Jump to content


Photo

Question to Admin


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#26 Smallville

Smallville

    Seal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • XWIS Name: .

Posted 16 October 2009 - 11:29 AM

True , ive seen alot of flooding reports all of them was move to fair play, this one gets proven by Riz, i dunno maybe he has it in for me.

However, non of them were as smart as you to go blatantly admitting it with no remorse, rofl. Smart humor.

Suck eggs Isenheart you spastic loser.

Epic humor. :laugh:

Meh didn't see Riz his post. Redundant humor. ;/

#27 Isen

Isen

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 955 posts

Posted 16 October 2009 - 11:37 AM

However, non of them were as smart as you to go blatantly admitting it with no remorse, rofl. Smart humor.


Epic humor. :laugh:

Meh didn't see Riz his post. Redundant humor. ;/


Even if they did admit it, spamming is not cheating nobody has ever been banned for it, plenty of people could have been proven for it, no admin would do it though because its not a cheat report, except Riz it seems now because he wants to punish me because he does not like me.

I have allready apologised its not something i would do, i was mad because Alex kept spamming abuse throughout the game to me.

#28 Smallville

Smallville

    Seal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • XWIS Name: .

Posted 16 October 2009 - 11:56 AM

Even if they did admit it, spamming is not cheating nobody has ever been banned for it, plenty of people could have been proven for it, no admin would do it though because its not a cheat report, except Riz it seems now because he wants to punish me because he does not like me.

I have allready apologised its not something i would do, i was mad because Alex kept spamming abuse throughout the game to me.

You're not very bright are you? You could see flooding similar to flamming because it's harrasment however it's taken more lightly then cheats obviously but when you go blatantly admitting stuff.. **** happens.

My guess is, it has to do with the time, perhaps some history, mood of someone etc... like with Olaf.. sometimes banning people very quickly and other times not.. giving them chances etc ( which most of them fail to take anyway )

Scenario:
1 --> Hey noob --> instant ban
2 --> Hey nerd -> reply: be nice -> oke --> no ban
3 --> Hey retard -> be nice -> **** you -> ban

It's nothing personal.

#29 MewMyMuff

MewMyMuff

    Seal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 175 posts

Posted 16 October 2009 - 12:09 PM

And in how many other reports of flooding or spamming has the spammer confirmed that they did indeed do it?

To put it in context, freewins are awarded to give players the benefit of the doubt, but if in a wash report the washer freely admits to intentionally washing the game, it is instantly proven.


That is wrong. I've made reports in past about disconnecting with ss's that clearly show the person is admitting to intentionally disconnect. 'Sabotaging' connection is clearly in XWIS rules yet because points are awarded nothing is done. This includes the last report I made, which is a month old and nothing has been done by the way.

Riz I appreciate the work you have done over the years, but you do take things personally and are often a hypocrit when it comes to certain people that have poor reputations (such as Isen).

Like anyone with power you guys often abuse it. Olaf banned me once when my power went out during a storm without even making report and even though he received points in the game, and then Don over turned it.

Isen: They have already established a precedent that if your first 2 bans were before the current system of 3rd ban being permanent, then even if your report stays proven it could not be a permanent ban. I'm not going to find the reports for you, but I know this is correct.

#30 Retired

Retired

    THE KING HAS GONE

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4540 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • XWIS Name: JRisKing

Posted 16 October 2009 - 12:38 PM

Why should it matter if he admits it or not? This screenshots clearly prove that he spammed him, all you would have to do is check that it was his nick doing the spamming or check server chat logs.

So basically what your saying is that it is ok to spam someone as long as you don't admit it was you? Great logic there!

You either have to ban everyone for spamming or ban no-one at all, otherwise it is unfair, but I still don't see why you can't just issue a chat ban for a period of time. If he does it again then issue a longer chat ban and so on.

#31 Smallville

Smallville

    Seal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • XWIS Name: .

Posted 16 October 2009 - 12:45 PM

Why should it matter if he admits it or not? This screenshots clearly prove that he spammed him, all you would have to do is check that it was his nick doing the spamming or check server chat logs.

So basically what your saying is that it is ok to spam someone as long as you don't admit it was you? Great logic there!

You either have to ban everyone for spamming or ban no-one at all, otherwise it is unfair, but I still don't see why you can't just issue a chat ban for a period of time. If he does it again then issue a longer chat ban and so on.

People have argued/debated and failed about it already.. that's just how it works.. it's very simple it creates to much useless work.

