Vets with Zero rank hider nicks

Andon · Post by **Andon** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:51 am

I agree that a rule should be enforced as it was written, which happened. This does not mean that I agree with the rule itself.

I find it odd that people can't try to start over in the community. Who cares if some (#) can dogfight better than them? I know that plenty of them dogfight better than I do, and they are true newbies.

I can see some reason behind the rule - It puts tighter leashes on people that have been perma-banned. If you can tell someone is a vet in a #, you can then either link it or ban them, which helps prevent the bad apples from getting back into the game and ruining things. However, if a banned player truly wanted back in the game, they will either give themselves away, as people will be able to know them, or they'll be able to stealth it and have no one the wiser. Having this rule in place doesn't change that.

Perhaps some compromise could be reached. Maybe the Admins could allow people to re-start so long as they let them know and possibly have it require admin approval. Perhaps allow things like jucto's situation as long as the person tells an admin their reasons for not wanting the two comps linked.

I can see reasoning behind not letting people be able to start over at will, as it would just get tedious and ridiculous after a while. Pilot earns a name being a stacker, starts again, gets a rep for being a 'whiny noob' and starts again, gets rep for something else, starts again, etc. It also is an easy form of ban evasion - Just start over again, and your ban is overturned. Having players have free reign over it could be pretty bad, but, as long as the admins are willing, I think that something could be agreed upon

sambasti · Post by **sambasti** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:56 am

I think that's also the reason for the rule, ban circumvention and being able to stack. However, I do agree that juckto's situation is reasonable.

The only real solution I see is to implement a form of temporary ranks. However, this would be a pain to code and apply.

Your_Persona · Post by **Your_Persona** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:06 am

Or.. maybe our admins could just restrain from acting like pricks when they get pissed off that some (0) just killed them or whatever.

I see that BV disrupted someones gameplay who did nothing wrong. BV should get a ban for runing someones game.

Rules are to protect the community. not to protect the admins. Gives me the feeling of BV pulling the "For National Security" card, so he can just ack like a prick.

I used to love ya BV, but ever sense you got admin powah, seems like every few months you do something totally stupid.

ImmortalZ · Post by **ImmortalZ** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:20 am

Here we go again.

sambasti · Post by **sambasti** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:21 am

Wow, who knew a single vet on a friend's computer could generate so much drama?

fuzzylunkin1 · Post by **fuzzylunkin1** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:24 am

When we're put at the top, we do stupid things every now and then. Even if this was stupid, give him a break.

BV's not going to make exceptions to a rule that many others want to break. Juckto should've played his cards differently.

EDIT:
XT is back.

EdDaalleg · Post by **EdDaalleg** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:36 am

I think the reason has more to do with everyone using HELO to balance games (even though no one actually believes HELO represents skill). Skilled players could just make a new 0 every week and stack like hell. ie. Spidey, nuke and Brood all make new 0's and I com. Knowing this I "graciously" take 3 0's on my team. Both teams apparently have the same HELO but I have 2 vets (one of which will back seat me to victory) and one Val Kilmer while the other guy actually has 0's on his team. The rules aren't to prevent you getting your ass handed to you in DM, they're to keep some semblance of balance.

I think a year ban is a little heavy-handed and maybe Juck could have been given more time to explain, but the general rule is fair.

CronoDroid · Post by **CronoDroid** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:42 am

Yeah from what I read it seems like juckto was just asking whether he could log-off and stop playing rather than linking his account. But I wouldn't know.

notjarvis · Post by **notjarvis** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:35 am

sambasti wrote:QUOTE (sambasti @ Dec 31 2008, 05:56 AM) I think that's also the reason for the rule, ban circumvention and being able to stack. However, I do agree that juckto's situation is reasonable.

The only real solution I see is to implement a form of temporary ranks. However, this would be a pain to code and apply.

Nah - the solution was there - link the accounts - TE can unlink them later if necessary.

SP4WN · Post by **SP4WN** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:40 am

Wow, all these posts and not one Lulz at IBs. Thats a pure thread winner right there.