Quote:Perhaps, the reports about "sufficient/insufficient time" rained after Tunicle made a couple of precedents.
Very questionable precedents.

(01-22-2015, 12:43 AM)Sava Wrote: None of MY previous sanctions are in ANY way connected to bad timing. Good you have learnt not to do what you used to, maybe the timing issues reported by multiple other players will also be solved.

That's my point. Your point is because you did not do it before you cannot possibly be doing it now? Well you win that one as I cannot fathom out that level of logic.

Furthermore, there are few such sanctions at all, and all of them have different background (mainly abusing /setmsg). Whilst that may be true the one you keep dragging me into, for whatever reason, involves that. However, how does having lots of different causes of sanctions have any bearing. To most people having sanctions for many different things is slightly more problematic than just one thing. And what relevant is what you mainly get sanctioned for, just shows you are not learning to control whatever prompts the abuse.

Also, in the first sanction notice you interpreted ID's description as a part of ID's restrictions, which OBVIOUSLY falls out of the general practice. So because general practice is to ignore the wording means it cannot possibly be useful. Instead of picking each little variety why not look at the bigger picture, many players have reported many things that they feel are problematic. Add them up rather than trying to deconstruct each point and argue the tiny points.

Which puts both your competence and impartiality under question. Oh again dropping to the peronal insult level despite many posts suggesting why this is odd. Just out of curiosity were/are you the schoolground bully. You may question it however you want and even disagree with it but the words are fairly black and white. Than neither makes me incompetent or not impartial. Ignoring what is written because of common practice would be incompetent and showing lack of impartiality. I have no idea of your age or culture but I am used to a saying "two wrongs do not make a right."

Of course, it's all democratic and stuff. Aren't we now openly discussing the matter, after all? I guess the community can see that, considering the amount of posts they can probably decide a discussion or not. However, open discussion does not equal effective discussion, especially if part of the discussion appears more of an argument than discussing.

Oh, I guess, not. Because public can't post here. And because you'll shut my mouth if I try to expand this discussion.
Or when you run out of arguments. Oh missed that the previous was intended sarcasm or irony, public do not need to post here. You are not expanding the discussion fruitfully, you are ignoring what you do not want to hear and are trying to turn this in to some admin bias against yourself rather than just accepting many people are unhappy with you to the point reporting you. The admins are neutral, if you had not been reported we would not have had to consider it. We have not run out of arguments as this is not a discussion, refusing to accept what people are saying does not negate their points.

Bans?
Yes, I consider my server ban unfair. For obvious reasons. Sadly only obvious to you, which does not necessarily make it legitimate to consider unfair and as you forget before my time.
And I consider some of the Admins conduct unreasonable and unfair, too. Only on the grounds of not allowing what you want. In honesty I would rather end up with you annoyed than all the people who have reported you being annoyed, simple numbers. Again in your eyes it is admins vs. you, you are forgetting the reports are from players, many. Some may be unjustified, they probably end up in the bin so you never see those. But multiple reports from unlinked players is not a coincidence.

I was asked to provide an explanation of how accident with CGS base became possible in exchange for my unbanning. And?
Given the fact that I'm not much into IT or programming, that was a mockery. Not really germane to the personal vendetta you seem to have aimed at me but are you suggesting you traded information that was useless to get yourself unbanned?

Quote:Good you have learnt not to do what you used to, maybe the timing issues reported by multiple other players will also be solved.

Quote:So because general practice is to ignore the wording means it cannot possibly be useful.

Quote:Instead of picking each little variety why not look at the bigger picture, many players have reported many things that they feel are problematic. Add them up rather than trying to deconstruct each point and argue the tiny points.

Quote:Just out of curiosity were/are you the schoolground bully.

Quote:But multiple reports from unlinked players is not a coincidence

Quote:You seem to have no real desire to accept any accountability for your actions either for now or in the past.

(01-22-2015, 11:29 AM)Sava Wrote:

Quote:Good you have learnt not to do what you used to, maybe the timing issues reported by multiple other players will also be solved.

I already said that, according to admins, I didn't have timing issues in the past.

Quote:So because general practice is to ignore the wording means it cannot possibly be useful.

If you ignore certain VAGUE wording in general, and then use it against a specific player who in game made one of admin's buddies upset, it's a selective justice.

You are free to rewrite the rules and submit it to us if you have better ideas on how to word them. Im also not exactly sure what makes you think that 'Admin buddies' reported you and how that would be selective justice. You did something wrong (multiple times now) and you got slapped for it. I know thats its really easy to search for mistakes in the things others do, while ignoring what you yourself did wrong.

Quote:Instead of picking each little variety why not look at the bigger picture, many players have reported many things that they feel are problematic. Add them up rather than trying to deconstruct each point and argue the tiny points.

