But, you don’t have to worry about that. Unless you confess to leaving, you can’t be punished for it. You complain about the GT/Leaving rules, but the reality is that they’re so lax that you really have to not give a shit in order to be punished for it.I don't want to have to worry about playing the game during a thunderstorm, lose power while I'm in a game, and come to discover that I got banned for leaving the match early. (This is just an example.)
erd716 wrote:This community is probably the most sensitive out of the different communities that I've taken part in, and that's saying a lot.
Voriki wrote:While it is absoluetely no excuse for acting like a gamethrower, but what you're asking is an overhaul of the system, as harsher "crimes" should be punished harder than less severe "crimes".
If they would ever make a overhaul, they could assign points to each guilty report, gamethrowing is 5 points, and downright cheating is 50 points. Profanity 7 points, etc... and who reaches xx points, gets suspended.
Playing for a longer amount of time inbetween offenses could have your points decrease.
But it would require a lot of time and effort to change how it works now.
Brilliand wrote:I have a question about one of your past reports: In the "minor and insignificant" example where you told the Jailor that your role was Jailor, I'm guessing that seemed like a good idea at the time. Can you explain why it seemed like a good idea at the time?
MysticMismagius wrote:But, you don’t have to worry about that. Unless you confess to leaving, you can’t be punished for it. You complain about the GT/Leaving rules, but the reality is that they’re so lax that you really have to not give a shit in order to be punished for it.
kyuss420 wrote:and yet, on games on other platforms, Ive seen $12 000 accounts suspended over the constant use of the word ''fuck'' (then they censored everything to the point you cant type ''something'' because it has ''meth'' in it)
kyuss420 wrote:After 3 suspensions, you know what the jurors will guilty, you know what the judges will suspend you for, yet you still push them to do it? I mean, blame them all you want, but you obviously know better and decide to be a dick anyway.....
Voriki wrote:If they would ever make a overhaul, they could assign points to each guilty report, gamethrowing is 5 points, and downright cheating is 50 points. Profanity 7 points, etc... and who reaches xx points, gets suspended. Playing for a longer amount of time in-between offenses could have your points decrease.
erd716 wrote:I'll try to answer each individual post made to the best of my ability:Brilliand wrote:I have a question about one of your past reports: In the "minor and insignificant" example where you told the Jailor that your role was Jailor, I'm guessing that seemed like a good idea at the time. Can you explain why it seemed like a good idea at the time?
I'll be honest. This was a mistake. I didn't understand how the "Random Town" option worked, and I thought there could be another jailor. When I got suspended, I did a little research and came to discover that there can, in fact, only be 1 jailor. A simple mistake, yes, and I was ignorant of this rule. Should I have been suspended for it? Probably not, but I learned from this experience so I am not too mad about it.
erd716 wrote:I mean, come on. Let's be real for a minute. Can you honestly say that "gamethrowing" in any regard is nearly as bad as some of the racist, homophobic, and downright hateful things that get said ON THE DAILY in this community? If not, then why are the punishments identical in some of these cases.
James2 wrote:erd716 wrote:I mean, come on. Let's be real for a minute. Can you honestly say that "gamethrowing" in any regard is nearly as bad as some of the racist, homophobic, and downright hateful things that get said ON THE DAILY in this community? If not, then why are the punishments identical in some of these cases.
You called other people snowflakes, but want "hate speech" to be punishable.
James2 wrote:You called other people snowflakes, but want "hate speech" to be punishable.
erd716 wrote:James2 wrote:But the irony of you referring to this word as hate speech given it's actual definition is actually pretty freaking hilarious and made me laugh out loud.
James2 wrote:I'm saying that, if you believe "hate speech" is a thing and should be banned, then you are a snowflake.
erd716 wrote:James2 wrote:I'm saying that, if you believe "hate speech" is a thing and should be banned, then you are a snowflake.
So you are saying that Hate Speech is a myth and shouldn't be punishable? I don't think this is something you should spout off on these forums because I'm sure a lot of people are going to disagree with you, sir. Lol.
Personally, I believe that there are certain words and phrases that, at the very least, make some people feel uncomfortable. While I may not be personally affected by the use of these words, I respect the fact that some people are affected by such. Therefore, it's a good rule of thumb to avoid this type of speech in general. Especially if they are used to promote hate.
James2 wrote:I’m not against banning the use of words generally considered socially unacceptable in places where people can’t avoid them (i.e. names and filter evasion), but acting as if socially reprobated words are worse because a privileged group claims to be harmed by them, is PC.
Google wrote:James2 wrote:I’m not against banning the use of words generally considered socially unacceptable in places where people can’t avoid them (i.e. names and filter evasion), but acting as if socially reprobated words are worse because a privileged group claims to be harmed by them, is PC.
Grats on forger.
James2 wrote:Google wrote:James2 wrote:I’m not against banning the use of words generally considered socially unacceptable in places where people can’t avoid them (i.e. names and filter evasion), but acting as if socially reprobated words are worse because a privileged group claims to be harmed by them, is PC.
Grats on forger.
That's still covered under "filter evasion".
Google wrote:James2 wrote:Google wrote:James2 wrote:I’m not against banning the use of words generally considered socially unacceptable in places where people can’t avoid them (i.e. names and filter evasion), but acting as if socially reprobated words are worse because a privileged group claims to be harmed by them, is PC.
Grats on forger.
That's still covered under "filter evasion".
can you explain what you mean and why you cut out half of my quote
James2 wrote:Google wrote:James2 wrote:Google wrote:James2 wrote:I’m not against banning the use of words generally considered socially unacceptable in places where people can’t avoid them (i.e. names and filter evasion), but acting as if socially reprobated words are worse because a privileged group claims to be harmed by them, is PC.
Grats on forger.
That's still covered under "filter evasion".
can you explain what you mean and why you cut out half of my quote
I didn't realize that I'd changed forum rank, so I thought you were referencing the in-game forger. My bad.
Thanks btw.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests