Messages

1

NA (Official) / Re: Ban Chivalry_Is_Better

« on: July 29, 2013, 04:19:59 am »

...regardless of how much logic he tries to toss around.

So your option is to appeal to the emotional senses and abandon reason, logic, ergo our tools used to interpret the truth?

Not only is that counter-intuitive, its self destructive and can not lead you to any truth, be it in this thread or about the world around you.

Arguments have been said and I'll leave it at that, but your stance is to abandon logic and reason to appeal to your emotional senses. A strategy that will fail you in life, albeit being popular among the less critically reflective.

2

NA (Official) / Re: Ban Chivalry_Is_Better

« on: July 29, 2013, 04:14:46 am »

Luckily, When an admin gets around to checking the logs this will all be cleared up as they will clearly show the true story.

Unless there is video evidence or a series of screen shots showing the position of all players, it is still unconvincing as to what really happened. The truth is, this is a terrible argument on multiple levels and can be refuted by any number of reasons without a series of screen shots.

 I wonder, you've admitted to team wounding, how should we deal with your infractions and should we ignore your actions or judge them according to your demands that justice be served? Are you above server rules as well?

3

NA (Official) / Re: Ban Chivalry_Is_Better

« on: July 29, 2013, 04:07:53 am »

And at this point I believe you should be reported. Please let the ADMINS make the decision and stay out of it. If you are not directly involved and have nothing to contribute, leave.

You have also ignored, what is, in effect a full explanation of this event. Take your "expert opinion" elsewhere and leave this up to the people who matter. Or are you chivalry or know him?

Reported for what? Providing a logical argument that can actually be substantiated? This is an emotional out lash. The original poster was not directly involved and again by that logic, this post should not even exist, nor should you be here as well.

The truth of the matter is, that you, nor OP, or anyone else has submitted any kind of logical or well written argument to refute or in the very least challenge the points that I have made.

If this goes through, it will only prove two things:

1) That bans are made irregardless of evidence, logic, or argumentation and players are at the emotional whim of their peers and the admins. No real 'justice' can be served under this system.
2) It also sets the tone that there is absolutely no precedence to who is allowed to speak or judge the information and is subject to the abuse that would occur if I was 'indeed' reported for critiquing and providing solid argument(s) to the situation, since I was indeed not involved. Its important to reflect that no one currently posting in this thread was directly involved in the incident or a player who was team wounded.

Again by your own logic, you should be reported along with the op for not being 'directly involved'.

Stop your emotional out-lashes, you will gain no proper respect if you can not come to a logical conclusion or a solid argument without resorting to ad-hominem attacks and your emotional judgement of others.

4

NA (Official) / Re: Ban Chivalry_Is_Better

« on: July 29, 2013, 03:57:59 am »

First off, on Me TW'ing, You can now report 0 damage(kicks, nudges, etc.) Him being in a heavy Kuyak, I am confident no damage was taken. And, If you look carefully at my picture you will see a valour message right at the top of my highlighting proving that it was the start of the round for the convienience of the admins.

And while I am a "third-party" I was affected by his intention to kill his teammates as the 2 that were killed affected the outcome of the round I was participating in.

Without any timing indicators on his line of text, it still stands that there is no possible way to indicate how far into the match we are. Furthermore there absolutely no way to tell if these were indeed intentional, and despite the situation provided can be nothing but conjecture regardless to this individuals post.

Again, and I will say it for emphasis, there is no way to prove exactly how far in this happened without time markings to indicate just how long after the end of the last round or from the beginning of the new round these shootings occurred regardless of the original poster's intentional team wounding, which also could be completely and totally unrelated to the incident and done out of annoyance or malicious intent in the first place. I could easily create the situation where the player made an unfortunate shot, the OP kicked him out of his proven sense of visiting judgement on others, and a second also unfortunate shot occurred. The player could just have been having a terrible day with his shots, which happens incredibly often as any player here knows, every round.

Again, nothing but conjecture can come from the evidence at hand. This is a fact, and without further evidence you can not escape this argument.

If anything the OP should be tried under his same logical deductions and banned, or the case should be dismissed in light of circumstantial and possibly biased testimony. Any other decision would not only be illogical and breaking with the evidence, it would be emotional and unfounded.

5

NA (Official) / Re: Ban Chivalry_Is_Better

« on: July 29, 2013, 03:38:12 am »

You and the above poster's ad hominem attack does nothing to strengthen any of your argument.

If you would kindly reread my original argument as to why your reasoning is flawed, you may understand why coming to this forum to report a player for two other players who "don't have forum accounts" is a nonsense or bogus claim for the fact that making a forum account and posting on these forums is a trivial task, one that can easily be done when motivated to report a player who has 'intentionally team wounded' the individual involved.

