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 Deliverance
    Really? Because i had another one agree with me, the irony eh?

    Its nice to see your able to hold a debate without bringing out the insults and petty comments, real mature, you only re-iterate the vision that many people have of the stereotypical Bf2 player, well done. I congratulate you and thank you for making us all look like pr1cks.

    Maybe you should fork out for your own server, or actually try giving up some of your own time to admin a server before coming here, admitting to breaking a rule (right or wrong) then, in true stereotypical BF2 player style, going back and intentionally breaking the rules again, and complaining you got banned.

    I commend whoever it was who did it, and would freely shake their hand if i were ever to meet them. I would also do the same in banning you, if not for the original rule break, then for intentionally coming back and behaving like a moronic little child and intentionally breaking the rules again.

    Deliverence if you had a ROE admin agree with you, post the link here so I can see it. Im going to post mine shortly. and for your information I am a admin on a ranked server just to let you know. So post me the link and it better be a acual admin.:laugh:

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    dont go back to that server, **** those tards. If you wanna blow **** up go to a good server not some whiny bastards server. Dont support the noobs.
    I'm sick and tired of people saying o dont camp the uncaps, but camping and bombing the living **** out of a captureale flag. Well thats completely different. Go to a good server PM me if you want a few

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by stunt ridah
    I just wrote to a EA ranked server Roe admin. He agreed with me in his post. Im waiting for him to write back about 1 more thing and then I will post it here and this will all be behind us and finally Deliverence can close his big mouth.
    Really? Because i had another one agree with me, the irony eh?

    Its nice to see your able to hold a debate without bringing out the insults and petty comments, real mature, you only re-iterate the vision that many people have of the stereotypical Bf2 player, well done. I congratulate you and thank you for making us all look like pr1cks.

    Maybe you should fork out for your own server, or actually try giving up some of your own time to admin a server before coming here, admitting to breaking a rule (right or wrong) then, in true stereotypical BF2 player style, going back and intentionally breaking the rules again, and complaining you got banned.

    I commend whoever it was who did it, and would freely shake their hand if i were ever to meet them. I would also do the same in banning you, if not for the original rule break, then for intentionally coming back and behaving like a moronic little child and intentionally breaking the rules again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    I just wrote to a EA ranked server Roe admin. He agreed with me in his post. Im waiting for him to write back about 1 more thing and then I will post it here and this will all be behind us and finally Deliverence can close his big mouth.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by Jamez646
    I understood what you were tring to say from the begining. i'll agree,Thats a dumba$$ rule. But if it's in compliance with ROE then there's not much you can do. But come on here and complain. I always like to read the "WTF!! why was i banned" stories. I personally, would of went back in to the server and told the admins to go and give there dog another red rocket and then proceed to bomb the $hit out of the uncap untill they ban me.....But hey that's me.

    I understood you from the beginning Stunt. I also understood the "Note" in the example, The "Note" meaning This is part of the rule and not the examples.... Good argument from both sides. It was a good read and i learned something. It BreaksDown to, It's a DumbA$$ rule made by the admin. Reguardless if they understood the ROE or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    I'm waiting for IndianScout to come in!

    But if I was to sum all this up? I would say that stunt needs to just shut up, deal with the ban like it's not the end of the world, and play the game.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by Ghostrun

    The rule is clear. An admin, in additio to adhering to the above mentioned 2.3 and 2.3.1 areas of the RoE is able to enforce rules that prohibit the attacking of UCB's , examples given are by Artillery,Vehicle drops, bombing runs and Infantry attacks. Those are the given examples,obviously ,being only example's they can be expanded upon. However in brackets as a footnote it is clearly stated that attacks targeting commander assets are not prohibitable.Enforcing any rule that prohibts the destruction of Commander assets is against the ROE.It is not another example, This is clear by the brackets denonating it as a seperate conflicting statement to the previous examples.It is in brackets, with a NOTE so that admins can cleary see that enforcing such a rule is not allowed.

    There is no grey area here except for those that try and twist english to their own benefit.

    You are allowed to prohibit a player from using a plane to attack a UCB, you can prohibit a player from attacking a UCB with artillery, You cannot under any circumstance prohibit a player from attacking commander assets in any way He/she see's fit be it by plane arty or tank if he see's fit.
    Thank you that is exacly what im saying and half the people in this post cannot understand that, I dont know maybe its all the words. lol

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by Deliverance
    Jesus, did you not listen in your english lesson at school?

    I didnt miss that line at all, its in my post quite clearly. What you seem to be missing is the fact that it is contained within a 'sample' rule as part of that rule.

    This whole portion is a SAMPLE of a rule that a server CAN have. It also says that Server admins CAN modify rules. Which is the bit you dont quite get. Tell you what, ill leave out all the crap, and just quote the portions you are having trouble understanding.

