Even they are not violations. I have seen tons of colonies built up and people have conquered, and those colonies have never rebelled. I have also reported a few instances like these, and the colonies have checked out clean. You conquer yellow colonies every era, so is that against rules too if they never rebel? Now if you conquer someone, and that someone spams my enemy, can you concretely say that is a violation of ingame rules? Ill go ahead and call it Bull. Defining something as purposeful, is just circumstantial and based on individual judgements. People should not have to suffer bans, because of personal opinions. You have cases where people have subs, and they take relics and then hand it over to the main alliance for a win. So I would term that being a slave alliance. So against ingame rules then? You have some noobs that build 10 outposts. I just took about 15 outposts in E2 built by a noob the tick after he laid it. So against ingame rules? I dont even know the dude that built it. So your definition of what is against rules and what isnt, is solely based on personal opinion. It isnt a violation.

The problem is when it is purposefully for the sole benefit of another, and a link between the players is proven. The evidence for the link is given to the admin, and he makes the call. Seth did that.

If you had a friend place a colony and build you a dozen OPs, you'd also get banned.

If you had a friend be your conquer and spam your enemies while they can't force relocate your friend away, that's also against the rules.

Gray areas are up to the admin to arbitrate, not you.

You cannot arbitrate a grey area. Therefore unless its completely obvious in the form of confessions or proven technically with IP linkages etc, even what an admin does is subject to arbitration, which makes bans for these violations invalid.

You can, and the link was proven... and even underlined when JD conquered him. That 1 crystal cost him his squads.

Conquering or taking a crystal is not worth anything. Not even as proof. And what link was proven? Nothing was proven.

Even if nothing was proven by that action, despite it being proven, Avi explained exactly what they did to Seth on skype. Admitting the wrongdoing.

The fact is, the link was proven because the admin can check the events... i.e. When the colony was created, when he joined, when he was kicked, when he lost his crystal. Those events paints the chain of events of his single-use "slave" nature and for that the admin dispensed justice.

Avi explained what we did. That is not admitting any wrongdoing, cuz it was not wrongdoing in the first place. The sequence of evens that you talk about is true, but not a violation. The single-use colony, is part of the strategy we used, and its something allowed by the game.

So is having friends setup spammers for you, or slave colonies building dozens of OPs for you... yet they are illegal. Get over it.

We did not have friends set up spammers or get people to build outposts. We got a guy to build gates for us and gated in Africa. That is still not a violation.

Well... actually you did setup people to build you OPs. GF alliance? Dees being banned? Remember?

The gate thing is just as bad if not worse.