Jump to content


731


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

qpranger #1 Posted 04 February 2019 - 10:20 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 34837 battles
  • 5,514
  • [HAMMY] HAMMY
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013

As of now, you could still put this number on your tank when 1.4 comes out. 

Doubt many here would be keen to do so, but it is available and I am appalled.

Can we still make a difference and get WG to ban 731 before 1.4?



Dava_117 #2 Posted 04 February 2019 - 10:37 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 20900 battles
  • 4,049
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

Why banning numbers?

Numbers are just numbers, nothing more. Let them be!



MeetriX #3 Posted 04 February 2019 - 10:38 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 21428 battles
  • 3,080
  • [_ACE] _ACE
  • Member since:
    08-12-2012

USA accepted Japan's unconditional surrender and no one was charged.

Therefor the number is ok.



OIias_of_Sunhillow #4 Posted 04 February 2019 - 10:39 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 25305 battles
  • 3,013
  • Member since:
    07-20-2011

View PostDava_117, on 04 February 2019 - 09:37 PM, said:

Why banning numbers?

Numbers are just numbers, nothing more. Let them be!

 

73rd of January, Satan's birthday.

Rilleta #5 Posted 04 February 2019 - 10:43 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 17628 battles
  • 2,694
  • [ORDEM] ORDEM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

Unit 731.

 

In case someone is wondering...



Nishi_Kinuyo #6 Posted 04 February 2019 - 10:46 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 8137 battles
  • 5,106
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View PostRilleta, on 04 February 2019 - 10:43 PM, said:

Unit 731.

 

In case someone is wondering...

View PostMeetriX, on 04 February 2019 - 10:38 PM, said:

USA accepted Japan's unconditional surrender and no one was charged.

Therefor the number is ok.

This pretty much it seems, although it is a bit of a poor excuse.

View Postqpranger, on 04 February 2019 - 10:20 PM, said:

Doubt many here would be keen to do so, but it is available and I am appalled.

I might consider it for my Jap Heavies. :trollface:



zlaja031 #7 Posted 04 February 2019 - 10:52 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8855 battles
  • 384
  • [HR-VA] HR-VA
  • Member since:
    03-14-2012

View PostDava_117, on 04 February 2019 - 09:37 PM, said:

Why banning numbers?

Numbers are just numbers, nothing more. Let them be!

 

I don't get this either. It's like when people see Illuminati signs everywhere or Jesus. You see what you want to see. 

LordMuffin #8 Posted 04 February 2019 - 11:56 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 49210 battles
  • 11,790
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011
I think 320 should get banned.
Because Indian a in the US almost signed a bill that would change pi to 3.2.

Sirebellus #9 Posted 05 February 2019 - 12:13 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20810 battles
  • 750
  • Member since:
    02-04-2016

View PostOIias_of_Sunhillow, on 04 February 2019 - 10:39 PM, said:

 

73rd of January, Satan's birthday.

 

or 31st July if you are on the NA server

Rilleta #10 Posted 05 February 2019 - 12:21 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 17628 battles
  • 2,694
  • [ORDEM] ORDEM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

I believe... all numbers should be banned.

 

As you can see, adding them creates more problems than the ones it solves. In fact... it solves nothing. It adds nothing meaningful to the game. As it is a useless addition to the game but gives people another motive to grief about.

 

The good-looking sports automobile continues to have its exterior polished even further, though the engine remains inoperable.



Crasharr #11 Posted 05 February 2019 - 12:26 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 16672 battles
  • 155
  • [DGAH] DGAH
  • Member since:
    07-31-2013

View PostRilleta, on 04 February 2019 - 10:43 PM, said:

Unit 731.

 

In case someone is wondering...

 

The thing I'm wondering about is where did qpranger suddenly reappear from?

 

welcome back i guess!?



Dorander #12 Posted 05 February 2019 - 12:36 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 18688 battles
  • 3,646
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostRilleta, on 04 February 2019 - 09:43 PM, said:

Unit 731.

 

In case someone is wondering...

 

I was, thank you. I must admit that this thread has raised great consternation with me.

 

It's revealed that it's become significantly more difficult to tell if a hamster is being serious or not. I'm not sure if I'm getting old, if he has reached master baiter level, or if he's genuinely pointing out something inconsistent with Wargaming's rules.



