DELETE

[Sabru]

Nah, I'm a happy drinker.


Edit: Where'sy good buddy, Karlotta?

wow.... Garret is reaaaaaaaaaaally plastered.

Go Home Admin! you are drunk!

---

[n00bl3t]

I sense many more 1.2s in the future.

1.2 sanction for basic thread creation with a question requesting clarification about a rule just seems wrong.

It fits right in there with the majority of 1.2 sanctions I've seen though; draconian and counter-productive.

----------------------------------------------

The warning was decided upon due to overlook of the general negative attitude and behavior once you've made your return, the above is an example of what we've noticed over a week or so.

The warning wasn't for this thread fyi.

The warning was decided upon due to overlook of the general negative attitude and behavior once you've made your return, the above is an example of what we've noticed over a week or so.

The warning wasn't for this thread fyi.

.Really though, it doesn't really show that you've learned much if one of the first things we see from you again, seems to be a thread looking for the minimum time required before blowing someone out of the sky. This type of thing is what ticked folks off last time. Play nice.

So there's nothing wrong with making this thread?

---

Anything I say is not intended as offensive, and to try and deliberately misinterpret it as such would be an attempt at trolling via misrepresentation.

It's not a conspiracy, it's localised bias. They're not intelligent enough to form a conspiracy.

[Garrett Jax]

Where's Saronsen when you need him? It's time for a Spider-man thread.

---

[Savas]

He moved on to greener pastures.

Quite literally.

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=182593 Self-requested
Time left: (Permanent)

[Remnant]

Hey there folks, it appears there is some confusion about a recent player warning where this thread was mentioned. A fault in my own wording has brought people to believe that people can be warned just because they asked something regarding what this OP is all about. That is infact false. Stuff like this is perfectly fine, the Staff has no reason to kick down threads like these. After some re-evaluation, it appears that the warning in question was worded in a way which would bring conclusions like these, and I must apologize. It wasn't my intention for things to be perceived the way that they have.

I did make an edit onto the warning about ten minutes after it was posted to solidify what it was being issued for, although the example which came first (this thread) seems to have taken most of the spotlight.

The warning was intended for bringing to attention the continuation of a negative attitude. A thread such as this one is no reason to be warned for if it was made under good pretense.

[n00bl3t]

Hey there folks, it appears there is some confusion about a recent player warning where this thread was mentioned. A fault in my own wording has brought people to believe that people can be warned just because they asked something regarding what this OP is all about. That is infact false. Stuff like this is perfectly fine, the Staff has no reason to kick down threads like these. After some re-evaluation, it appears that the warning in question was worded in a way which would bring conclusions like these, and I must apologize. It wasn't my intention for things to be perceived the way that they have.

I did make an edit onto the warning about ten minutes after it was posted to solidify what it was being issued for, although the example which came first (this thread) seems to have taken most of the spotlight.

The warning was intended for bringing to attention the continuation of a negative attitude. A thread such as this one is no reason to be warned for if it was made under good pretense.

Good to hear!

---

Anything I say is not intended as offensive, and to try and deliberately misinterpret it as such would be an attempt at trolling via misrepresentation.

It's not a conspiracy, it's localised bias. They're not intelligent enough to form a conspiracy.

[farmerman]

Unfortunately for you, 12 seconds isn't enough time for the other party to respond.

How long is "enough time for the other party to respond. "?

That was 12 seconds from demand to kill message, mind you, not from demand to shooting. Depending on the ship combination, it could take a solid chunk of time to even have money for the piracy encounter, e.g. if one kept most money on a separate ship and had to drawcash.

As to how much exactly, first of all I'd say, the pirate should ask himself what the average response time for that ship has been before that. Add some seconds to account for money management calculations and possible movement of cash. Then if you aren't sure, think longer.

---

Faction info links: Samura Heavy Industries : LWB : Watchers

[Flash™]

You also have to consider what the transport did. A Battleship needs 1 second to destroy a transport. If they stopped the transport, and after being CDed, he continued to cruise, the pirate knows this won't go anywhere.

I've encountered many traders, who don't give a single....ya that, and charge cruise right after being told to stop. So in this case, if titanbot stopped a transport, and he didn't listen and charged cruise, I don't see how that is breaking any rules.

But then again, that's me assuming to what happened. I know Titanbot, we flew together, and he never pirates like this, so the transport did something to make Titanbot shoot him.

---

[SnakThree]

DELETE

---

[Thyrzul]

12 seconds are a lot of time.

---