587 replies to this topic

[ICEFANG13]

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, on 11 May 2015 - 07:16 PM, said:

If questioning the intention behind a ban for 'cheating' immediately after the said banned player established their desire for a refund is trolling, then I am a troll.

Edited by ICEFANG13, 11 May 2015 - 07:29 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, on 11 May 2015 - 07:16 PM, said:

If questioning the intention behind a ban for 'cheating' immediately after the said banned player established their desire for a refund is trolling, then I am a troll.

You do know that refunding a 1000$ dollars or so won't really dent PGI, right? They're not hurting for money. Hell, I know they made at least 600 from the LCT-3V over the last week from the LCT giveaway thread alone.

The problem is that you're being a hypocrite. You accused PGi of something, and didn't provide proof for it, while also insisting that if an accusation is levied, there should be proof, and the burden is on the accuser.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

IraqiWalker, on 11 May 2015 - 07:20 PM, said:

The problem is that you're being a hypocrite. You accused PGi of something, and didn't provide proof for it, while also insisting that if an accusation is levied, there should be proof, and the burden is on the accuser.

[Kiiyor]

InnerSphereNews, on 11 May 2015 - 05:50 PM, said:

Going forward, all accounts that have been banned for cheating will have a 'Banned - Cheater' designation applied to their forum profile in place of their Group and Member Title.

Excellent.

I understand your hesitance in naming cheating players, but the downside of not doing so was that many of us (at least players I have spoken to about it) felt that your silence was tantamount to not addressing the issue.

This is a great step. If nothing else, the prospect of public acknowledgement might prove an effective deterrent.

Now, all we need is another tag for bad behavior bans - TK'ing, rude behavior etc. I think this falls into a similar category as above (though not as serious) where players feel as though their reports are falling into a black hole. Perhaps if there were some form of acknowledgement for that trespass also, other players would be more willing to report poor behavior. IMHO, this would benefit the community also.

[Poisonfog]

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, on 11 May 2015 - 07:16 PM, said:

If questioning the intention behind a ban for 'cheating' immediately after the said banned player established their desire for a refund is trolling, then I am a troll.

So... You're saying your dude got banned... because he asked for a refund? Am I correct in your meaning?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Kiiyor, on 11 May 2015 - 07:22 PM, said:

Now, all we need is another tag for bad behavior bans - TK'ing, rude behavior etc. I think this falls into a similar category as above (though not as serious) where players feel as though their reports are falling into a black hole. Perhaps if there were some form of acknowledgement for that trespass also, other players would be more willing to report poor behavior. IMHO, this would benefit the community also.

that sounds like a slippery slope argument lol

[thinkn bout thos Beans mans game]

How hard is it to understand that

1) Authoritative body does X
2) Population who are under Authoritative body question X
3) Authoritative body does not supply proof of support for X
4) Population is skeptical of X

[S204STi]

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, on 11 May 2015 - 07:19 PM, said:

Your opinions are all unimportant to me. The only thing I am interested in is PGI's response. If they wish to operate like this, they are losing money in the long term. The people posting here blindly in support of summary unexplained bans are the tiny minority of players.

*Summarily, I think, is the word you were looking for.

Hey while we're at it, did you guys see that documentary on how the CIA set up that whole 9/11 thing?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

ilKhan Judge Dreddrensky, on 11 May 2015 - 07:25 PM, said:

How hard is it to understand that

1) Authoritative body does X
2) Population of the group who someone got banned for cheating from under Authoritative body question X
3) Authoritative body does not supply proof of support for X
4) Population of the group who someone got banned for cheating from is skeptical of X

fixt

[IraqiWalker]

ilKhan Judge Dreddrensky, on 11 May 2015 - 07:25 PM, said:

How hard is it to understand that

1) Authoritative body does X
2) Population who are under Authoritative body question X
3) Authoritative body does not supply proof of support for X
4) Population is skeptical of X

THAT is easy to understand.

What's not easy to understand is:

1- why on earth should they share that information with you. They share information with the accused player.

2- Revealing HOW it's done will make it harder to detect it in the future. This is one of those simple cost/benefit decisions. It's too risky to do so.

