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
    It shows what? That i agree with the server owner? Yes, i do, if id come in, read the OP and agreed with the OP, id have said so. I took the server owners side, because i agree with whoever it is, not because he is a server owner. Having server owner next to my name make no difference what so ever. Id have said the same thing if id had 'Spudgun' next to my name.

    Beleive it or not, am i a competent enough human being to think about situations and come to my own conclusions. You may be a sheep my freind, but i am not, i was brought up to make my own decisions.
    Though I do not like ROE rules are rules, and one rule is you can destroy commanders assets. So you agreeing is completely wrong but you still stick to it? and Sheep? honestly...I'm am a wolf in sheep's clothing my friend. If your not a sheep and make your own decisions can you please let me encourage you to decide to know when to keep your opinions to yourself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Deliverance
    what is the name of your servers??

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Why are you telling me why you got banned. No offence but this has nothing to do with my original post. Any why the double post?

    Leave a comment:


  • Maxor127
    replied
    Re: Banned

    I've gotten banned twice in one week. The first time was when the other team was accusing me of hacking and I just said no I'm not, you guys just suck, and I just kept massacring people. I was in a tank... the offered no real resistance... it was pitiful and I wasn't even trying... but they banned me for fake reasons like "teamkilling" and stuff. It was on the Reciprocity Clan server. So that was amusing. Then they banned my brother for defending me and saying I wasn't hacking. They were like "how do you hit people all the time and how do you know where they are? and I said um... it's called aiming and UAV. I think they were just pissed they were getting owned though.

    So then I'm playing on another server for some =USR= clan just because my brothers are on it. It's Wake Island, which I hate. I join late in the game and our team is about to lose the last flag and lose. So next game starts, and I do good. Not as good as I'd like, but I finished at around 60-14 maybe. The game was pretty much filled with my brothers, a few random people and a bunch of USR guys. The USR guys are all mostly on the other team and they liked driving in groups of tanks. I don't know what was up with them. They pretty much sucked but had uncanny accuracy with anti-tank rockets. But we kicked their asses anyways, and then the next map loads and right it finishes loading I get a message saying I was kicked because of admin decision, or excessive teamkilling, or a succesful vote kick. So I just laughed and said whatever and told my brother. Then he asked why did they kick me, and they banned him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by VeNoM:[AK]
    If you come in and argue with someone with a issue and immediatly take the server owners side like you, well that shows something dont you think?
    It shows what? That i agree with the server owner? Yes, i do, if id come in, read the OP and agreed with the OP, id have said so. I took the server owners side, because i agree with whoever it is, not because he is a server owner. Having server owner next to my name make no difference what so ever. Id have said the same thing if id had 'Spudgun' next to my name.

    Beleive it or not, am i a competent enough human being to think about situations and come to my own conclusions. You may be a sheep my freind, but i am not, i was brought up to make my own decisions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris_Redfield
    replied
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by GSG9xSNIPER
    So, If any admin BANS a player for attacking commanders assets are in violation of the BFROE and should be reported as such.
    Yes, I think so.


    How many nades does it take to blow the assets radar/trailer?
    Holy cr@p, a lot I think! :laugh:

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by Chris_Redfield
    Correct, because commander utilities are a teams advantage that are designed to be under fire. Or else they would have been invincible. And as such, if someone wants to kill those asets by lobbing nades at it, by all means, they are allowed (By the ROE) to do so.

    So, If any admin BANS a player for attacking commanders assets are in violation of the BFROE and should be reported as such.


    How many nades does it take to blow the assets radar/trailer?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris_Redfield
    replied
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by GSG9xSNIPER

    From what I've read this rule reads: Admins can make no attacking NON CAPS, but admins cannot make a rule regarding attacking commanders assets within the NON CAP.
    Correct, because commander utilities are a teams advantage that are designed to be under fire. Or else they would have been invincible. And as such, if someone wants to kill those asets by lobbing nades at it, by all means, they are allowed (By the ROE) to do so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned



    From what I've read this rule reads: Admins can make no attacking NON CAPS, but admins cannot make a rule regarding attacking commanders assets within the NON CAP.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Banned

    I like that, not being another number of the world. Maybe I used the wrong word, not demanded, expecting.
    If you come in and argue with someone with a issue and immediatly take the server owners side like you, well that shows something dont you think? I at least thought about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris_Redfield
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris_Redfield
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X