Jump to content


Watchout for dubious bans

ban

  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

Dorander #61 Posted 01 October 2018 - 07:10 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18669 battles
  • 3,222
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View Post250swb, on 30 September 2018 - 07:51 PM, said:

You know all these high falutine arguments about when 'this or that' happened are irrevelvant. You should be asking why the OP felt it important to justify his team kill and what is it about the game that encourages such scumbag opinions to flourish?

 

Irrelevant to you maybe, not to other people. Also congratulations on using an English word that's so obscure I had to look it up, that doesn't happen often. "Highfalutin" is now my new favourite word, especially since given its obscurity using it is pretty highfalutin :B.

 

If you want to talk about that go ahead but it's a pretty short discussion. Luckily nothing prevents you from doing it, we live in this weird world where we can have conversations about another topic as well, rather than one in which we must have another conversation instead.

 



jabster #62 Posted 01 October 2018 - 08:55 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12598 battles
  • 24,051
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostLethalWalou, on 30 September 2018 - 02:24 PM, said:

 

How does abandoning the old abused automated system proves that they are ignoring reports?

 

 

That sounds like a reason, yes. Now I'm interested, I don't know if you know, but could it be possible for them to hold the information of battle's in different forms than replays? As far as I understand, other type of games are able to, so they don't have to have recordings of incidents, they can look back to game log or whatever to see what happened. The technical bit is out of my field though so I can just ask if it would be possible

 

Still my point stands that since there just isn't proof of them ignoring the reports and currently only reason people are saying they ignore them is due to them not surfacing to public eyes and the general negativity and hate towards WG. This thread though is the proof that bans do happen. Conclusion is; no proof for them ignoring and some proof for them not ignoring. So logical thing to say is that they don't seem to be ignoring UC reports.

 

I don’t think anyone is saying that have proof of how WG changed their handling of UC reports but instead just saying that a reasonable assumption is that they no longer trigger automated bans.

 

That of course doesn’t mean that if you raise a ticket with a replay CS won’t use a player’s report history when deciding what action, if any, to take.

 

Edit: Having read a few of the other posts I should have made it clearer that when I said ignore UC reports I was referring to the automated system only.


Edited by jabster, 01 October 2018 - 09:00 AM.


Infektid #63 Posted 01 October 2018 - 09:07 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 41806 battles
  • 695
  • [3V] 3V
  • Member since:
    12-20-2011
On reading this one as to ask if the OP as a working brain cell.....

Xaltu #64 Posted 01 October 2018 - 08:48 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15727 battles
  • 116
  • [-AWF-] -AWF-
  • Member since:
    12-17-2016
Thought I would do a bit of maths in 35703 battles earned 112 Battle Buddies so that is 5600 battles without causing team damage. Being generous team damage is caused on the fiftieth battle a then I make it that team damage was caused for a minimum of 602 battles. My maths and thinking could be flawed though.

SuedKAT #65 Posted 02 October 2018 - 04:32 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12154 battles
  • 6,610
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-21-2014

View PostXaltu, on 01 October 2018 - 08:48 PM, said:

Thought I would do a bit of maths in 35703 battles earned 112 Battle Buddies so that is 5600 battles without causing team damage. Being generous team damage is caused on the fiftieth battle a then I make it that team damage was caused for a minimum of 602 battles. My maths and thinking could be flawed though.

 

What you fail to take into consideration is the fact that OP created his account in 2011 and the BB medals is quite a recent addition. 

 

 

That said this thread is beyond comical, the self denial of OP must be really strong, I mean otherwise he wouldn't come here and ridicule himself like this.



EdvinE20 #66 Posted 02 October 2018 - 05:55 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Community Contributor
  • 36084 battles
  • 892
  • [-AEG-] -AEG-
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011
Enjoy your ban.

Xaltu #67 Posted 02 October 2018 - 09:56 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15727 battles
  • 116
  • [-AWF-] -AWF-
  • Member since:
    12-17-2016

View PostSuedKAT, on 02 October 2018 - 03:32 AM, said:

 

What you fail to take into consideration is the fact that OP created his account in 2011 and the BB medals is quite a recent addition. 

...

 

I see, I did not know that being newer to the game.







Also tagged with ban

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users