New Ban Suggestions

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:49 am

First off, there was no booting involved.

Second, it is precisely related to the subject of this thread because if the original poster had his way, I would have been banned for doing what I did. I posted this to illustrate once again how idiotic an idea the original post contained.

Third, he was not hostaging exactly, because only a couple of people called for him to step down. However it was clear from the mutiny vote that nobody wanted him to be the comm. Also, at least 2 experienced vets on all chat asked to be comm and he said, unequivocally, NO!

sambasti · Post by **sambasti** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:51 am

Like I said, you didn't do anything wrong.

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:02 am

Of course I did nothing wrong. But if you read the original post, this is what it says:

PrivateerM wrote:QUOTE (PrivateerM @ Oct 27 2008, 09:40 AM) I suggest if someone mutinies then posts a resign within the first five minutes of gameplay a ban is issued.

I also suggest that if the commander is mutinied within the first five minutes of gameplay and there were no grounds(ie by a SY with opening money or something stupid) for the mutiny, that penalities also be issued.

Clearly under an idiotic rule such as this one, I would have been banned.

CronoDroid · Post by **CronoDroid** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:57 am

Actually, if you read the entire thread instead of merely quoting out of context, you would realise that what you did had very little to do with privateer's point.

madpeople · Post by **madpeople** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:16 am

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Nov 3 2008, 01:14 AM) FYI I did this today. newb comm wouldn't give it up. I said on all chat from noat that we should just join and mutiny. I joined, he had AA on, I mutinied and gave comm to a more experienced guy who them resigned and started over. The next game was actually decent, since both coms were decent.

Then it is not what we are talknig about

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Nov 3 2008, 04:49 AM) Second, it is precisely related to the subject of this thread

No it isn't.

If someone else offered to comm instead of them then it isn't what htis therad is about.

This thread is about bans for people who mutiny newbs who offered to not comm, but did comm because no one else wanted to / no one objected.

If they refused to give up comm when asked, then under these proposals, you would not get banned.

privateerm · Post by **privateerm** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:03 pm

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Nov 3 2008, 02:02 AM) Of course I did nothing wrong. But if you read the original post, this is what it says:

Clearly under an idiotic rule such as this one, I would have been banned.

Clearly I didn't intend to have bans issued to people who would take a hostage com out, but certainly I want those with authority to fell like they can do something about a problem. I'll take your word for it that the mutiny that you did was beneficial to the game you played, but the interpretation of 'beneficial' by the rest of this community (as seen in this post) varies quite significantly from not letting a voob who has failed before to a (6) who does not have experience but wants some play when offered the opportunity to do so.

Don't like the wording of the suggested law, revise it and make another suggestion, because thats all that this was, a suggestion.

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:02 pm

My suggestion is not to add a law because it is completely unnecessary and retarded. Mutiny occurs by majority vote. If the majority of your team doesn't want you to be comm, you shouldn't. Other circumstances are irrelevant.

QUOTE Actually, if you read the entire thread instead of merely quoting out of context, you would realise that what you did had very little to do with privateer's point.[/quote]

How in gods name is that out of context? I quoted exactly what he said, and my quotation of that portion did not change the meaning at all. It is very much in context, go take a look at the original post.

I also have read the thread, where he attempts to justify these idiotic suggestions by pointing to some cases where he thought abuses occured. But I found no evidence of such abuses posted in the form of logs or even eyewitness testimony of actual events without supporting logs.

QUOTE If someone else offered to comm instead of them then it isn't what htis therad is about.

This thread is about bans for people who mutiny newbs who offered to not comm, but did comm because no one else wanted to / no one objected.[/quote]

I'd like you to post some logs with examples where this actually happened in a game before which no one offered to take comm. I have yet to witness such an example.

I contend that your proposal is a solution to a non-existent problem, which would serve only to harrass legitimate commanders trying to improve the game.

Archangelus · Post by **Archangelus** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:52 pm

We need more popcorn.

TeeJ · Post by **TeeJ** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:59 pm

madpeople · Post by **madpeople** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:14 pm

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Nov 3 2008, 04:02 PM) My suggestion is not to add a law because it is completely unnecessary and retarded. Mutiny occurs by majority vote. If the majority of your team doesn't want you to be comm, you shouldn't. Other circumstances are irrelevant.

Then they should have asked for comm before the game started instead of secretly plotting to mutiny as soon as the game starts.

[before the game:]
IF YOU DON'T WANT SOME ONE TO COMM, ASK THEM TO GIVE IT TO YOU.
If they don't, then you can do what you want with them

where the $%&! is my clue bat?