Obviously those caught cheating during a planned battle should be swiftly punished. I can understand that people are wary of going to battle with any suspected user of that client. It seems harsh to punish people before the crime is actually committed though. There are plenty of legitimate uses that enrich the server of this client, by making building easier for example, and a precedent even endorsed by an admin for not punishing to extremely for this.

This really just draws attention to the client, and isn't a permanent solution. Additionally, SOME NATIONS will be left entirely defenseless during that month, making this seem like a politically motivated proposal. In any case, you may see people leave when their territories are conquered with no chance of defending them during that month. That doesn't seem like a desirable outcome to me.

If this is to pass, it should be amended such that those suspected may not engage in aggressive actions, but may join in defensive battles and wars.

Those engaging in planned battles should have enough respect for their enemies not to cheat (it simply ruins the fun and misses the point of planned battles), and perhaps a nation would have valid reason to decline an otherwise legitimate war declaration for suspected malicious cheating, or at least bar those specific players suspected of cheating maliciously during planned battles from joining in the war. — Sikandar 2013/04/02 18:16

Limiting this would actually make sense in some cases. But I don't see how this is promoting hacked clients, since most of the players already know about them - which doesn't mean that they use them. I'd rather like to discourage people from using such things and that's why I proposed it. — Enton 2013/04/02 19:09

People don't pay nearly as much attention as you'd think. It may not promote it but it draws attention to it. — Sikandar 2013/04/02 19:15

ofcourse the cheater votes no X–DDD