Time could be spend on more senseless work, like catching a cheater? instead of going through logs, which no one is waiting for. Admitting something is like giving a freewin.

#32 XWISMOSTWANTED

XWISMOSTWANTED

    Forum Warrior

  • Donators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2850 posts

Posted 16 October 2009 - 12:45 PM

1. reporter not credible.. - for what banning ppl from s-t then?!
2. he could hit the ignore botm.. - what he didnt
3. other ppl didnt got banned for it.. - so why him
4. very active player .. - not much left
5. ppl like juan still d/c ppl and proven for maphack.. - still playing..
6. good job..

#33 Smallville

Smallville

    Seal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • XWIS Name: .

Posted 16 October 2009 - 12:48 PM

If you don't bother to read and understand what has already been explained(countless times might i add, this topic is nothing new), why bother posting useless stuff?

#34 XWISMOSTWANTED

XWISMOSTWANTED

    Forum Warrior

  • Donators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2850 posts

Posted 16 October 2009 - 12:54 PM

If you don't bother to read and understand what has already been explained(countless times might i add, this topic is nothing new), why bother posting useless stuff?

posting useless stuff?

#35 Smallville

Smallville

    Seal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • XWIS Name: .

Posted 16 October 2009 - 01:07 PM

1. reporter not credible.. - for what banning ppl from s-t then?!
2. he could hit the ignore botm.. - what he didnt
3. other ppl didnt got banned for it.. - so why him
4. very active player .. - not much left
5. ppl like juan still d/c ppl and proven for maphack.. - still playing..
6. good job..

1. Irrelevant
2. Irrelevant - players aren't allowed to harass others.
3. Read the topic/posts
4. Irrelevant
5. Juan is under investigation and he never admited anything directly to the staff.
6. Worst Job by you..

And to summarize, useless just like me bothering with this. People like you rarely get anything, always something to say without understanding the whole picture.

#36 XWISMOSTWANTED

XWISMOSTWANTED

    Forum Warrior

  • Donators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2850 posts

Posted 16 October 2009 - 01:23 PM

1. Irrelevant
2. Irrelevant - players aren't allowed to harass others.
3. Read the topic/posts
4. Irrelevant
5. Juan is under investigation and he never admited anything directly to the staff.
6. Worst Job by you..

And to summarize, useless just like me bothering with this. People like you rarely get anything, always something to say without understanding the whole picture.

And to summarize, u = useless
and could u explain me what u did understand? u sounds like an over steroided 15-18 year old boy.. grow brain plz..

Edited by a1p0Rno, 16 October 2009 - 01:27 PM.


#37 Smallville

Smallville

    Seal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • XWIS Name: .

Posted 16 October 2009 - 01:31 PM

Thanks.

#38 XWISMOSTWANTED

XWISMOSTWANTED

    Forum Warrior

  • Donators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2850 posts

Posted 16 October 2009 - 01:45 PM

Thanks.

just ask me (=

#39 Chrisev

Chrisev

    CnCSaga Staff since 2009

  • Donators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9127 posts
  • Location:Belgium
  • XWIS Name: Chrisev

Posted 16 October 2009 - 01:54 PM

I can give you here, some topics when admin answer "REPORTER NOT CREDIBLE - SIRALEX" when alex post a report about a cheater... now he report isen for spam and admin answer "proven" where is the problem ? it's not the same for all players ? ... not correct i think but just my opinion

Edited by Chrisev, 16 October 2009 - 01:56 PM.


#40 riz

riz

    Oor Wullie! Your Wullie! A'body's Wullie!

  • ST Retirees
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12374 posts
  • Location:Auchenshoogle
  • XWIS Name: riz

Posted 16 October 2009 - 05:12 PM

Ok some of you guys seem to think i've proven the report because i don't like Isen. I've nothing against him and do not know him well enough to have anything against him, i do know siralex as well as most of you do, and know him well enough to dislike and distrust him.

A few of you will know that I have indeed proven reports on people I do like. It makes no difference to me who the reported player is, if the evidence is in the report enough to mark as proven then it gets marked as proven, if it's not then its marked as unproven.

The reason why I personally have gone in and marked that report instead of leaving it for another analyzer is the same as when any other well known player is proven and that's because i'm an admin and not just an analyzer. I would prefer you guys to give me grief than to hassle the rest of the team which you would do regardless of who marked it proven.