I am arguing on each point I feel strong in. To point out your bias/mistakes/double standards, whatever. As a collective body that produces "verdicts" and bases those on the server rules, you have to avoid such mistakes.

Thats the thing, you feel strong in points. That doesnt mean that you are, or that you argue because you are right.

Quote:Just out of curiosity were/are you the schoolground bully.

No, I wasn't.

Quote:But multiple reports from unlinked players is not a coincidence

As I've been told via PM yesterday, 4 of those reports on me were filled by a group of buddies.
But how does the number of reports matter, anyway? Since when players who rage about losing a fight, "RP cargo",
whatever are put in the first place?
In particular case with [XTF]-Nighthawk, I didn't just give player time to respond, I actually WAITED for him to respond.

Quote:You seem to have no real desire to accept any accountability for your actions either for now or in the past.

I accepted my pre-ban sanctions. Because they didn't fall out of line.
I am not saying that I am 100% right in this case, of course. But what I do say is that the Admin team isn't right for sure.

I already suggested either lifting sanctions, or making a compromise - I accept these sanctions, and the Admin team officially clarifies the 3.1 rule and uses the same approach to everyone.
Letter, seemingly, won't happen, because you need vague wording to target people for not-out-of-ordinary-gameplay when they made your buddies upset.

Quote:In particular case with [XTF]-Nighthawk, I didn't just give player time to respond, I actually WAITED for him to respond.

(01-22-2015, 12:03 PM)Sava Wrote: Do you ever give essential answers?
I'll be more brief.
All-in-all, you didn't clarify the rule despite we're arguing for sooo damn long.

First:

Quote:In particular case with [XTF]-Nighthawk, I didn't just give player time to respond, I actually WAITED for him to respond.

Second:
How much time is considered sufficient and for what ship types (you seem to "strengthen" your position, saying "especially in a battleship")?

(01-22-2015, 03:33 PM)Jansen Wrote: What should I clarify about a rule thats posted in the public parts of the forums? You can easily do that for yourself if you could bother to read. But I feel like a nice person today, so here for the extremely special people:

3.1 An attack is any hostile action that drains shields to less than 50%. -Definition of what counts as an attack
Saying "Engaging" is not sufficient - You need RP before you open fire
and aggressors are not allowed to destroy a ship before allowing sufficient time to respond. -You cant shoot at someone right after you started your RP/made your demand
If a player is attacked he has the right to defend himself regardless of who is attacking. -Obvious
Trading nanobots, shieldbatteries or other ammo and equipment during a fight is also considered taking an active role in the engagement. - Obvious

That was a hard one, wasnt it?

If you are looking for a 'I need X words before I can shoot' or 'I have to wait x seconds before I can shoot' then you wont get that, these things are different for every sanction, because the situations are completely different ones, there is for example a difference between the survivabilty of a Battleship - Transport and VHF - Transport encounter.

(01-22-2015, 05:53 PM)Sava Wrote:

(01-22-2015, 03:33 PM)Jansen Wrote: What should I clarify about a rule thats posted in the public parts of the forums? You can easily do that for yourself if you could bother to read. But I feel like a nice person today, so here for the extremely special people:

3.1 An attack is any hostile action that drains shields to less than 50%. -Definition of what counts as an attack
Saying "Engaging" is not sufficient - You need RP before you open fire
and aggressors are not allowed to destroy a ship before allowing sufficient time to respond. -You cant shoot at someone right after you started your RP/made your demand
If a player is attacked he has the right to defend himself regardless of who is attacking. -Obvious
Trading nanobots, shieldbatteries or other ammo and equipment during a fight is also considered taking an active role in the engagement. - Obvious

That was a hard one, wasnt it?

If you are looking for a 'I need X words before I can shoot' or 'I have to wait x seconds before I can shoot' then you wont get that, these things are different for every sanction, because the situations are completely different ones, there is for example a difference between the survivabilty of a Battleship - Transport and VHF - Transport encounter.

1. The rule states that I can not destroy ship before giving it enough time to respond. It doesn't say "can't shoot". Open your eyes. According to the rule, I can drain it to 1% after some justifiable verbal communication.

Yup, just that this isnt the case here.

2. How does the difference between survivability affect time, needed to respond?

Battleship = instant death with no chance to do anything at all

3. How is half a minute insufficient to type a response and start fulfilling my demand (i.e. paying or activating cruise engines)

It was less time that that.

4. How is 12 seconds insufficient time to start dodging in a fighter?

I dont see how that has anything to do with this sanction.

Jansen, I know the rules. Each and every of them that can affect me while playing here.

Yup, thats cool.