TOPIC:

I am currently playing Server 1, against two others, one of which a player called "Quoy", i started a year after Quoy did and managed to beat his income allowing us to directly compete against each other. My main line (a loop filing at both ends) what not under scrutiny, only my 2nd line, also a loop, but intending to be for monorail (whenever that comes in, date when constructing the 2nd line 1997).
So the 2nd line, i place a 14 station wide base, intending to fully utilise all tracks, given the proposed track length of each train to be 5 tiles long. This base allows for two coal mines to be used. Now given that i can easily take resources from each coal if i built a longer station (since the server alows trains/stations of 20 tiles long/wide), which apparently does not contravene the rules, i apparently am breaking the rules if i get both coal mines via a width based station!

I enclose 3 pictures.

I deleted the base station to prove my point in regard to the length.
The Admin was Dodger007.

I have also included the conversation.

Now tell me off if it is a rule break, but if not, Dodger007, you'll owe me an apology.

Commodore

1st pic = How i was going to utilise the station, i really can't see how this is breqaking the rules!
2nd Pic = How the admin wants it, which goes against their own guidelines
3rd Pic = Conversation.

Conclusion:

If taking resources from a length based station is not considered spreading explain how a width based station is!

It's considered spreading, because it's unnecessary use of stations. The single reason for using that kind of station is to reach both coal mines. Which makes it spreading.

However, if you use longer trains, you need a longer station, which is why dodger's example is not spreading.

I dispute the reasoning you've supplied,

Had i not had the money then i couldn't validate the need for such a large station in the beginning, thus should i have opted to build the track instead of utilising a station to begin with (which is how i usually do it) then expanded once the track had been finished. You could say that there were parts of the station that i wasn't intending to use, and that woud be your opinion as in actuality all parts of the station were used and are designed in a fashion to always be used.
However given this was not my main loop, but one being built in process, i still do not understand how you (and other admins) interpretation makes one rule for length based stations and another for width based ones.

I can appreciate that had i utilised extending station tiles (including those of different types) i would have no complaints to being investigated, but it should be plain to see that i was intending to use them all (and that was the case when the track loop was finished, albeit with two seperate stations instead of one) there were no instances of un-used stations both in design or it's use, therefore voiding this argument. Yes the trains were going to be 5 tiles long, but i fail to see how i should be penalised for this.

As far as i can tell what the issue is, is of interpretation of the rules. If the maximum length of a train is 20 tiles as per this server's settings, then the maximum width should also be 20 tiles! If we are to assume that all legimate width based stations are not allowed then just about everyone i've seen in my time on BTpro has broken this rule, if it were 2 tiles width or 20, it's the same argument.

I've enclosed 3 more screen shots to simplify:
Simplified Spreading: denotes the yellow box which is a replica of my original supposed "rule break", it also contains what is allowed in the red box.
Simplified Spreading 2: denotes how i usually accomplish a length based station to incorporate two or more resources, combined with a transfer station.
Simplified Spreading 3: denote what i think you believe is wrong with my original station, aka the blue box being used to extend coverage, as it's sole purpose. These extendeed station tiles contained within the blue box can not be used as a result i too would agree that this is a rule break.

Whereas my original 14 tile width station had all parts accessible, and thus is not breaking the rules. This can also be examined via viewing either 1stpic.jpg or Simplified Spreading.jpg

Hawky wrote: It's considered spreading, because it's unnecessary use of stations. The single reason for using that kind of station is to reach both coal mines. Which makes it spreading.

However, if you use longer trains, you need a longer station, which is why dodger's example is not spreading.

Basically my response is what he said, You have linked the stations to allow all good to be collected at ONE station had you used 2 separate stations there would be no problem.

As to your suggestion you should build a 20x20 station if you can service such as station with appropriately sized trains then by all means do it, else that to will be considered spreading, and just so you know I have argued with frank since day 1 about the 20x20 size I do not agree that any player will ever need a station of that size. The guidelines are not mine they are the rules, they are put in place to ensure fair play and fun play by all players.

And one last thing I do not care if your ranked 1 or 1000, whether or not you winning or losing matters little to me, any player using the BTpro servers has the right to request admin assistance, where possible it will be provided.

dodger007 wrote:

Hawky wrote: It's considered spreading, because it's unnecessary use of stations. The single reason for using that kind of station is to reach both coal mines. Which makes it spreading.

However, if you use longer trains, you need a longer station, which is why dodger's example is not spreading.

In which case, it is my view that you are both wrong. If the sole reason to justify a length based train is that it docks in a station which matches it's length. This would make a mockery of the rule, for all trains and stations can range from 1 tile to the max (in this case) of 20.

By highlighting that the 20 tile train is justified because of it's station which it must use. Then we could all make maximum stations to allow this to happen, this also gives rise to the notion that, given time, even 20x20 stations could be fully utilised if, some of those tracks were used as transfer stations (Providing of course they don't dare spread).

As for the rules, yes i can read, yes i understand, and yes i tend to both abide by and report those who abuse them and where necessary utilise the tools availiable to me so that we all play fair. This situtation though is to achieve clarity on how one type of situation is not universal given it's not identified to the level it needs to be. Hence this thread.

Whilst i've not asked for your motives or history, i thank you for supplying it. I would add that i took your advice at the time, and in the game at the time, to remove said rule break. But i did inform you that it would be addressed on BTPro. Whilst i can appreciate that two of you now tow the BTpro line of repeating the rhetoric of the rules, this still doesn't explain why my original station is considered to be a spreading attempt, when under the rules and settings of the server i had not done anything untoward. The loop had no trains on it, not was finished when Quoy reported it as a potential abuse of rule 7. I can only assume that the player in question wanted to disrupt my formidable expansion by getting me embroiled in an argument not fit for purpose on the limited chat system of the actual game. (other games are better suited to chat, and even IRC would be (No i won't be using that )). Surfice to say in the game, at the time i just heeded your advice, deleted the station and continued. Quoy to retire shortly after... go figure...

My problem is not with yourselves, but on why a width based station that can be fully accessed and populated (due to the 7 mill pa income at the time) constitutes as spreading, whilst a longer train justifies itself.