There is no way I can mark it as reporter not credible when Isen is freely admitting that the report is fact and not fiction. Please try and get your heads around that, especially you chrisev.

I am still waiting for someone to post links to these many reports where people have been reported for spamming and have freely admitted it, yet it has still been marked as not proven or just moved to another part of the forum. I'll happily rectify any that you show me where there is the required prood. Screenies alone are not enough, i need screenies and a confession.


1. reporter not credible.. - for what banning ppl from s-t then?!
2. he could hit the ignore botm.. - what he didnt
3. other ppl didnt got banned for it.. - so why him
4. very active player .. - not much left
5. ppl like juan still d/c ppl and proven for maphack.. - still playing..
6. good job..


1. Irrelevant, Isen has admitted the report is credible.
2. Irrelevant, Abuse like that is mentioned in the ToS. Go read it.
3. Irrelevant, Each report is taken as an individual report. Isen's admitting breaching the ToS leaving no other option but to mark proven.
4. Irrelevant, If everyone was to do what Isen did there would be even less players, punishing people who chase others away helps activity not decreases it. The more active an abusive player is the more people leave the game.
5. Irrelevant, completely unrelated to this topic.
6. Thanks.

#41 XWISMOSTWANTED

XWISMOSTWANTED

    Forum Warrior

  • Donators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2850 posts

Posted 16 October 2009 - 05:28 PM

1. Irrelevant, Isen has admitted the report is credible.
2. Irrelevant, Abuse like that is mentioned in the ToS. Go read it.
3. Irrelevant, Each report is taken as an individual report. Isen's admitting breaching the ToS leaving no other option but to mark proven.
4. Irrelevant, If everyone was to do what Isen did there would be even less players, punishing people who chase others away helps activity not decreases it. The more active an abusive player is the more people leave the game.
5. Irrelevant, completely unrelated to this topic.
6. Thanks.


1.what does it go to do what isen admitted ?go by ur own rules ! reporter not creditble! if u make it proven u not creditble for ur job..
2.well ok i take that..
3. if a reprter is not creditble he is not creditble simple as that ..it only can be not proven.. or ur breake the rules of s-t.. so ur opinion is irrelevant..
4.well ok i take that..
5.Irrelevant? now u ignore my question i know iam totaly right and many ppl agree with me on this u are to irrelevant to explain this so u come up with" irrelevant to this topic" ..weak .... so u cant explain the s-t community why he is he still playing?
6.i know andeverybody knows u treating ppl if u dont like them.. keep up ur good work and try harder 2 be the professor at the forums..

Edited by a1p0Rno, 16 October 2009 - 05:33 PM.


#42 riz

riz

    Oor Wullie! Your Wullie! A'body's Wullie!

  • ST Retirees
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12374 posts
  • Location:Auchenshoogle
  • XWIS Name: riz

Posted 16 October 2009 - 06:02 PM

Reporter not credible is negated by the reported admitting it was a credible report. Sorry but I don't see why you don't get that.

#43 SgtPain2u

SgtPain2u

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 16 October 2009 - 06:05 PM

Well Riz hates me but I can honestly say he has never treated with anything but fairness, we all reap what we sow so isen's just getting what he asked for.

#44 Isen

Isen

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 955 posts

Posted 16 October 2009 - 06:32 PM

Ok some of you guys seem to think i've proven the report because i don't like Isen. I've nothing against him and do not know him well enough to have anything against him, i do know siralex as well as most of you do, and know him well enough to dislike and distrust him.

A few of you will know that I have indeed proven reports on people I do like. It makes no difference to me who the reported player is, if the evidence is in the report enough to mark as proven then it gets marked as proven, if it's not then its marked as unproven.

The reason why I personally have gone in and marked that report instead of leaving it for another analyzer is the same as when any other well known player proven and that's because i'm an admin and not just an analyzer. I would prefer you guys to give me grief than to hassle the rest of the team which you would do regardless of who marked it proven.

There is no way I can mark it as reporter not credible when Isen is freely admitting that the report is fact and not fiction. Please try and get your heads around that, especially you chrisev.

I am still waiting for someone to post links to these many reports where people have been reported for spamming and have freely admitted it, yet it has still been marked as not proven or just moved to another part of the forum. I'll happily rectify any that you show me where there is the required prood. Screenies alone are not enough, i need screenies and a confession.




