as murder stated. I hate this bird brain. I think he was a good admin when he started but now he is a "has been". If you can't handle such an important responsibility just step down and do us all a favor. A bigger favour if you can pop a couple pills at the same time.
Dashing through the steppe, on a hundreds horse sleigh, o'er fields we go, laughing all the way. HOHOHO! It's Calamariclause and it's Christmas in April for the Squids.

http://www.insomniagamer.com/lp/leagueofangels/loapink/

Offline Malaclypse

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1299
  • Infamy: 146
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.
    • View Profile
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #22 on: April 19, 2013, 04:52:04 pm »
+2
It was clear FCC had complete control of the city.  Also we are blaming Canary because he doesn't give a shit about FCC( everyone knows ). You can side track or stand up for your fellow admin. But I know Canary is biased. If it was Chaos in FCC's position Canary would jump on it right away like a bird to a worm. In NA1 as murder stated. I hate this bird brain. I think he was a good admin when he started but now he is a "has been". If you can't handle such an important responsibility just step down and do us all a favor. A bigger favour if you can pop a couple pills at the same time.

This post makes a ton of assumptions. Wesley assumes that any feelings Canary may have towards FCC are related to what he does as an admin. Wesley assumes that he would act differently with different factions involved. Wesley assumes that what he thinks about an admin has anything to do with whether or not they're fulfilling their duties. Wesley assumes that arbitrating on Strategus is an important responsbility. Wesley implies that MrShine and Desire were either completely impotent or are also biased.

I'm not sure what the last sentence means. Could be taken a few ways. I'll make my own assumption and assume Wesley's not the kind of scumbag who would want someone to kill themselves over a video game; maybe he's a medical professional who's made some sort of diagnosis, or maybe he's advocating some over the counter medication or black market fare, idk. He'll have to elaborate.
You think you're pretty smart with your dago mustache and your greasy hair.

Offline DUKE DICKBUTT

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Renown: 138
  • Infamy: 119
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #23 on: April 19, 2013, 05:21:48 pm »
+1
This post makes a ton of assumptions. Wesley assumes that any feelings Canary may have towards FCC are related to what he does as an admin. Wesley assumes that he would act differently with different factions involved. Wesley assumes that what he thinks about an admin has anything to do with whether or not they're fulfilling their duties. Wesley assumes that arbitrating on Strategus is an important responsbility. Wesley implies that MrShine and Desire were either completely impotent or are also biased.

I'm not sure what the last sentence means. Could be taken a few ways. I'll make my own assumption and assume Wesley's not the kind of scumbag who would want someone to kill themselves over a video game; maybe he's a medical professional who's made some sort of diagnosis, or maybe he's advocating some over the counter medication or black market fare, idk. He'll have to elaborate.

Relax Mal, Wesley is only implying that Canary forgot to take his Common Sense pills.

Anyway, you should really let Canary explain himself, you are not his keeper.

Offline Warborn304

  • Count
  • *****
  • Renown: 268
  • Infamy: 139
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Hounds of Chulainn
  • Game nicks: Saint_George_Zimmerman
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2013, 05:52:42 pm »
+5
I also would of liked a siege that wasn't horrendously flawed as the Occitan battles following were much more enjoyable  than having to deal with such a convoluted mess.

Once I saw this I'll just have to say this, and if anyone wants to talk about it PM me or steam me.

You thought the Occitan battles following this were much more enjoyable with the overcast of that COMPLETE SHIT siege looming overhead? It is fairly obviously what should have been done about that Hosp siege, and being in hosp TS listening to all of that was painful. I'm glad I had to do roll call for these "much more enjoyable" battles, that you participated in.

Let me explain the atmosphere that I am talking about when I am saying that this siege was the worst thing that I have ever seen. Anyone who plays strat should have fun, and get XP. Anything past that is a pain in the ass, that is my philosophy. So there shouldn't be yelling, worrying about K/D, no 5+ Leaders yelling 30 different things. It should be one guy, leading a party so everyone can have fun/xp. The great thing about strat is that people can actually get life experience leading other people around, and participate in something that they may not otherwise experience outside of the game.

