Topic of booting: Clarification required

Zero_Falcon · Post by **Zero_Falcon** » Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:44 am

The following list is from the wiki article: http://www.freeallegiance.org/FAW/index.ph...boot_protection

The part about what commanders need to do appears to be mixed with the old rules.

raumvogel · Post by **raumvogel** » Sun Aug 09, 2009 7:47 am

So what's the problem? They still seem fair.

Zero_Falcon · Post by **Zero_Falcon** » Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:29 am

raumvogel wrote:QUOTE (raumvogel @ Aug 9 2009, 03:47 PM) So what's the problem? They still seem fair.

What confuses me is that the 'no warning is needed by the comm' and 'have warned on team chat' are in the same box.

notjarvis · Post by **notjarvis** » Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:50 am

Zero_Falcon wrote:QUOTE (Zero_Falcon @ Aug 9 2009, 10:29 AM) What confuses me is that the 'no warning is needed by the comm' and 'have warned on team chat' are in the same box.

It's saying if "they are spamming the chat, spewing obscenities" then you can boot without warning. But if they are acting against the team in game you have to warn them before booting that their actions are wrong.

Seems straightforward to me....

raumvogel · Post by **raumvogel** » Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:02 am

The three sentences on the left are individually relevant to the 3 on the right.

.1 L = .1 R

.2 L = .2 R

.3 L = .3 R

okies?

juckto · Post by **juckto** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:45 am

Better now?

Zero_Falcon · Post by **Zero_Falcon** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:06 am

raumvogel wrote:QUOTE (raumvogel @ Aug 9 2009, 06:02 PM) The three sentences on the left are individually relevant to the 3 on the right.

.1 L = .1 R

.2 L = .2 R

.3 L = .3 R

okies?

juckto wrote:QUOTE (juckto @ Aug 10 2009, 08:45 AM) Better now?

Yes, thx

Correct · Post by **Correct** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:25 am

Commanders' rights

You will not boot rampage. You will not boot resign. If your frustration with your team is such, resign or drop the comm. Poor skill is not an excuse for booting in a pickup game. You accepted him, you play with him.

This seems to go counter to everyone gets to play. Say for example the other team is up players and someone named for example staryfire is trying to join my team. Everyone gets to play says I have to accept him. Is poor skill okay when you are forced to accept him?

notjarvis · Post by **notjarvis** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:18 pm

Yes, but in the wiki entry zero pointed to at the start
QUOTE One final comment. Just like some players do not like to fly for certain commanders, commanders have the same right not to have certain VET players not fly for them. Same thing applies here. If BlackViper sees a consistent pattern of abuse he will deal with it. Everyone makes their own reputations here. Live with yours.[/quote]

Gothmog · Post by **Gothmog** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:11 pm

notjarvis wrote:QUOTE (notjarvis @ Aug 9 2009, 02:50 AM) It's saying if "they are spamming the chat, spewing obscenities" then you can boot without warning. But if they are acting against the team in game you have to warn them before booting that their actions are wrong.

Seems straightforward to me....

I think a loose interpretation of the rules followed by sound judgement, when applied, is all that's needed to stay in the spirit of this. Sure newbs spam, but tell them to stop before booting... On the other hand, if you have a 0 about to go into an aleph in a frigate that you spent 15 minutes mining for against hvy ints... you could boot without warning (since they are clueless and you've obviously made it clear you dont want anyone to go into that aleph, etc). Or maybe that idiot voob pilot that flies his pod to your SB when you know someone is following him...

*cough*