Re: BF2 ROE Update realization... w00t
In a very direct response to you HKS. I would like you to explain how the ROE that I supposedly can't understand says the following on one line:
2.3.1 Disallowed “In-House” Ranked Server Rules:
(b) Preventing any players from using certain vehicles such as jets, helicopters or tanks.
Which unless I did not major in English Lit in College (oh wait I did) says in no uncertain terms such a rule would violate the ROE. I see no clause in the ROE or in the EULA defining a Commander to be anything other than a regular player in the game. Therefore, those of us who can read things in the proper context, understand it to be the way I read it.
... and the following in another section:
2.3.2 Allowed “In-House” Ranked Server Rules:
(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.
....
Now make a mental note that one line says you flat out can't have a rule like that, and the other says you can but only if it prevents a commander from performing any Commander functions. Are there Commander Guidelines written up anywhere defining what is constituted as having the capacity to perform the duties? No. So while they do conflict, the second is subjective and the first is definitive. Please stop trying to insult my intelligence by stating I can't read and understand it as it would appear I am taking it in context. I can make a valid argument for the way I read it and you can't. Perhaps you are the one who needs to work on your reading comprehension.
Originally posted by <<R2>>Capt.HKS
2.3.1 Disallowed “In-House” Ranked Server Rules:
(b) Preventing any players from using certain vehicles such as jets, helicopters or tanks.
Which unless I did not major in English Lit in College (oh wait I did) says in no uncertain terms such a rule would violate the ROE. I see no clause in the ROE or in the EULA defining a Commander to be anything other than a regular player in the game. Therefore, those of us who can read things in the proper context, understand it to be the way I read it.
... and the following in another section:
2.3.2 Allowed “In-House” Ranked Server Rules:
(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.
....
Now make a mental note that one line says you flat out can't have a rule like that, and the other says you can but only if it prevents a commander from performing any Commander functions. Are there Commander Guidelines written up anywhere defining what is constituted as having the capacity to perform the duties? No. So while they do conflict, the second is subjective and the first is definitive. Please stop trying to insult my intelligence by stating I can't read and understand it as it would appear I am taking it in context. I can make a valid argument for the way I read it and you can't. Perhaps you are the one who needs to work on your reading comprehension.
Comment