About Fish case | Rule 6 breaking
(long read lol)
1. Rule 6
This is an post that works as analysis of the cases regarding
https://app.warera.io/article/699584b01190015c68b04798
Let's go straight to the point:
6. Taking Over and Misuse of State/Military unit assets
Political Take Overs (PTOs) are permitted, but misusing it to extract a country's resources for personal/another country's gain, to damage the country or to intentionally distort market conditions is a punishable offense, which will include fines, bans, and removal from government roles. This goes for Military Units as well.
The rule divides in 3 different situations that can lead to an sanction:
Taking over a country it's prohibited when:
A. Misusing and extracting country's resources/treasure for personal or another country's gain
B. To damage the country
C. Intentionally distort market conditions
The referenced cases must be analyzed strictly under Point A.
Using PTOs with the intent to damage the country is not equivalent to situations where the country is incidentally harmed as a byproduct of other actions. The distinction lies in demonstrable intent. Point B requires proof of purposeful action directed at harming national resources, not merely negative consequences arising from ordinary gameplay dynamics.
Most sanctioned cases fall under Point A because none of the involved users were found attempting to take control of the country with the objective of damaging its resources. The investigations did not establish malicious intent aimed at national sabotage, which is the threshold required for sanction under this letter.
I think users fall in an error when pointing depletion of treasure without one of the three points (A,B,C)
2. Analysis of each case individually
https://app.warera.io/country/6873d0ea1758b40e712b5f1c
https://app.warera.io/user/682af04d30641df5ab6a11e4
Admins determined that the 2 BTC bounty was intentionally structured to benefit a specific user. The decision to convict was based on three major factors:
First, It's not important that the bounty drained the tresure, but that a single user claimed 70.4% of the total bounty (250btc) and was directly linked to JackSparrow. Notably, this user stopped participating immediately after the bounty funds were exhausted, which strongly suggests the activity was bounty-oriented rather than organic
Second, screenshots provided clear evidence of bad faith in how the bounty was arranged in the country. The material shows prior coordination with the same user not belonging to the country, indicating the bounty was not a legitimate public incentive but a premeditated transfer of funds.
Third, subsequent battles didn't show activity of the supposed user.
Extra: This was the last battle this user started.
This case enters in POINT A of Rule 6.
https://app.warera.io/country/6873d0ea1758b40e712b5f16 & https://app.warera.io/country/6813b6d546e731854c7ac8b2
https://app.warera.io/user/6828fd2ff55f9440c284b6c8
After reviewing the case, the sequence of events suggests that the initial battle initiated by the user directly contributed to the liberation of the region. The user who claimed the majority of the bounty effectively secured the decisive victory, associated with a value of 20 BTC.
https://app.warera.io/battle/68b775898cb553cbc3114675
The subsequent battles were won in line with the active bounties placed on them, indicating that the incentives functioned as intended.
https://app.warera.io/battle/68b833e5c7fe8a1267a98832
https://app.warera.io/battle/68ba5639bb94ea3fd77bcc80
Additionally, users from the same organization claimed less than half of the total bounty allocated to the country. The bounty values themselves were relatively low, and there is no clear evidence that they were timed or structured in a way designed to exclusively benefit a specific individual, because as there's not 2 or 1 individual beneffited only in this case.
In the case of El Salvador at least 2.200btc were allocated from the own user pockets.
All battles were legitimate, only 160btc was deducted from the actual treasure.
BUT WAIT!, there's something different here, will tell later when we reach Vanuatu.
https://app.warera.io/country/6813b6d546e731854c7ac829 & https://app.warera.io/country/6813b6d546e731854c7ac8da
https://app.warera.io/user/68614632aaa7ab64e3073ecd
Admins determined that he was indeed benefiting someone with his bounties, will skip this one because he got caught that the ones he benefitted were his multies lol and banned.
https://app.warera.io/country/687eab339142f76907295e4e
https://app.warera.io/user/681521a5b0d146af892d3150
I couldn't found registry of Melistation setting up bounties, all the bounties put on these dates were claimed by random users.
Most weird battle was this:
https://app.warera.io/battle/68f0b6b6c4f2fcc5bb0dbc90
As one user claimed majority of the bounty, but doesn't hold any relations to Melistaiston.
Subsequents users who claimed the bounty were distributed equally.
I couldn't verify intentionality of helping another country/user in this case.
Depleting country treasure it's not against the rules if it's not related to rule 6.
