Jump to content


Ban me?


  • Please log in to reply
124 replies to this topic

BrassFire #81 Posted Dec 06 2017 - 20:08

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 2842 battles
  • 1,670
  • [1_DIV] 1_DIV
  • Member since:
    10-28-2016

View PostXxXxMaximusxXxX, on Dec 06 2017 - 05:29, said:

So I was banned for a day because some idiot decided he wanted my position on the map, he tried to push me off when I didnt budge he shot me twice, so I killed his tank. You should consider adding a system if a friendly shoots you more than once you should be able to shoot them without penalty. I would never kill a friendly unless provoked....With that being said, its not wise to ban players who spend a lot of money on your game. If I decide to go to another game, that's thousands of dollars you will lose a year..don't bite the hand that feeds.

 

Paying money shouldn't put you above the rules. That, my friend, is called pay to win.

StiffWind #82 Posted Dec 06 2017 - 20:28

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 13802 battles
  • 2,054
  • Member since:
    03-15-2017

View PostMarkd73, on Dec 06 2017 - 16:05, said:

 

False equivalency fallacy.  So you say that two wrongs make a right? Is that your position?

 

The rules stat - Don't shoot green tanks ever. If you do it enough then a system with automatically give sanctions for breaking the rules. How is this not fair in every sense of the word?

 

This is entirely EBKAC for the OP.

 

You need a remedial course in reading comprehension.  Specifically, the part you even took the time to underline.  Perhaps read it again and again, until it sinks in.  Hint:  Focus your attention on the capitalized word "NOT".

 



cadejrob345 #83 Posted Dec 06 2017 - 22:17

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 17172 battles
  • 59
  • [WONKA] WONKA
  • Member since:
    02-04-2016
Dude you actually bought the feast........................SMH

strenfoo #84 Posted Dec 06 2017 - 23:02

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 12425 battles
  • 1,256
  • Member since:
    08-15-2015
First rule of WoT: don't shoot the green tanks

sparango #85 Posted Dec 06 2017 - 23:30

    Captain

  • Players
  • 46067 battles
  • 1,225
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    07-13-2013
Op reminds me of these guys who drive expensive cars and think they own the road.

Crimson_Saber #86 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 00:35

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 12936 battles
  • 473
  • Member since:
    04-23-2016

View Postcadejrob345, on Dec 06 2017 - 15:17, said:

Dude you actually bought the feast........................SMH

 

Hey he's keeping the servers alive.. I think? Anyway I will never understand players like OP with a chip on their shoulder, and swagger in like they're in a freaking B action movie from the 80's. Toss that ghetto/barrio crap out the door when you play this game. It's just a game. If someone wants to be trolley, and mess with you so what. Doesn't imply you're any less of a man (lolz) just means you're more mature. Shrug it off then move on to the next game. That easy. You shoot a team mate you pay the price doesn't matter who started it. It's not rocket science.

Edited by Crimson_Saber, Dec 07 2017 - 00:36.


Muscoe #87 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 02:49

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 19834 battles
  • 22
  • [_FAM_] _FAM_
  • Member since:
    10-01-2014
oof youre special

Edited by Is_This_The_Krusty_Krab, Dec 07 2017 - 03:00.


EmperorJuliusCaesar #88 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 03:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 26953 battles
  • 3,923
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View Postdir32jd, on Dec 05 2017 - 20:37, said:

how could you spend $1000 a YEAR? 

I buy premium tanks sure but you just started playing not to long about 2 months ago.. in that short amount of time you knew you would love this game enough to spend that much? or did you just throw about $900 of that on the Feast package without knowing?

 

Hmmm, did his old account get banned for cheating?  Using illegal mods doesn't help everyone to the same degree. He pretty much just outed himself.  Watch his play, I ran into him just the other day, I remember his name bc it's close to my old name before I changed it(same account though).



EmperorJuliusCaesar #89 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 03:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 26953 battles
  • 3,923
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View Postdavehsir, on Dec 05 2017 - 23:13, said:

View Postdir32jd, on Dec 06 2017 - 00:04, said:

 

seems like a win win for WG.

they get his money no matter what

He can just chargeback his money and get every penny

 

The company gets to appeal that disputed transaction and keep their transaction.  Show that he violated the TOS and why he wants his money back and the transaction was legal and they can keep their money.



