Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Banned

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by Chris_Redfield

    This settles the whole argument. Notice that its not an example of a rule, within a rule, but a description of a situation, of an action which is allowed at all times. This little line here makes it perfectly legal to attack the assets residing in the Uncap, no matter what the server rules state.

    While Stunt Ridah was acting against server rules (which is generally put- no attacking the uncaps) theres 2 issues. First, was there even such a rule displayed? If it wasnt, then enforcing the rule is illegal. Two, admins enforced the rule in a way which is contradicting the BFROE anyway.

    So, yes, admins acted against the BFROE, and you cated against admin rules. While you both are quilty, in different degree and levels, admins are more quilty. Simply because they enforced their rule while it was in a contradiction with BFROE.

    Prime example is K&P server rules. While you play with an assault rifle and you get banned, you acted against admins rules, however admins acted against BFROE. Its really that simple. No "usual" BS like "we pay, we play" does not work here because you are SUPPOSED to run the (ranked) server by the set rules.
    Thats your interpratation of the RoE, just as mine and at least one of the RoE staff's were different to your interpretation. The RoE is intentionally ambigious precisely to allow admins to set rules as they see fit. The RoE is in place to stop the cheating of the stats system, that is its sole intention. If an implemented rule doesnt create a stats imbalance then the RoE can be intepreted to either back that rule, or make it illegal. Thats the way it should be. If a server doesnt allow a player to gain a stats advantage over anyone else on any other server out there, really, what is the problem with that server having any rules they want?

    So we are SUPPOSED to run a server which doesnt allow cheating of the stats system, and we do not.

    To throw a further spanner in the works:


    That could mean that a server cannot stop someone attacking commander assets, it doesnt say you cant limit how it is to be done. We never stop anyone attacking commander assets, so long as they are spec ops.

    Again, the RoE are so amibigous, that even with a fairly specific question regarding something like this to an RoE staff member, you simply wont get a yes or no answer. Its like getting blood from a stone.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris_Redfield
    replied
    Re: Banned

    (Note that specific attacks targeting the enemy commander’s asset buildings are always allowed, even if they are within the enemy main base.)

    This settles the whole argument. Notice that its not an example of a rule, within a rule, but a description of a situation, of an action which is allowed at all times. This little line here makes it perfectly legal to attack the assets residing in the Uncap, no matter what the server rules state.

    While Stunt Ridah was acting against server rules (which is generally put- no attacking the uncaps) theres 2 issues. First, was there even such a rule displayed? If it wasnt, then enforcing the rule is illegal. Two, admins enforced the rule in a way which is contradicting the BFROE anyway.

    So, yes, admins acted against the BFROE, and you cated against admin rules. While you both are quilty, in different degree and levels, admins are more quilty. Simply because they enforced their rule while it was in a contradiction with BFROE.

    Prime example is K&P server rules. While you play with an assault rifle and you get banned, you acted against admins rules, however admins acted against BFROE. Its really that simple. No "usual" BS like "we pay, we play" does not work here because you are SUPPOSED to run the (ranked) server by the set rules.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by KoMeT*[NL]
    Because they mostly shoot and rules are rules a support guy has nothing do on the carrier the Spec Ops have four C-4'S if a Support guy could have been his slave then they would give the Spec Ops more C-4'S.. So Support guys aren't allowed on the carrier.

    And besided wouldn't it be rather annoying constantly having your essets destroyed? I guess the Support guy wouldn't die without shooting so he shoots back..
    Heck as a spec opps I've been baned for blowing up UAV and SAT do to "server rules" which seems to go againest ss1.6 of the ROE as it perty much makes the kit invalid.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by VeNoM:[AK]
    well im against many server owners since they are cowky sum bitchs like deliverance
    Way to go, even in the heat of the argument stunt ridah wasnt this rude.

    I assume, as u dont like server owners that you play solely on EA owned servers then?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by stunt ridah
    HeH nice. keep up the good work. Im just against the ones who kick and ban beacause they cant sefend their shiite


    we should game sometime lol
    Some admins r too strict- the ones that i dont like
    The admins that keep to the rules but dont overdo it- the ones that i like

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by VeNoM:[AK]
    well im against many server owners since they are cowky sum bitchs like deliverance
    HeH nice. keep up the good work. Im just against the ones who kick and ban beacause they cant sefend their shiite


    we should game sometime lol

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    well im against many server owners since they are cowky sum bitchs like deliverance

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    of course its his fault imaginary war is dangerous! he should either fix it and run or send a crate to do a mans job

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by stunt ridah
    I must apoligize to the BF2 community and any1 who acually took the time to read this. this has to be the most agravating and ussless thread ive read, and im almost sorry I started it. There were some good oipinions here well no there wasnt just a lot of fighting back and forth. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and mine and deliverences are obviously different. All over enemy assets. If you dont want them bombed hop in a plane and stop me, Hop in AA and stop me or fix the assets and get points.
    My last post in this thread ... LOL ... so what happens if someone repairs it, but it`s not repaired 100% so you see it on the mini-map that you can go again and try to take it out and you kill the guy repairing it!?! What then!?!
    I had to ask ... can`t just let it die like that ROFL ... I haven`t finished my popcorn yet watching this thread ... better than any movie LOL ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    I must apoligize to the BF2 community and any1 who acually took the time to read this. this has to be the most agravating and ussless thread ive read, and im almost sorry I started it. There were some good oipinions here well no there wasnt just a lot of fighting back and forth. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and mine and deliverences are obviously different. All over enemy assets. If you dont want them bombed hop in a plane and stop me, Hop in AA and stop me or fix the assets and get points.

    Leave a comment:


  • {USI}_DirTyDeeDs
    replied
    Re: Banned

    hehe you are wrong and I am right, nya nya nya nya nyaaa


    on a serious note, I stand by my interpretation as the correct one that EA intended to be adhered to.

    cheers

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by {USI}_DirTyDeeDs
    Deliverance is wrong, and you cannot blame him or any admin that is. The ROE is full of rules that can be interpreted differently, PERIOD.

    I suggest you both agree to disagree and get over it.
    We already did agree to disagree. And i know i said id leave this thread be, but you just contradicted yourself. You stated clearly i was wrong, yet go on to say how the RoE is full of rules which can be interpreted clearly. Therefore, neither of us are wrong (by your reckoning) He interprets it one way, i interpret it the other, just as the two people we spoke to about this interpreted in seperate ways, and they were involved in the writing of the RoE in the first place!

    Your right tho, the RoE is amibiguous. It is there to stop cheating of the stats system, not dictate how servers are run, or at least that was its original intention.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    thanks guys for giving some input. Some certain ppl here wanted to make this into a FU your wrong thread. I just wanted to get ppl opinion as to the unfair kick/ban Then certain ppl had to get me upset and make me keep going. I did not want to insult any1 but when you insist your right when youe not well maybe a tutor or something will help you guys read ROE

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by {USI}_DirTyDeeDs
    Deliverance is wrong, and you cannot blame him or any admin that is. The ROE is full of rules that can be interpreted differently, PERIOD.

    I suggest you both agree to disagree and get over it.

    MY interpretation
    lol out of 8 pages my friend ...you have said it most clearly of all...i would buy you a beer if i could

    Leave a comment:


  • {USI}_DirTyDeeDs
    replied
    Re: Banned

    Deliverance is wrong, and you cannot blame him or any admin that is. The ROE is full of rules that can be interpreted differently, PERIOD.

    I suggest you both agree to disagree and get over it.

    MY interpretation

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X