Please, if you see any weird extra action report it.
https://app.warera.io/country/687eab339142f76907295e50
https://app.warera.io/user/6918d00192948e91cb307a9c
This seems like an proxy of Saudi Arabia to sabotage Turkey.
https://app.warera.io/battle/6971e2f191307f1d7c359904
While in the first battle one user captured a large portion of the bounty, the distribution was not exclusive. Multiple users also participated demonstrating that the incentive structure remained open and competitive. Importantly, the leader who placed the bounty actively fought in the battle using own resources, which weakens the claim that the bounty was created solely to enrich a specific participant.
Furthermore, the existence of a second battle outweighs the significance of the first when assessing intent.
https://app.warera.io/battle/6973f759518f68f4f18ef81e
Anyways, this case needs a deeper revisition from my part and any sanction will be announced, because of possible misuse.
Please, if you see any weird extra action report it.
https://app.warera.io/country/6873d0ea1758b40e712b5f2b
https://app.warera.io/user/68200224d6fa1e7f16759966 & https://app.warera.io/user/690d4156f333d67b0a443f70 & https://app.warera.io/user/6829331a234adef6db0f9365
The first battle was won and the user that took most of the bounty was an mercenary
https://app.warera.io/battle/6957e483b0732a2a650ed362
Second battle succefully used bounty to be won
https://app.warera.io/battle/69591f139d2a23af629085ea
Third battle was won without use of an significant bounty
https://app.warera.io/battle/695a84f49bd9761af71344ec
Forth battle was won, used bounty were effective
https://app.warera.io/battle/695bbc54d6589051ddd8e85e
Fifth battle was lost, all used bounties didn't benefit an user or country on particular
https://app.warera.io/battle/695e709515e487bcb55094dc
Subsequents battles were lost, users leave the country.
Depleting country treasure it's not against the rules if it's not related to rule 6.
Please, if you see any weird extra action report it.
https://app.warera.io/country/6813b6d546e731854c7ac88d
(multiple users)
The Warriors did not rely on bounty incentives to participate. The only bounties placed were 0.1, 0.2, and 0.5, issued by Milei.
All bounty rewards were distributed proportionally among the active fighters. There is no evidence of artificial activity or staged participation; the battles themselves were genuine and involved real engagement. The reward structure functioned as a standard incentive mechanism rather than a targeted transfer to any single participant.
https://app.warera.io/battle/693990271cb6666196c126d8
Depleting country treasure it's not against the rules if it's not related to rule 6.
Please, if you see any weird extra action report it.
https://app.warera.io/country/6873d0ea1758b40e712b5f37
https://app.warera.io/user/68f8dd7b6bece506c6cf21dd
https://app.warera.io/battle/691332a52ccd0cbb5742a008
Battle seems like an misuse of assets, badly planned.
Couldn't find correlation between users who took the bounty and the user that put it.
Depleting country treasure it's not against the rules if it's not related to rule 6.
https://app.warera.io/country/6813b6d546e731854c7ac8be
User doesn't exist, will skip because i can't punish him.
https://app.warera.io/country/6873d0ea1758b40e712b5f63
https://app.warera.io/user/6813b756efecdf9bab194ec7
After reviewing the user’s activity, the situation requires interpreting Rule A in context. While there isn’t a direct link showing the bounty was used to benefit individual players, the structure of the action shows it was intended to benefit Fiji as an entity.
At first the bounty appeared legitimate, but further analysis revealed that most of the funds used in that battle were tied to a planned redistribution: the bounty was placed to ensure the country would be liberated and immediately captured by Znarch. Even if the benefit was indirect, the purpose of the bounty was not neutral gameplay, as it functioned as a mechanism to transfer the territory to Fiji.
In my opinion this could lead to an sanction based both in Point A and Point B.
https://app.warera.io/country/683ddd2c24b5a2e114af15fa & https://app.warera.io/country/6813b6d546e731854c7ac82c
Regarding Nigeria, the situation mirrors the previously analyzed cases and is governed by the same reasoning and conclusions already outlined. The structural elements, incentive patterns, and participation dynamics replicate the earlier points.
The Philippines represents a different case entirely. It was reviewed and handled by another authority, and as such I am not in a position to provide a detailed explanation of that desition.
Discrepancies in ruling
Here we come back to El Salvador, in this case, Fish may be actually right.
Currently investigating the case.
NOTICE!
This does not close any current case, appeal, or suspicion. Users may still report other actions involving these individuals, and all ongoing appeals will continue to be reviewed.