BV did you frack with my callsigns?
Oh, I understand what your doing with the ident and callsign jive, im just saying take all the crap that you stuck under callsign and toss it in Ident, and then create an actual callsign column in the callsign table and call it good. We actually did a little exersise on normalizing that demonstrated how fast space is taken up when you have poorly normalized db's <.<
I don't see any reason why someone (Pook, probably) should have to go out of their way to change a system that works well right now. Especially when it would be a very controversial change.
I don't really see why you should get more than one callsign at a time. It would certainly help commanders if giving a boot to squadless players meant that they would have to sit one game out. This is the reason that there are so many restrictions on booting in the first place.
I don't really see why you should get more than one callsign at a time. It would certainly help commanders if giving a boot to squadless players meant that they would have to sit one game out. This is the reason that there are so many restrictions on booting in the first place.
Im not saying Pook should change his DB structure (however abysmal it may or may not be - it would be a pain in the ass to convert it over), I was just responding to YP's question /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />
All I care about is getting rid of arbitrary constrictions to the # of callsigns a person could have. And I think a reasonable tradeoff would be limiting each callsign to a unique email address to prevent people from registering 10 at once (unless they have 10 emails or something, which most people dont - registering new hotmail addresses is a pain).
All I care about is getting rid of arbitrary constrictions to the # of callsigns a person could have. And I think a reasonable tradeoff would be limiting each callsign to a unique email address to prevent people from registering 10 at once (unless they have 10 emails or something, which most people dont - registering new hotmail addresses is a pain).
-
- Posts: 3052
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:00 am
I think this is probably a big misconception. As I understand it, there are only two big restrictions:Lykourgos wrote:QUOTE (Lykourgos @ Nov 16 2007, 02:14 AM) ...so many restrictions on booting in the first place.
1) don't boot resign.
2) don't boot newbies.
Pretty much everyone who does #1 knows they are being a complete asshat, so the ban is well deserved and should be expected.
As for #2, there are a few exceptions that allow you to boot newbies and get away with it, so it's not even that strict of a rule.
Other than that, there are a couple of fuzzy rules like "no boot on sight" and "no retaliatory booting" which are so obviously and blatantly asshatery that again, bannination should be well expected and deserved. Even then, it's going to be pretty difficult for somebody to catch you doing it unless you announce to the world that you are being an asshat.
Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no authority on these matters.
"You give my regards to St. Peter. Or, whoever has his job, but in hell!"
- - - -
- - - -