    This is the bit which says server admins can change the rules, see, understand?



    This is the bit which says that the rules listed a) to g) are examples of rules that servers can have. Understand?



    And lastly, the one you seem obsessed with, and note the quote above, it is an EXAMPLE rule that a server CAN have. Ie a server CAN (if THEY want) say that you cannot attack red circles, but you can bomb assets.


    And lastly, the one you seem obsessed with, and note the quote above, it is an EXAMPLE rule that a server CAN have. Ie a server CAN (if THEY want) say that you cannot attack red circles, but you can bomb assets.

    Server Administrators may implement and enforce rules that result in minor changes to gameplay behaviour or styles as long as these are clearly stated before a player starts playing on a server. These rules typically introduce minor restrictions on how a certain aspect of the game can be used.

    Examples of such rules that are acceptable are:

    (a) Players may not use explicit, offensive or racist language in-game.

    (b) Players may not impersonate clan members or other server administrators.

    (c) Players may not deliberately performing actions that hinder their own team (such as last-minute team-swapping to increase scores or statistics, excessive team-killing, destroying friendly vehicles, attacking team-mates,

    deliberately placing themselves in a situation so they cause another player to team-kill them, using a vehicle while being the Commander that prevents them from performing any Commander functions (jet, etc.) or placing vehicles to block their own runways.

    (d) Making attacks on enemy main bases (flags that cannot be captured), including artillery strikes, vehicle drops to block runways, bombing runs with aircraft or sustained infantry attacks. (Note that specific attacks targeting the enemy commander’s asset buildings are always allowed, even if they are within the enemy main base.)





    Equally, they CAN (if they want) say that you cannot attack red circles at all, including bombing assets.

    Do you understand NOW? Or do we really need to get IndianScout in here?

    Rules are pretty clear.

    Server Admins are able to induct and enforce rules that alter gameplay in a minor way.

    Making attacks on an enemies base including : artillery strikes, vehicle drops to block runways, bombing runs with aircraft or sustained infantry attacks.

    An admin can enforce such a rule provided

    A : 2.3.1 Disallowed “In-House” Ranked Server Rules

    Server Administrators may not implement or enforce server rules on ranked servers that prohibit players from using any roles, kits, weapons, vehicles or other features of the game while playing on their server. Examples of such rules that would violate the conditions of use are:

    B: 2.3 “In-House” Ranked Server Rules

    Public Ranked Servers and Private rented clan servers may introduce custom rules that apply only to their servers and which result in minor changes to gameplay. These “in-house” rules are allowed as long as they do not violate the conditions of use of a ranked server as determined by DICE and EA and as long as they are explicitly announced in the server description or on the loading screen, so that players joining the server are aware of them before they start playing.

    The rule in question, does not exist in example in the RoE. It is however answered here:

    (d) Making attacks on enemy main bases (flags that cannot be captured), including artillery strikes, vehicle drops to block runways, bombing runs with aircraft or sustained infantry attacks. (Note that specific attacks targeting the enemy commander’s asset buildings are always allowed, even if they are within the enemy main base.)

    The rule is clear. An admin, in additio to adhering to the above mentioned 2.3 and 2.3.1 areas of the RoE is able to enforce rules that prohibit the attacking of UCB's , examples given are by Artillery,Vehicle drops, bombing runs and Infantry attacks. Those are the given examples,obviously ,being only example's they can be expanded upon. However in brackets as a footnote it is clearly stated that attacks targeting commander assets are not prohibitable.Enforcing any rule that prohibts the destruction of Commander assets is against the ROE.It is not another example, This is clear by the brackets denonating it as a seperate conflicting statement to the previous examples.It is in brackets, with a NOTE so that admins can cleary see that enforcing such a rule is not allowed.

    There is no grey area here except for those that try and twist english to their own benefit.

    You are allowed to prohibit a player from using a plane to attack a UCB, you can prohibit a player from attacking a UCB with artillery, You cannot under any circumstance prohibit a player from attacking commander assets in any way He/she see's fit be it by plane arty or tank if he see's fit.

    Commander assets are not Uncappable bases,they are commander assets,they are situated away from spawn points in such a way that they are safe to attack by any means without hindering the spawning of the opposing forces.Blowing up an asset is helpful to your team, and results in a team score for yourself,regardless of how you go about doing it.In fact several maps feature enemy assets that are not in red circles, Arty on Oman and Dragon for example,also the UAV and Sat are not in uncap bases on Dragon valley for the US either, because again they are a seperate gaemplay element than uncappable bases.

    Preventing a player from doing so is violating the Admin's ROE. Doesn't matter how you twist or what cry me a river I pay for this server BS an admin wants to offer as an argument.





    That said,most servers and admins don't care about the RoE so it's kinda a moot argument.

