Dishonest
: characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness : unfair, deceptive

Honest
a : free from fraud or deception : legitimate, truthful <an honest plea>

Exactly, You can't just say no MC without defining what MC is.
Since players can communicate outside the game, there is no way you could ever prove they shared information. If I attack a corp, and then blow up a port near their base is that information sharing?

This corp is using this port or they wouldn't have built there in the 1st place.
So NO, this isn not information sharing and it is NOT megacorping.

Aaannnnndddd were back into smack territory.

No smack attended, but toy and cruncher both got on here and posted, accusing us of this and how wrong it was to share info, but yet they did it more then three times in the game. I just think its wise to make sure this is know, cause appearnetly RP is using this "false" info to implement MC rules. I also dont want other sysops getting wrong ideas, of whats wrong and right.

LOL. I love this talk. It all seems so pointless.

Let me wrench it for you. If you're an evil, you need to play evil, that includes lying and cheating. If you're a good, then you need to play good, that means NOT lying and cheating and devising ways to catch the evils at their own game but who really defines what is cheating an what is not? It's impossible.

Even in today's world, what is defined as 'wrong' or a 'cheat' is usually defined in some sort of rule or law. Take the American Bill of Rights for instance. The Bill of Rights has not changed since it's inception but the interpretation of it certainly has.

Here's a concept that no one has really adopted yet. Each server should define it's own 'Bill of Rights'. In that E-Document, they would lay out all the rights that a Twar player would automatically have within their realm and then define a set of rules and laws to punish those that are found to be breaking them.

Or ........ You could just play the game over and over again, each time learning something new with which to defend yourself or attack the other guy and quit calling for the Whaaaaaambulance all the time.

Do people laff at jokes like that where your from, whaaaaaaambulence?

call amber lamps

I never said I was going to put this rule into place, I was simply asking what people felt about it.
The rules I posted earlier IF I were to instigate such a rule would be rather easy to enforce. You see two corporations attacking at the same time, they broke the rule, you see a corporation move in after an attack to mop up, they read the rules, and heeded them.
There are grey areas, and every game has them. You would write an encyclopedia size volume full of rules, and still there would be loopholes to those clever enough to hunt them out.
Those grey areas are to the sysop to decide what to do about it. I've made calls in the latest tournament that some dislike. But I do my best in the interest of the game at hand to be impartial. I have opinions, but those don't matter if you're doing your sysop job correctly.

You can't put restrictions on when or where a corp can attack another corp. If an enemy picks up a limpet and leads me to thier base or anyone elses, and I feel that it's feasible to attack that corp then I'll do it. There is no grey area when it comes to rules, you can either enforce them or you can't, and in this case you can't. If you THINK someone broke a rule, that's not good enough.
Sure you can make these rules on your server, but no one will play in a tournment held there if you do.