1. Irrelevant, Isen has admitted the report is credible.
2. Irrelevant, Abuse like that is mentioned in the ToS. Go read it.
3. Irrelevant, Each report is taken as an individual report. Isen's admitting breaching the ToS leaving no other option but to mark proven.
4. Irrelevant, If everyone was to do what Isen did there would be even less players, punishing people who chase others away helps activity not decreases it. The more active an abusive player is the more people leave the game.
5. Irrelevant, completely unrelated to this topic.
6. Thanks.


The bigger picture here is there have been hundreds of spamming/flooding reports and youve never punished anyone for it, your trying to now say after 5 years its the same type of ban as cheating, this is complete nonsense nobody has been punished for spamming before.

If your going to punish me why not just chat ban me? It makes me think your agenda is to permanently ban me for this , considering my first ban was way back in 2005, i would have to say it does make this look personal.

Ive just got back off holiday i actually went to Scotland for 4 weeks, started off in Fort William and hiking the outer islands and skye.
maybe next time ill meet you for a pint Riz , im actually a nice guy irl.

I want to add before my trip activity seemed higher than what it is now, i arrange to QM players on MSN i assure you i increase activity not decrease it.

Again im sorry for the Spam it wont happen again Riz just dont go overboard on this one . My RA2 future is in your hands.

#45 AbRoMoV

AbRoMoV

    Für immer frei und ungeteilt.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2180 posts
  • Location:London, UK
  • XWIS Name: ZooM

Posted 16 October 2009 - 06:58 PM

Reporter not credible is negated by the reported admitting it was a credible report. Sorry but I don't see why you don't get that.

dont ban isen please, this will decrease the activity ...
Siralex is known as a flamer 2 and he just reports isen because he hates him.
Give him another chance Riz :(

#46 venice

venice

    zephyr

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 277 posts

Posted 16 October 2009 - 07:07 PM

if spamming leads to ban why did you guys designed a ignore function?

#47 riz

riz

    Oor Wullie! Your Wullie! A'body's Wullie!

  • ST Retirees
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12374 posts
  • Location:Auchenshoogle
  • XWIS Name: riz

Posted 16 October 2009 - 07:35 PM

So at a crucial point in game, even if it's for a rank that you have bever gained before or against a player you are competitive against, you lot would be OK with someone spamming you with 5 lines per second. It wouldn't put you off your game or annoy you if it cost you rank 1 due to a missed ss request or cost you a points return for a missed dpl ss?

#48 SoBe0wns

SoBe0wns

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 689 posts

Posted 16 October 2009 - 09:02 PM

So at a crucial point in game, even if it's for a rank that you have bever gained before or against a player you are competitive against, you lot would be OK with someone spamming you with 5 lines per second. It wouldn't put you off your game or annoy you if it cost you rank 1 due to a missed ss request or cost you a points return for a missed dpl ss?


No Riz, that wouldn't be acceptable, and the player should be chatbanned, just as if he were swearing in the lobby. IMO chat-related offenses should never lead to server bans since you have the ability to chatban people. Punishment should fit the crime. JMHO.

#49 riz

riz

    Oor Wullie! Your Wullie! A'body's Wullie!

  • ST Retirees
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12374 posts
  • Location:Auchenshoogle
  • XWIS Name: riz

Posted 16 October 2009 - 09:22 PM

Chat banning doesn't stop them from entering the buddy list before the lobby and spamming people in game.

#50 QmisDead

QmisDead

    / ignore ....

  • Donators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 848 posts
  • XWIS Name: Yes

Posted 16 October 2009 - 09:34 PM

Its not a cheat report maybe a good reason?

Hes not credible and besides there have been so many topics about flooding /spam and nobody has EVER been punished for it.

You know full well it would be my 3rd ban, seems this is a nice convenient way to get rid of me for good.

There were like 5 topics about JJ's flooding, he got a warning that was all, many more have just been moved to fairplay section.

So why should i get banned for the same thing?

Infact i would be the first person EVER to be banned on Strike Team for spamming someone, and its just a coincidence you dont like me Riz? Yeah right

So the most Active QM player that is actually any good gets perm banned for Spamming Alex after he tells me to "go f--k my mum"?

You coudnt make it up



You will get a warn for avoiding word filter .......

If not i don`t understand......

I hope you don`t get the final ban for the flooding. :)

ppl have flooded me many times when i killed them.
Sometimes it is so annyoing that i have to take the sound off.
I can`t rem any other person been banned for flooding.
If they can be banned i might look in the SS folder for ppl flooded me in qm games.

Edited by Lame, 16 October 2009 - 09:34 PM.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users