GonnaBBQU #90 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 05:14

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 42411 battles
  • 294
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

View PostXxXxMaximusxXxX, on Dec 06 2017 - 04:29, said:

So I was banned for a day because some idiot decided he wanted my position on the map, he tried to push me off when I didnt budge he shot me twice, so I killed his tank. You should consider adding a system if a friendly shoots you more than once you should be able to shoot them without penalty. I would never kill a friendly unless provoked....With that being said, its not wise to ban players who spend a lot of money on your game. If I decide to go to another game, that's thousands of dollars you will lose a year..don't bite the hand that feeds.

 

You are outright lying......You dont get banned for 24 hours for killing one friendly...Only way that happens is if you kill friendlies on a regular basis..so take your lies and tears elsewhere...

Markd73 #91 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 17:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 29417 battles
  • 4,219
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostStiffWind, on Dec 06 2017 - 19:28, said:

 

You need a remedial course in reading comprehension.  Specifically, the part you even took the time to underline.  Perhaps read it again and again, until it sinks in.  Hint:  Focus your attention on the capitalized word "NOT".

 

 

You really don't get it do you?

 

You tried to equate the OP being incorrect with somehow it being equally the fault of WG. I am not the one who needs a remedial course in reading comprehension. You need a course in logical fallacies. I swear kids need to be able to pass a 101 critical thinking skills course before they are allowed to graduate High School.

 

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1]


Edited by Markd73, Dec 07 2017 - 17:56.


sparango #92 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 20:57

    Captain

  • Players
  • 46067 battles
  • 1,225
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    07-13-2013

View PostMarkd73, on Dec 07 2017 - 08:55, said:

 

You really don't get it do you?

 

You tried to equate the OP being incorrect with somehow it being equally the fault of WG. I am not the one who needs a remedial course in reading comprehension. You need a course in logical fallacies. I swear kids need to be able to pass a 101 critical thinking skills course before they are allowed to graduate High School.

 

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1]

And here come the grammer queens



StiffWind #93 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 23:31

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 13802 battles
  • 2,054
  • Member since:
    03-15-2017

View PostMarkd73, on Dec 07 2017 - 17:55, said:

 

You really don't get it do you?

 

You tried to equate the OP being incorrect with somehow it being equally the fault of WG. I am not the one who needs a remedial course in reading comprehension. You need a course in logical fallacies. I swear kids need to be able to pass a 101 critical thinking skills course before they are allowed to graduate High School.

 

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1]

 

Believe it or not, I so wish you knew what you were talking about.

 

Let's try some examples.  If a company creates a playground for kids to play on, and a kid trips over something and injures themselves, the company is liable and can be sued.  It doesn't matter if the company has you sign some form of release from liability...they can still be sued.  (Companies would very much like you to believe you can't sue them.)  This is WoTs playground, and if crap like this isn't taken care of by WoT, they are responsible in just the same fashion.  This is not just a legalism...it is also a reality.  Only they have the power to change things and clean this situation/trend up...therefor, by default, they are responsible for it.  It's their game for crying out loud!  Another example...suppose somebody shoots me, but doesn't kill me.  Then, when it appears he's going to shoot again, I shoot and kill him.  According to you, I should go to jail.  Fortunately for me, the law disagrees with you.  It's called "self-defense".  Even if it looks like he's not going to shoot again, but I still shoot him (so it's not self-defense), my punishment in a court of law will be much less than his.  I don't even think it's the same charge that I'd be brought up on, because it was "aggravated"...legalese for "he started it".  Now try to apply these concepts here...please!


 

 


Edited by StiffWind, Dec 07 2017 - 23:45.


Seth_VonLiopod #94 Posted Dec 08 2017 - 00:22

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 14659 battles
  • 409
  • Member since:
    02-10-2012
This dude was spouting all sorts of bigotry. Being sometimes too thin-skinned for my own good, I turned around and just shot him in his arseface.
He, of course, shot me back and--to my delight--turned blue! I was free to kill him with no guilt and much self-righteousness. 
Lesson: Only shoot blues and bigots. WG's software detects bigots. True story.

edit: Second bonus lesson: shooting bigots dead gives them *more* time to type awful stuff, not less.

