Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Banned

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

  • 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.

    Comment


    • 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 ...

      Comment


      • 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

        Comment


        • Re: Banned

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

          Comment


          • 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

            Comment


            • 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

              Comment


              • 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?

                Comment


                • 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.

                  Comment


                  • 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.

                    Comment


                    • 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.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Banned

                        Originally posted by Deliverance
                        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.
                        And thank god for that (no sarcasm). However, the problem arises when admins enforce their own interpretation of the rules which are more often than not in-line with neither the ROE nor their own rules. As being said, admins more of than not, exploit the loose nature of the BFROE in their own personal favour. Not in the favour of the majority of the server.

                        In this case, attacking an uncap was a direct hit against commander assets. Notice how ROE doesnt specify the kit nor the nature of an attack, which means that attacks are not limited to spec-ops kit.

                        Contrary to server providors/admins short-sighted nature and ignorace, Spec-Ops kit is not (only) "Commanderassetdestruction kit". C4 is not designed (only) for the destruction of commander assets. An example of C4 use is BF2 intro video, where actually, C4 is never seen being used against commander assets.

                        C4, spec-ops is a clever way for server providors/admins to silently enforce the "Infantry Only" attack mode on uncaps. But since ROE doesnt specify the attack means, by deliberately keeping it "open" and "loose", giving every player an option to attack the uncap with whatever means they got. Which may even incluse a knife.

                        This is of course the case where you can say that admins can too enforce a rule where they limit the kit and a vehicle used in an attack for a commander assets, but notice how the rule was written down? This is not a specification, this is an exception. An exception to the way the rule "no uncap attacks" is enforced.

                        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.
                        You know, cheating the stats system in its most popular ways goes through restriction. Restricting kits, weapons, vehicles and attack methods. So in a way, "no attacking uncaps" is actually stats cheating, be it legal or not. BFROE is set to limit admin abuse and server abuse aswell. Contrary to popular belief, if you rent a RANKED server, you host a system which does not belong to you. The stats system belongs to EA/DICE who have set restricting and enforcing rules using that system.

                        Personal interpretion doesnt make white/black into grey here, especially when this line here-

                        is an exception.

                        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?
                        But creating a "safe zone" for players, is creating them a stats advantage. They cannot be attacked, therefore they cannot lose in KDR and other stats. It IS fooling the stats system. Note, I am in favour of the rule myself, but I find it that admins abuse it more often than not for their own personal goals and needs. And the rule has several holes, which unfortunately server admins like you right now, make so apparent.

                        So we are SUPPOSED to run a server which doesnt allow cheating of the stats system, and we do not.
                        Creating a "safe zone" for people where they cannot be on the receiving end of a massiev assault when they have basically lost the game so that they wont lose in their stats (WLR, KDR, SPM, KPM to name a few), is cheating the stats system.

                        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.
                        Its limiting the use of a kit, vehicle and weaponry, which again is in contradiction of BFROE.

                        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.
                        You can get a yes or no answer, always.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Banned

                          This debate has been done to death, and as much as id love to continue, i really cant be arsed. Whether you like it or not, the RoE is the way it is. It provides players with an excuse to cry foul, and it provides admins with a means to defend those complaints. Is probably intetionally that way. We've had RoE staff look over our rule set in the past and given them the thumbs up if i recall correctly, so really, a player can complain all they like if they feel unjustly kicked. Christ, the incident which started this didnt even occur on our server!

                          The fact still remains, you wouldnt go on to a K/P server knowing what it was, then choose to whip out an assault rifle and expect not to be kicked. If you go on a K/P server, you know what your doing is deemed 'illegal', therefore you except the ruleset they have. If you dont like a servers rules, there are plenty of others out there. It so happens the 1000 odd members we have, and hundreds of regulars who come back everyday do like our rules. If you choose to beleive that they are wrong, so be it. If our rules were dodgy, and people didnt like them, we wouldnt have so many members or regulars, and we most certainly wouldnt have 4 servers, there would be no demand.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Banned

                            Not critisising your server nor your server rules. I personally like this ruleset the most-

                            "attack uncaps disallowed until all flags taken"

                            This serves as a goal for the opposing team to work for, so they get to fight for the "reward".

                            I also understand that an uncap may serve as a safe starting point for people to break back and attack, Ive seen teams win like that.

                            All Im saying is that admins personal inerpretation of the rule should be a case when they are on a receiving end and use their own quickly set up rules to supress the people beating them up. No ROE no rule should justify that kind of behaviour. Whether or not your server practices that, is not important for me.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Banned

                              Originally posted by 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?
                              I buy my own or play with wolf, in my opinion worng or not I dont think customs rules should be set. The game should be played if you can not handle aspects of the game and you have the money to dish out for a server go ahead. But for me I dont play in servers like that. I play in WOLF, my own AK servers and incognito gaming. Sometimes ctx for SF but they have no uncap killing rule also.

                              btw. I dont see any reason why I should be polite to someone like you, if you want respect earn it. Not whine and demand it with the little server owner tag.
                              btw stunt wanna find me at night go to WOLF US#1 see if im in there

                              Comment


                              • Re: Banned

                                Originally posted by VeNoM:[AK]
                                btw. I dont see any reason why I should be polite to someone like you, if you want respect earn it. Not whine and demand it with the little server owner tag.
                                lol, i havent 'demanded' anything, whether i had the server owner tag or not id be saying the same thing. And since when is having a discussion with someone 'whining'?

                                I dont want your respect, i have no need for it, but a little bit of common courtesy is generally seen as common sense by the vast majority of people in the world.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X