587 replies to this topic

[Triordinant]

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, on 11 May 2015 - 06:55 PM, said:

You aren't significant enough to be targeted.

If you're replying to someone so "insignificant", what does that make you?

[ICEFANG13]

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, on 11 May 2015 - 06:54 PM, said:

Assuming good faith after repeated evidence of bad faith is foolish. Adopting a 'more constructive' mindset in face of evidence of repeated and unrepentant abuse of consumer rights is foolish.

As I said, it's good to provide the evidence to support your claim. I will completely admit I have no proof they are telling the truth, but since you have your stance, and you have generated it, you should be able to provide proof that they are banning people incorrectly in a specific and orderly way.

Although I do remember when they lifted the bans on so many people, to try and, "clear the air," so to speak.

I am willing to admit that you are correct if you can provide significant proof to support your position.

[Mustafa Kemal Ataturk]

I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that if you were a member of a successful, controversial unit like NKVA, you would be doing the same when repeated abuses against your guildmates happened.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, on 11 May 2015 - 07:00 PM, said:

repeated abuses against your guildmates happened.

please explain, provide proof of.

[ICEFANG13]

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, on 11 May 2015 - 07:00 PM, said:

I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that if you were a member of a successful, controversial unit like NKVA, you would be doing the same when repeated abuses against your guildmates happened.

That is strange, your words seem to indicate that you are perhaps annoyed or angry at someone and are lashing out at them? Me? This tends to indicate that you have no evidence to support your stance.

Why is your group so controversial?

[Mustafa Kemal Ataturk]

ICEFANG13, on 11 May 2015 - 06:59 PM, said:

As I said, it's good to provide the evidence to support your claim. I will completely admit I have no proof they are telling the truth, but since you have your stance, and you have generated it, you should be able to provide proof that they are banning people incorrectly in a specific and orderly way.

Although I do remember when they lifted the bans on so many people, to try and, "clear the air," so to speak.

I am willing to admit that you are correct if you can provide significant proof to support your position.

The burden of proof lies with those who lay charges, not with those who disagree.

[Mystere]

Tarring and feathering people, it seems humanity has not evolved much at all. <smh>

[IraqiWalker]

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, on 11 May 2015 - 06:54 PM, said:

Assuming good faith after repeated evidence of bad faith is foolish. Adopting a 'more constructive' mindset in face of evidence of repeated and unrepentant abuse of consumer rights is foolish.

The hell would you know about "evidence of bad faith"? You've been here since January. PGI has been on the up and up for most of this period. You weren't here for when PGI was just pushing release dates every other month or so. You weren't here when 3PV was put into the game without player consent.

Unless this is a smurf account, you REALLY shouldn't be talking about bad faith.

[Mustafa Kemal Ataturk]

I'm not going to sit here and disseminate the history of this unit to you all here. If you would like to know more, there is a wealth of information available on this board for you to process on your own time.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

IraqiWalker, on 11 May 2015 - 07:03 PM, said:

The hell would you know about "evidence of bad faith"? You've been here since January. PGI has been on the up and up for most of this period. You weren't here for when PGI was just pushing release dates every other month or so. You weren't here when 3PV was put into the game without player consent.

Unless this is a smurf account, you REALLY shouldn't be talking about bad faith.

He's alleging that PGI are repeatedly abusing his group. Id like to see proof of this

[Poisonfog]

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, on 11 May 2015 - 07:00 PM, said:

I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that if you were a member of a successful, controversial unit like NKVA, you would be doing the same when repeated abuses against your guildmates happened.

Not trying to pick a fight, but usually using a word like "controversial" to describe yourselves is not a plus. Seems like something you'd want to avoid really.

[ICEFANG13]

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, on 11 May 2015 - 07:03 PM, said:

The burden of proof lies with those who lay charges, not with those who disagree.

Actually you are laying charges, I admitted that I have no proof to support that PGI is telling the truth and completely agree that my position may be weak, which is why I was hoping you could supply proof to your charge that they are banning unfairly?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, on 11 May 2015 - 07:04 PM, said:

I'm not going to sit here and disseminate the history of this unit to you all here. If you would like to know more, there is a wealth of information available on this board for you to process on your own time.

ah, so the person alleging wrongdoing DOESNT need to provide proof. You just killed your own argument.

Friendly fire?

[Soy]

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Aww I killed it

[thinkn bout thos Beans mans game]

ICEFANG13, on 11 May 2015 - 07:05 PM, said:

Actually you are laying charges, I admitted that I have no proof to support that PGI is telling the truth and completely agree that my position may be weak, which is why I was hoping you could supply proof to your charge that they are banning unfairly?

That is the crux of the argument. I am asking for proof either for or against, directly from the agency involved in denying a customers right to access. That is all, nothing more or less.

Until proof is supplied, as a founder of this game, I will not trust this company.

[ICEFANG13]

Soy, on 11 May 2015 - 07:06 PM, said:

Nice shot Soy.

ilKhan Judge Dreddrensky, on 11 May 2015 - 07:08 PM, said:

That is the crux of the argument. I am asking for proof either for or against, directly from the agency involved in denying a customers right to access. That is all, nothing more or less.

Until proof is supplied, as a founder of this game, I will not trust this company.

This conversation has already occurred. We both have no proof, and we both have good reason to be distrustful, but as it is, it would be illogical to take that stance as it removes the point of this discussion.

Clarification: If they are lying, then this conversation is over, the game is going to die with actions like that. If they are truthful this conversation has merit. Therefore, the only logical stance to take in the face of no proof is to trust (innocent until proven guilty I suppose). If guilty, then there is nothing else to say.

Edited by ICEFANG13, 11 May 2015 - 07:11 PM.

[Mustafa Kemal Ataturk]

No, I have independently evaluated that, were I to spend my own time compiling evidence, it is very likely that you would still not identify the issue.

[Triordinant]

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, on 11 May 2015 - 07:03 PM, said:

The burden of proof lies with those who lay charges, not with those who disagree.

You charged PGI with banning someone for no good reason so the burden of proof lies with YOU.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

ilKhan Judge Dreddrensky, on 11 May 2015 - 07:08 PM, said:

, as a founder of this game, I will not trust this company.

lol you matter. you really do

Triordinant, on 11 May 2015 - 07:09 PM, said:

You charged PGI with banning someone for no good reason so the burden of proof lies with YOU.

Like I said, friendly fire