HOWEVER, This siege glorified what is wrong with c-rpg in so many different ways.
It's very clear that:
  • Siege equipment is broken
  • Maps and bugs bias the attackers or defenders
  • People are clearly going to exploit these bugs.
  • People have no common sense
  • Devs are MIA and essentially strat is FUCKED.

The devs aren't patching, or hot fixing any of this shit. My personal opinion is to freeze or end strat. Let the devs fix all of these problems so the game is actually functional to a level that is somewhat enjoyable and we can proceed.

As for the Occitan battle being more enjoyable after this shit siege? Really? From what I hear Occitan dupe bugged all of their armor. We send waves of genuine armies that have been worked up to since the beginning only to have them pretty much spawn camped near the end with lots of tickets left. because of plate and mauls.

IF you really wanted to have fun in these battles you would level the playing ground. Trust me, at least I am trying to catch up to Occitan's equipment and shit so I can give my mercs fun, because I cannot foresee Occitan doing anything to let this be fun. So in short the battles following we're the same convoluted mess, if you think that what Occitan is doing is fun, your perception of things is skewed.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Canary

  • Marshall
  • ********
  • Renown: 826
  • Infamy: 202
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: CHAOS
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #25 on: April 19, 2013, 06:29:29 pm »
+9
Hello. I guess I'll explain part of what went down last night from my perspective.

I believe the rule is if you are in an unplayable area, you must do your best to get out, or go spec/quit.  Normally, it doesn't take Canary an hour to enforce this on battle, I wonder why it did here.

It took longer than it would have in the battle server because there was more at stake. Instead of smoothing the progression from round to round during any similar situation that would come up in the regular battle server we had to actually look at different sides of an issue in order not to waste the resources of dozens of peoples' spent time with what might have been a bad call.

The rule you're referring to, incidentally, is no camping unreachable areas, not "being in an 'unplayable area'", whatever that means. A more appropriate rule to cite would be NOT OK: exploiting invisible barriers. To what extent spawning uncontrollably in an area of a map you can't easily escape from is considered "exploiting", well, that's the question, isn't it?

And it was less than an hour, actually. I was still spawning on flags in the proper part of the town by the time I decided to stop respawning altogether in order to confer better with the other admins via I-chat. Attackers only started "going for flags" around 47 minutes before the fight ended, including overtime due to attacker retreat.


Listen:

Here's why we didn't make a ruling before the issue came to the forefront of the battle (that is, when the attacking side was asking admins to make a ruling before it really came up so that they could change their strategy): It would have hinged upon admins predicting the outcome of a battle and assigning victory based upon that prediction. Before the issue had even come into play. Past battles had seen victory for attackers in spite of the bug at this fief, so it wasn't a certainty that it was going to become this big of a problem. In the past we've kicked people behind the barrier, but they were hiding, not fighting, and tickets were down to zero for defense.


While there are precedents for defenders delaying at the end of strat fights and being kicked for it, it almost always comes down to them positioning themselves in an area of a fief without any spawn flags (or tickets remaining). If they're in an otherwise unreachable position under more normal circumstances (say, if attackers run out of ladders) and if they have got a flag they can continue to spawn on, they are allowed to remain there by rights.

There are also precedents for attacker spawns having invisible walls making them unreachable to defenders to capture. It's not immediately punishable to be in a position behind an invisible wall, in a strategus scenario that would be a ridiculous rule to enforce in light of the unpredictable nature of map quality and spawn selection. If you're attacking from behind the barrier, there's a problem, yes. If you're standing behind the barrier and doing nothing and you're one of the last players alive at the end of a fight, that is also a problem. It's unfortunate for defenders, when there could be a theoretical scenario where the flag being captured would've swayed the outcome of the fight. When battles have come down to attackers having only one remaining flag behind a barrier, they aren't immediately removed from the server assuming they're still attempting to attack the defense (after coming out of the barrier, of course).

There were several reasons not to jump to conclusions and start kicking the entire defending team for spawning at a spot where the attackers had an incredibly difficult time reaching them.