Edited by Seth_VonLiopod, Dec 08 2017 - 00:25.


TankFullOfBourbon #95 Posted Dec 08 2017 - 01:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 24865 battles
  • 5,629
  • [DHO6] DHO6
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013
Give me one thousand dollars and I'll set you up with a game to play. 

ArmorStorm #96 Posted Dec 08 2017 - 03:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 34496 battles
  • 7,449
  • [F__R] F__R
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostStiffWind, on Dec 07 2017 - 16:31, said:

 

Believe it or not, I so wish you knew what you were talking about.

 

Let's try some examples.  If a company creates a playground for kids to play on, and a kid trips over something and injures themselves, the company is liable and can be sued.  It doesn't matter if the company has you sign some form of release from liability...they can still be sued.  (Companies would very much like you to believe you can't sue them.)  This is WoTs playground, and if crap like this isn't taken care of by WoT, they are responsible in just the same fashion.  This is not just a legalism...it is also a reality.  Only they have the power to change things and clean this situation/trend up...therefor, by default, they are responsible for it.  It's their game for crying out loud!  Another example...suppose somebody shoots me, but doesn't kill me.  Then, when it appears he's going to shoot again, I shoot and kill him.  According to you, I should go to jail.  Fortunately for me, the law disagrees with you.  It's called "self-defense".  Even if it looks like he's not going to shoot again, but I still shoot him (so it's not self-defense), my punishment in a court of law will be much less than his.  I don't even think it's the same charge that I'd be brought up on, because it was "aggravated"...legalese for "he started it".  Now try to apply these concepts here...please!


 

 

 

You may or may not be correct about responsibility, but your imaginary pixel tanks are not afforded the “right to self-defense”. 

StiffWind #97 Posted Dec 08 2017 - 03:42

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 13802 battles
  • 2,054
  • Member since:
    03-15-2017

View PostArmorStorm, on Dec 08 2017 - 03:35, said:

 

You may or may not be correct about responsibility, but your imaginary pixel tanks are not afforded the “right to self-defense”.

 

No they are not...but this does not abrogate WoTs responsibility to clean up the mess they made.  Hence, partly the OPs fault, and part WoTs fault...as I've already indicated.  But as this trend continues to get worse, WoT bears an increasing percentage of responsibility for it.


 



TsarCidron #98 Posted Dec 08 2017 - 04:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 6743 battles
  • 7,725
  • [RAIDM] RAIDM
  • Member since:
    03-16-2012

So, basically, you are saying that you want special rules because you spend money.  Alot of money, in your opinion.   Something like the following

--Spend from 0-500 -- you cant team kill, even if provoked

--Spend from 501 -1000 -- you cant teamkill unless provoked with one stray shot

--Spend 1000+  -- you can teamkill if provoked

 

Spend more?  teamkill even if not provoked??   Right.. not gonna happen.  Dream on.  You get the same rules that the rest of us get.  You cant buy special rules!!  What happens if you meet someone that has spent more and he decides to kill you??  Battle of the budgets?!



Shammalammadingdong #99 Posted Dec 08 2017 - 05:40

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 29834 battles
  • 542
  • [SBS] SBS
  • Member since:
    06-13-2011

View PostXxXxMaximusxXxX, on Dec 05 2017 - 21:29, said:

So I was banned for a day because some idiot decided he wanted my position on the map, he tried to push me off when I didnt budge he shot me twice, so I killed his tank. You should consider adding a system if a friendly shoots you more than once you should be able to shoot them without penalty. I would never kill a friendly unless provoked....With that being said, its not wise to ban players who spend a lot of money on your game. If I decide to go to another game, that's thousands of dollars you will lose a year..don't bite the hand that feeds.

 

Your logic is a little flawed with regard to WG's stance.  The account they value is the one that's going to spend money on premiums and premium time, not the one that won't.  You've bought almost every premium already, therefore, they don't care if you never come back to the store.  They've already got your money.

Zeedox #100 Posted Dec 08 2017 - 12:12

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 16652 battles
  • 715
  • [TURDS] TURDS
  • Member since:
    10-09-2011

View Postsparango, on Dec 07 2017 - 15:57, said:

And here come the grammer queens

 

Actually this is a logic argument, not a grammer problem.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users