[Mustafa Kemal Ataturk]

S204STi, on 11 May 2015 - 07:26 PM, said:

*Summarily, I think, is the word you were looking for.

Hey while we're at it, did you guys see that documentary on how the CIA set up that whole 9/11 thing?

Summarily is the adverbial of summary. A summary ban is performed summarily.

Edited by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, 11 May 2015 - 07:30 PM.

[Harvey Batchall Kerensky at Law]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 11 May 2015 - 07:18 PM, said:

Ive told you where to get your proof, but you guys are just trolling since your group got caught and punished.

While you're gleefully starting another smear campaign against NKVA without any evidence, I'll be here eagerly awaiting PGI's response. Considering the completely shady way they've handled things in the past, especially with our unit, I would be very surprised to see them do the responsible thing and clarify. Especially considering the direct timeline of chargeback request to this post.

I understand that it's satisfying when you and your friends are all high fiving each other when someone who you perceive as hurting your community is crucified, but considering the murkiness of the situation, it would be better if PGI recognized the situation and provided more clarity.

Yours in Christ,

MadWOPR

[thinkn bout thos Beans mans game]

IraqiWalker, on 11 May 2015 - 07:27 PM, said:

THAT is easy to understand.

What's not easy to understand is:

1- why on earth should they share that information with you. They share information with the accused player.

2- Revealing HOW it's done will make it harder to detect it in the future. This is one of those simple cost/benefit decisions. It's too risky to do so.

Let PGI say they have supplied the info with the accused and I will be satisfied

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

http://en.wikipedia....burden_of_proof

Quote

The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."

Like you did when you said PGI were picking on your group

[Kiiyor]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 11 May 2015 - 07:24 PM, said:

that sounds like a slippery slope argument lol

It does indeed!

One of the chief complaints i've had from newbie players though, was the generic acknowledgement of reporting trolling players. What was done after the reports? How often is any type of disciplinary action taken against TK'ers and the like? Is any action ever even taken?

I don't bother to report the majority of this behavior now, even for serial pests. I know it's rare, but I don't really want to wait for a match for a seeming eternity to be blasted to smithereens at the start of a match.

I've got a thicker skin than most for this sort of thing, especially chat abuse (smack talk BELONGS in competitive multiplayer) but there are those who shouldn't have to put up with having their experience sullied by poor behavior.

I think calling it out would be an effective deterrent.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

MadWOPR, on 11 May 2015 - 07:29 PM, said:

While you're gleefully starting another smear campaign against NKVA without any evidence

We've asked, repeatedly for the evidence, your friend wont provide it

[Thunder Child]

I was going to go watch a movie, but maybe I'll just get some popcorn and read the forums.

Seriously though, this is a great move. Cheaters are low life scum that need crutches to make themselves feel good.

I do get the whole "OMG, who is going to keep an eye on PGI and stop them from going overboard?!?!".
The answer is, you are. With your wallet. And your friends wallets. Seriously, if this game ever got into that state, people would leave. I am a Diehard BT fanboy, readily admitted, but if I ever thought they were doing something that underhanded, I would drop this game immediately. PGI are trying.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 11 May 2015 - 07:31 PM, said:

We've asked, repeatedly for the evidence, your friend wont provide it

While at the same time telling that accusers should provide evidence at PGI

[IraqiWalker]

ilKhan Judge Dreddrensky, on 11 May 2015 - 07:30 PM, said:

Let PGI say they have supplied the info with the accused and I will be satisfied

"Our current moderation policy is that we do not discuss the details of bans, suspensions, or warnings with anyone but the player in question."

#ReadingOP.


Literally in the OP, and stated multiple times by them.

[Superkingdac]

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, on 11 May 2015 - 07:16 PM, said:

If questioning the intention behind a ban for 'cheating' immediately after the said banned player established their desire for a refund is trolling, then I am a troll.

Or maybe said banned player isn't being honest with you regarding their "desire for refund" email... have they supplied you proof of said email with time stamps showing the time of submission X-referenced with the time of their ban? Maybe said player could provide you with evidence then you could provide it to us? It might strengthen your argument...