In the end we were going to go with giving it to the attackers on this one. However, along the line of discussing the issue with other admins, I wound up in a conversation with Hospitaller leadership. I started talking to Peppovitch about the nature of strategus issues and the glitch in question, about the exploitation of game mechanics and the feeling of abandonment by the devs most players are feeling. I talked with him about how this battle would go if there was no glitched spawn. How it could serve the game to play it as it was intended, despite the intended mechanics being broken. I discussed with him how he had an opportunity to play better, and eventually he took it. Instead of handing out rulings, I allowed the people at the short end of the stick to be the better men.

I'm sorry that it took so long to get to the conclusion. (most of all to Les Chevaliers Occitan and Velucan Empire, as their following battle was delayed by several minutes, and also to the mercs involved in the following fights)

I'm not sorry that I helped some players treat the game better and play it better, instead of sullying it with unnecessary arbitration and furthering the rift between already clashing personalities. I'm not sorry if you guys have more respect for the Hospitallers and their actions as a result of this, even if that means I lose more of your already waning respect for me.

(click to show/hide)

Offline Haramir

  • Strategus Councillor
  • **
  • Renown: 200
  • Infamy: 26
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Occitan
  • Game nicks: Occitan_Haramir
  • IRC nick: Haramir
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #26 on: April 19, 2013, 06:32:12 pm »
+1
Once I saw this I'll just have to say this, and if anyone wants to talk about it PM me or steam me.

You thought the Occitan battles following this were much more enjoyable with the overcast of that COMPLETE SHIT siege looming overhead? It is fairly obviously what should have been done about that Hosp siege, and being in hosp TS listening to all of that was painful. I'm glad I had to do roll call for these "much more enjoyable" battles, that you participated in.

Let me explain the atmosphere that I am talking about when I am saying that this siege was the worst thing that I have ever seen. Anyone who plays strat should have fun, and get XP. Anything past that is a pain in the ass, that is my philosophy. So there shouldn't be yelling, worrying about K/D, no 5+ Leaders yelling 30 different things. It should be one guy, leading a party so everyone can have fun/xp. The great thing about strat is that people can actually get life experience leading other people around, and participate in something that they may not otherwise experience outside of the game.

HOWEVER, This siege glorified what is wrong with c-rpg in so many different ways.
It's very clear that:
  • Siege equipment is broken
  • Maps and bugs bias the attackers or defenders
  • People are clearly going to exploit these bugs.
  • People have no common sense
  • Devs are MIA and essentially strat is FUCKED.

The devs aren't patching, or hot fixing any of this shit. My personal opinion is to freeze or end strat. Let the devs fix all of these problems so the game is actually functional to a level that is somewhat enjoyable and we can proceed.

As for the Occitan battle being more enjoyable after this shit siege? Really? From what I hear Occitan dupe bugged all of their armor. We send waves of genuine armies that have been worked up to since the beginning only to have them pretty much spawn camped near the end with lots of tickets left. because of plate and mauls.

IF you really wanted to have fun in these battles you would level the playing ground. Trust me, at least I am trying to catch up to Occitan's equipment and shit so I can give my mercs fun, because I cannot foresee Occitan doing anything to let this be fun. So in short the battles following we're the same convoluted mess, if you think that what Occitan is doing is fun, your perception of things is skewed.

We only had one equipment bug and it only give us some money which we publicly aknowlege.  All it gave us is some sets of armor equal or lower to all what you are currently using.  All we did from the beginning is adapting to your attack, we start using maul because that what we looted from you. 

Its pretty strange to whine about our gear when you almost always have superior gear and more troops to sacrifice.

Losing a battle does not give you the right to say shitty thing about us, LCO are eventually going to be wipe out and you don't see us insulting everybody about it.

Talking about what would be fair and fun would have been to gave us our castle back after the retreat bug, your are the big faction stomping us.  I don't understand why on earth the more your faction are attacking us, the more you hate us for defending ourselves, maybe we should just had run away so none of these hundred big battle with super XP could of exist
« Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 06:36:22 pm by Haramir »

Offline BoneSaw

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 301
  • Infamy: 88
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Hounds of Chulainn (HoC) Green regime
  • Game nicks: King BoneSaw
  • IRC nick: Glorious Supreme Leader Democratic People's Republic of HoC
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #27 on: April 19, 2013, 07:22:13 pm »
+5
Word up partyboy. Damn mod runs worse than the van I live in, down by the river.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline DUKE DICKBUTT

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Renown: 138
  • Infamy: 119
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #28 on: April 19, 2013, 08:19:48 pm »
+2
Canary, can you cite the rule that says when you spawn in an unreachable area, you can stay there longer than you have to?  I feel you are just making up a rule or addendum.