    Leave a comment:


  • Roger Smith
    replied
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by Deliverance
    An admins job is hard enough having to deal with cheaters, stat padders, and general smacktards to have to also deal with those who choose to ignore perfectly legal rules because they misguidedly beleive that the admin/server is not allowed to have that rule.
    oh screw off you power hungery bastard. aside from cheating, stat padding, exploiting, uncap spawncamping and smacktards; there is absolutly nothing that admins should be able to impose uppon its players, epscially something like using a plane to blow up assets. sure the roe condones ****ty adminning, but should it? no! and admins be ****ty? hell no! so to sum it up, just because the roe is a certain way, doesnt mean it should be!

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Stunt, When you login to a server and see rules listed, you should obey them...period....or disconnect!! My server (Disintegration) has several rules that are posted upon login and also messages scroll to remind players. Also we advertise our rules on our website that explain the in-house rules in detail. There is no excuse on our server. There are gray areas as far as uncap base raping goes for different servers. Like on ours you can bomb uncaps only if you have all flags and you CAN take out Sufrace to Air targets but we tell people to stay away in general without all flags because people abuse it if you let them do things sometimes. The rule works well and people love our server because of our rules. They get used to them after awhile and realize it makes the gameplay much better. MY suggestion to you, like many others here is to find a server with rules you like. No sense in getting all bitter about it. There are tons of servers out there and you only need to really find 1 you like to be happy in this game....

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by stunt ridah
    Whatever man all this bickering is childish, I think when they are talking about what server admins can change and then they say always allowed that tells me they cannot change that specific rule because its always allowed.
    Maybe it is, i find bad mouthing admins, and perfectly legitimate decisions because your unable to comprehend a simple portion of the English language somewhat childish. An admins job is hard enough having to deal with cheaters, stat padders, and general smacktards to have to also deal with those who choose to ignore perfectly legal rules because they misguidedly beleive that the admin/server is not allowed to have that rule.

    You still dont understand that that is a SAMPLE, and EXAMPLE, a POSSIBLE rule that a server can have. They dont have to have it, but they can if they wish. They can also then modify that rule as they see fit, providing it doesnt contravene any other portion of the RoE and is stated on loading and/or ingame.

    I see complaints all the time on this board about how people are unfairly kicked, or they feel wronged (like yours for example) and more often than not, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why that person was kicked/banned, but the other side rarely gets told. Im sticking up for the admins here. I dont even know what server u went on, nor do i care, but i can garuntee you that whose ever it was would be replying exactly as i have.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by Deliverance
    You dont get it do you? Do u really think the hundreds of servers out there with exactly that rule would have rules like that if they werent allowed? If you exclude all the K/P servers, the vast majority abide to the RoE by the letter, ours included. We are perfectly entitled to have such a rule, as has been clarified by RoE staff in the past. Seriously man, read that whole section of the RoE, then read it again, hell, get someone else to read it and ask them what they think it means. The portion you seem intent on jibbering on about is an 'example' of a rule a server 'may' (or may not) have.

    They werent wrong to ban you, they were perfectly entitled to, and many other, perfectly legitimate admins, who know the RoE very well would have done the same.
    Whatever man all this bickering is childish, I think when they are talking about what server admins can change and then they say always allowed that tells me they cannot change that specific rule because its always allowed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by stunt ridah
    I dont know, thats all it would have taken. Also if one person wanted to fly against me I would have been to busy to bomb assets. But they were wrong to ban me, as it states in ROE bombing runs specificly targeting enemy commanders assets are always allowed. That means server admins are not allowed to change that rule.
    You dont get it do you? Do u really think the hundreds of servers out there with exactly that rule would have rules like that if they werent allowed? If you exclude all the K/P servers, the vast majority abide to the RoE by the letter, ours included. We are perfectly entitled to have such a rule, as has been clarified by RoE staff in the past. Seriously man, read that whole section of the RoE, then read it again, hell, get someone else to read it and ask them what they think it means. The portion you seem intent on jibbering on about is an 'example' of a rule a server 'may' (or may not) have.

    They werent wrong to ban you, they were perfectly entitled to, and many other, perfectly legitimate admins, who know the RoE very well would have done the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Ya i know the whole thing is agravating I rarly use planes at all. I have over 500 hours played and about 15 hours or so logged in aircraft and half that in helos. But when I do fly and there are no ground targets to bomb and no one to shoot down then I like helping my team out by making sure the enemy has no assets.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by stunt ridah
    I dont know, thats all it would have taken. Also if one person wanted to fly against me I would have been to busy to bomb assets. But they were wrong to ban me, as it states in ROE bombing runs specificly targeting enemy commanders assets are always allowed. That means server admins are not allowed to change that rule.
    Good luck attempting to convince server admins you have a valid argument. Fact is, you're in the minority when it comes to using planes to take out enemy assets and you'd probably be better off finding another server to play on.

    RJ

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X