Rilleta #13 Posted 05 February 2019 - 01:00 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 17628 battles
  • 2,694
  • [ORDEM] ORDEM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

View PostCrasharr, on 04 February 2019 - 11:26 PM, said:

 

The thing I'm wondering about is where did qpranger suddenly reappear from?

 

welcome back i guess!?

You commit a crime for which you must pay in time. Once that time is elapsed, you are inserted once again into the community from whence you came.

 

View PostDorander, on 04 February 2019 - 11:36 PM, said:

 

I was, thank you. I must admit that this thread has raised great consternation with me.

 

It's revealed that it's become significantly more difficult to tell if a hamster is being serious or not. I'm not sure if I'm getting old, if he has reached master baiter level, or if he's genuinely pointing out something inconsistent with Wargaming's rules.

 

I highlighted that which is correct. There is no "if" here.

Dorander #14 Posted 05 February 2019 - 01:18 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 18688 battles
  • 3,646
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostRilleta, on 05 February 2019 - 12:00 AM, said:

I highlighted that which is correct. There is no "if" here.

 

I suppose I could've expressed myself a little more clearly but the phrasing was for comedic effect. I am aware that there are examples where Wargaming's consistency leaves something to be desired.

 

There still remains an "if" there, the "if" of the former sentence. It's entirely possible to point out something genuinely problematic without genuinely considering it a problem. My doubt isn't with the veracity of the issue but with the intent of the poster, and I'll freely admit the issue is a halo-effect. Like the story of the hamster boy who cried wolf, it becomes more difficult to take someone seriously when previously they've provided you with a large dosis of in(s)anity.



Rilleta #15 Posted 05 February 2019 - 09:06 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 17628 battles
  • 2,694
  • [ORDEM] ORDEM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

View PostDorander, on 05 February 2019 - 12:18 AM, said:

 

I suppose I could've expressed myself a little more clearly but the phrasing was for comedic effect. I am aware that there are examples where Wargaming's consistency leaves something to be desired.

 

There still remains an "if" there, the "if" of the former sentence. It's entirely possible to point out something genuinely problematic without genuinely considering it a problem. My doubt isn't with the veracity of the issue but with the intent of the poster, and I'll freely admit the issue is a halo-effect. Like the story of the hamster boy who cried wolf, it becomes more difficult to take someone seriously when previously they've provided you with a large dosis of in(s)anity.

 

I completely understood.

 

I was trying to provide a comical take of my own as well ^^

 

Apologies if it sounded too arrogant.



SABAOTH #16 Posted 05 February 2019 - 09:11 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 40172 battles
  • 3,494
  • [-133-] -133-
  • Member since:
    08-28-2011

View Postqpranger, on 04 February 2019 - 10:20 PM, said:

As of now, you could still put this number on your tank when 1.4 comes out. 

Doubt many here would be keen to do so, but it is available and I am appalled.

Can we still make a difference and get WG to ban 731 before 1.4?

 

I read on a website that if you divide 731 by 7, 3 and 1 you will get the number of the illuminati.

 

 

Therefore WG is controlled by satanists and all those theories about mind control on the forums are true! :ohmy:



PayMore #17 Posted 05 February 2019 - 11:16 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 24403 battles
  • 198
  • Member since:
    05-24-2013
This is like there is no synagogues in this game but plenty of mosques. What are they trying to imply?

Rataplan #18 Posted 06 February 2019 - 12:37 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 17618 battles
  • 383
  • [USAW] USAW
  • Member since:
    06-09-2011

View PostDorander, on 05 February 2019 - 12:36 AM, said:

 

I was, thank you. I must admit that this thread has raised great consternation with me.

 

It's revealed that it's become significantly more difficult to tell if a hamster is being serious or not. I'm not sure if I'm getting old, if he has reached master baiter level, or if he's genuinely pointing out something inconsistent with Wargaming's rules.

 

He might be serious this time, but all I know is that my cracker mysteriously dissapeared since he's back.



juonimies #19 Posted 06 February 2019 - 06:41 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 45077 battles
  • 515
  • [KARJU] KARJU
  • Member since:
    07-04-2011

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 04 February 2019 - 09:46 PM, said:

I might consider it for my Jap Heavies. :trollface:

Cancer numbers for cancer vehicles. 



TheFluffyVehicle #20 Posted 06 February 2019 - 08:34 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 8824 battles
  • 49
  • [KISS-] KISS-
  • Member since:
    05-16-2016
I still find it silly 420 is banned. or 666 let people have their numbers. sometimes something is only offensive if you want it to be




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users