But, since you're probably having trouble comprehending the exact concepts I am trying to convey allow me to break it down for you, piece by piece.

1.:

"Knowing that the two players did not possess forum accounts I took action on myself, which may seem sociopathic to you, seemed like the right thing to do to me."
"This is the buisness of 3 parties. Myself, and those who were teamwounded. The moderators/admins. And Chivalry_Is_Better."

You claim that I have no right to post in this thread not being involved in the party, however, as you first stated you have 'taken it upon yourself' to report this player for these individuals. In truth, you have absolutely no involvement with the situation and it speaks truth to your character traits (being a sociopath and believing in your inherent right to judge others or take others' matters into your own hands) and the situation overall that you possess no more right to be involved in this claim than I do. In either situation your hypocritical logic has done one of two things: It either means that this post is irrelevant by your own submission of logic as you possess no right to report this character not having been directly involved in the situation, or, that I have the complete right to be here, to review your evidence, and to make a critique based on said evidence (which is extremely poor and reeking with personal bias).

2. Again, acting in lieu of two other individuals, regardless of their affiliation to you personally, is a flagship characteristic of being a sociopath and therefore it is unreliable to take your word into account on the situation. Your claimed 'affiliation' with the individuals actually makes your claim more suspicious as this could be a lame effort at framing this player in an attempt to get him banned based on your personal bias.
     
3. Other than your word, we have no context of what exactly happened in this screen shot other than you admitting that you voluntarily kicked another player, team wounding him in the process. There are no time markings on your screen shot whatsoever and as such we have absolutely no knowledge to how far into the match this happened and could have been the result of some very poor and unfortunate shots that were made as the first attacks in a round while he was attempting to shoot the enemy. If anything, the only thing that is proven is that you intentionally team wounded another player and have thus admitted to doing so, and on the ban forums of all the ridiculous places.

4. Based on your ad-hominem and unsubstantiated attacks upon myself and in regards to your terrible argument for a ban without providing a proper amount evidence to support your claim, I believe you are self serving, biased, and  follow a malicious agenda. You may find my critique of the situation harsh, however, I have provided nothing but a solid argument based on circumstantial evidence which you have failed to refute. By your own testimony you broke the server rules by team wounding another individual instead of simply screen-shotting the event and submitting it via forums ( I really want to drive this point home as your mislead sense of justice demands that you too should be tried and subsequently banned). Another poor decision made by you and another one that proves your need to pass judgement on others or as your original post says, "requires justice be served'.


Ultimately, either two things need to happen in this situation. Either the post is dismissed as circumstantial evidence or until the involved individuals come forth with solid evidence, or, we request your ban for willing team wounding a player.

If you'd like I can start the ban request based on your answer and your testimony/evidence that you provided in your response.

Edit: You'd make a terrible lawyer.

6

NA (Official) / Re: Ban Chivalry_Is_Better

« on: July 29, 2013, 03:07:58 am »

I'm curious. How am I any of the things listed above?

Considering I don't even know who you are this is a pretty bold claim.

Lets see why one would consider your story may be a fallacy and your character may come into question.

Your Personal Characteristics:

1. You maintain some sort of alter-ego 'jokingly' taking on the title of 'attorney' online.
2. You quote yourself. This is a standard sociopath characteristic; it links directly with your sense of ego and the need to prove your validation to yourself and others.
3. Judging on your past posts, not only do you judge others using yourself as a standard, you also believe yourself to possess some authoritative trait or an inherent right to do so.

As for your case:

1. You've provided an extremely amount of information, outside of any true proof of context other than your 'word', and when based on your personal testimony can not be trusted alone.
2. We have no other evidence of your own actions in regard to this situation.
3. You've provided no other validation as to why a third party such as yourself is as invested into this ban request. The two individuals killed in the screenshot have said nothing nor came forward to report this character and they were directly affected by the situation. Why is it that they can not speak for themselves and choose to request a ban if they see fit? What gives you this right? (Again going back to the sociopath argument).
4. If anything your request appears to be made in complete bias having no direct interaction with the aforementioned player other than to spread libel while requesting a ban having provided paltry evidence at best with absolutely no context.

In conclusion, all signs point to bullshit. I've seen the guy around. Sure he can be annoying, but his comments are harmless. This post seems more like a result of your direct bias verses that player rather than any hard evidence.

Maybe you should come back when you can bring us some further proof or a better argument removed of your overemotional reasoning. Oh, and try not abusing the system next time around.