I am not trying to call you out as a bad admin, rather that we have a bad system.  Most rules in this game are a half sentence at best, with no clarification.  The only follow up to any and all rules is use common sense.  Common sense changes depending on which way the wind is blowing or which parties are involved.  As you know, your faction and mine are currently rattling swords at each other.  I want better written rules and when possible the exclusion of admins from the decision that are not truly neutral, due to strat relations.  Unfortunately, the only active admins are in Chaos.  Also unfortunately, you write walls of text at me conveying what could be written in a sentence.  You refuse to comment during battles, except maybe wheb i report a ladder over a flag.  Then you wonder why people are upset when you are oddly silent when bigger issues arise.  Then you go further to accuse me and my kin of wanting to break the game and exploiting every rule under the sun.  Meanwhile, we have reported every bug regardless of the outcome, but you refuse to read past Kesh's atrocious writing style to see the actual message.  We have suggested, debated and argued for bug fixes which go completely ignored.  I have personally investigated and researched bugs, tried to recreate and document them, only to get accused of trolling or griefing.  This is a beta, you are supposed to break the game.  In other communities, you are praised and possibly rewarded when you find and isolate a bug, here you are threatened with a ban.

Canary, I submit that you should clarify the rules instead is following them loosely when it is convenient.  If need be, poll and discuss much like Haboe did.  I challenge you to stop being a politician and start being an admin.  We do not need another Shik, Smoothrich or Cyrus_HRE on our hands.  Once the rules are clear, it will much harder for the masses to be upset with you, and you will stop having to appease everyone when rules and punishments are followed to a T.  Also hire more admins so you don't always have to make the decisions.

Offline Matey

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1327
  • Infamy: 372
  • cRPG Player
  • A Pirate
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Matey_BRD
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #29 on: April 19, 2013, 08:25:38 pm »
+4
It was clear FCC had complete control of the city. It was a matter of an unreachable flag that spared Hosp for some time. I think most players on FCC side including me were mad about the admins decision( that took way too long ). Also we are blaming Canary because he doesn't give a shit about FCC( everyone knows ). You can side track or stand up for your fellow admin. But I know Canary is biased. If it was Chaos in FCC's position Canary would jump on it right away like a bird to a worm. In NA1 as murder stated. I hate this bird brain. I think he was a good admin when he started but now he is a "has been". If you can't handle such an important responsibility just step down and do us all a favor. A bigger favour if you can pop a couple pills at the same time.

I disagree with the assertion that Canary wasn't taking actions because of his bias. The problem with Canary is that he doesn't take action at all if he can avoid it, regardless of who is involved. I don't just mean if he can find a better solution or anything, I mean he will let problems exist and let things go to hell if it means he won't have to make a decision.

also, our strategy at the start of the battle was to leave all flags up so we could kill all the tickets; I started pushing for another strategy of taking all the flags and forcing an admin decision because there were about 6 admins on and the result of the battle was so very obvious as we were doing nothing but spawn camping the defenders 10-15min into the fight. We ended up not really making up our mind whether to capture flags or try to kill them all and so Canary used that as an excuse to ignore the problem as long as possible. Anyone who says hospitaller had a chance to win that fight is on crack or in favour of exploiting bugged spawns. I'll tell you this much though; if anyone else comes and attacks Ichimur and gets all of the non-bugged spawns and has the city clearly under control, I will hit that retreat button or order everyone to quit. If we find ourselves in a situation with no chance at victory besides trying to delay a battle by camping almost impossible to reach spots then I'd rather just retreat and not waste everyone's time.


P.S.
  We do not need another Shik, Smoothrich or Cyrus_HRE on our hands.  Once the rules are clear, it will much harder for the masses to be upset with you, and you will stop having to appease everyone when rules and punishments are followed to a T.  Also hire more admins so you don't always have to make the decisions.
Canary could never be like smooth or cyrus as Canary is never willing to take any action.