7

NA (Official) / Re: Ban Chivalry_Is_Better

« on: July 29, 2013, 02:51:17 am »

Typical deflection without addressing the charge, your case looks weaker and weaker.

8

NA (Official) / Re: Ban Chivalry_Is_Better

« on: July 29, 2013, 02:46:14 am »

Sounds like two things were hit on in my last post:

A) The truth
B) A Nerve

Edit: Its called bringing your character into question.

so·ci·o·path 
/ˈsōsēōˌpaTH/
Noun
A person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

You fit the ticket pretty well. Ergo my argument of calling your character into question and the legitimacy of your 'story'. I mean come on man, character questioning is a common legal tactic, wouldn't a forum 'lawyer' know that?

Guess not.

9

NA (Official) / Re: Ban Chivalry_Is_Better

« on: July 29, 2013, 02:35:43 am »

For realp, the guy doesnt include that he was team wounding half the team with his two buddies by swinging into crowds of players (both enemy and friendly) without really aiming.
But hey, as soon as you call him out on it, his giny gets all sandy.

And guy, being made the P.O.A. on your mother's bank accounts while mooching off her disability checks hardly makes you a 'lawyer', it does make you a sociopath though.

I mean Jesus, look at your signature, you're quoting yourself for Gods' sake. Screams sociopath if I've ever seen one.

Why don't you try vacationing to your front yard sometime, some sun will do ya some good.

10

General Discussion / Re: Need some Advice being a First time Second Gen Character

« on: April 23, 2013, 07:28:50 am »

May I ask though, how did you manage to pull off a 24/15 build with all of those stats? Were you over level 30?

Best I could get with the calculator at level 30 was this:

24/15

IF 2
PS 8
Shield 5
Athletics 5
WM 3

Pole 130

or Drop the 2 in IF and just get 5 WM and 147 Pole

11

General Discussion / Re: Need some Advice being a First time Second Gen Character

« on: April 23, 2013, 07:05:55 am »

Really appreciate the help to all, thank you much.

12

General Discussion / Re: Need some Advice being a First time Second Gen Character

« on: April 23, 2013, 07:00:25 am »

I'll definitely try out hoplite then; how about a 21/18 build as hoplight and just using a Warspear or switching to a 2h pole when I'm not feeling much like hopliting? Would that work as well?

I know 18/18 is an option however here is also what I was thinking:

21/18

8 Skill points to Stats

7 PS
2 IF
6 Athletics
5 Shield
3 WM

130 Pole
5 1H

Thoughts?

13

General Discussion / Need some Advice being a First time Second Gen Character

« on: April 23, 2013, 06:39:14 am »

Yo; I'm not that great at the game, I'll admit it, but I am at a point where my friends are telling me to stick with a specific build for a few generations to get good at it.

I'm pretty conflicted, I really want to try a hoplite build, but with a warspear so I can switch to 2 handing it and be able to duel when I'm by myself, yet from what everyone tells me, its not that good. I see this mofo right here, and I know he's insanely skilled, but its like, yeah maybe with a ton of time and enough practice, I could be that good too but with using a weapon that allows me to duel as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la1VK_w6CKU


On the other hand there is 2H builds like Longsword (with some points into shield to block arrows until you're close) or a good ol fashioned sword and board build. These are proven to be effective, but I don't know if they'll hold my interest for a long period of time. I've tried a few skip the fun characters, but I'm just not getting the long term feel for the spec and whether I'll enjoy it or not after a LONG time.

I could use some perception from some skilled characters, and from long time players.

Help me out here, give me some direction, I'm sure I could get good at something over the long term, I just don't know how to pick and could use your experience and outlook to help me choose.

14

Announcements / Re: cRPG Ingame Feature - what is it you want?

« on: June 11, 2012, 02:47:48 am »

An assist counter, a damage counter, something, anything.

My main build is an Xbow sniper build and I can't tell you how many times I've shot 4-5 people in one round, didn't get the kill, and then some fresh low level peasant walks up and gets in a lucky stab with a pitch fork and gets credit for it.

We'll maybe not just a peasant but anyone really.

I know the counter to this "multis are enough of a justification!", but logically, if this was the case then there would be no use for a scoreboard in the first place. It doesn't make sense.

15

Faction Halls / Re: MENSTRUALMONSOON: Don't be left in a puddle. Become a Droplet today!!!

« on: June 04, 2012, 10:35:05 am »

Crimson wave bro, it has everything to do with menstruation. That guy is going to be smashed by the crimson wave. That picture is what I imagine what other people think as they see a group of MM crash down on them; an indomitable, rancid, clot filled, odorous, bloody tidal wave of pain.   

If it makes the cut I'll clean up the black areas around his hair a bit.