Where art thou admins?

[Hobb]

I touched a 7 year old mexican kid yesterday, but I didnt know He was under 18. Good logic right?

However, the attackers never tried to stop attacking so the defense could take out the tower. For future reference, if the attackers want something looked at, they need to stop attacking.

Also, ban goat for being a bad admin!!!

[oprah_winfrey]

I touched a 7 year old mexican kid yesterday, but I didnt know He was under 18. Good logic right?

Did he have a wispy mustache? If so then it is fair game.

[CrazyCracka420]

I didn't know the siege tower was partially over any flags (never saw it discussed in game, but unless it's admin chat I'm probably going to miss it).

Also Anders said in another thread he was able to cap the flags near/under the edge of the tower.  If you weren't able to capture it, it's likely someone was in the tower within the proximity of the flag to keep it from being captured.

And as Hobb said, what would you want us to do, spend 3 or 4 minutes breaking down the siege tower as the enemy keeps trickling in?  Good luck with that.

I don't do anything in regards to siege equipment, but for future reference, it would make sense to try to have a little bit more room between flags and siege equip

[oprah_winfrey]

I touched a 7 year old mexican kid yesterday, but I didnt know He was under 18. Good logic right?

However, the attackers never tried to stop attacking so the defense could take out the tower. For future reference, if the attackers want something looked at, they need to stop attacking.

Also, ban goat for being a bad admin!!!

Also, on a slightly more serious note. I was in a fcc V occ battle a few days ago, and they tried to use a catapult. This teleported a building into their spawn and landed on top of their flags. I would guess that this wasn't their intended action, but should they have been banned? Good logic right?

[Matey]

Also, on a slightly more serious note. I was in a fcc V occ battle a few days ago, and they tried to use a catapult. This teleported a building into their spawn and landed on top of their flags. I would guess that this wasn't their intended action, but should they have been banned? Good logic right?

clearly that would be more like a 7 year old Mexican tripping and falling provocatively onto hobb.

[Artyem]

Also, on a slightly more serious note. I was in a fcc V occ battle a few days ago, and they tried to use a catapult. This teleported a building into their spawn and landed on top of their flags. I would guess that this wasn't their intended action, but should they have been banned? Good logic right?

It was VE vs Occitan, and yeah, Duke Dickbutt built a catapult and managed to pull a building to the spawn, but I don't recall it ever landing on flags.

And there is quite a difference here, people should know not to put their C Sites so close to their flags, it's just asking for shit to go wrong, especially if you're making a siege tower.  No need to point fingers and ask for people to get banned, because I really don't think you can call one person out for it.  However, from now on people should actually think about where their siege equipment will end up, maybe a future feature could fix this.

First of all, there could be a small area around the flags where nothing could be put down, no ladders, siege shields, stakes or c sites.  Not only would this prevent ladders and siege shields from going on top of flags, but it would also prevent situations similar to yesterday's battle from happening.

Alternatively, Construction Sites could show a small slightly transparent yellow / orange outline of the item you're building.  The only issue with this is that I'm not sure if it's viable within the limits of the Module System, even with the script enhancer.

[Turboflex]

haha in that same battle LCO built a large tower beside a house and it went flying, then the DUKE caused half the server to ctd later witht he catapult.

[DUKE DICKBUTT]

As I said in a different thread, I was fighting for hospitaller in the battle in question and there was no talk of maliciously placing the siege tower over flags. Hospitaller had too many items in their inventory and couldn't access bolts and contruction material for the first ~15 minutes. Once it was accessible, there was a mad dash to build the seige tower and as such it wound up at spawn. Could it have been avoidable? Yes. But I do not believe it was done on purpose.

Basically what I'm saying is that I want more admins or more involved admins.  I want rules enforced, if there are going to be rules, and I want us to be able to avoid selective adminning.  But all if you guys in this thread are trying to debate that this is not a good thing.  But of course the two biggest debaters are from Hero Party and Chaos.  The first, when formed, had a Dev and two admins, the second with a Head admin and another admin.  Oddly enough, those are the two clans I am subtly accusing of selective adminning.  But of course, you guys seem to be enjoying your one sided admin decision.

In regards to the VE v OCC battle, you are selectively forgetting that OCC built a siege tower first that the house attached to.  Not intended, but should OCC archers have climbed onto the house portion (not the siege tower itself or in it) and started shooting arrows?  No.  I then built a catapult to shoot the siege tower down.  But instead it took the house away from them so they couldn't abuse it.  As a side effect, however, while the catapult was not on the flags, the house ended up being over them.  There should or could have been admin intervention then.  In the next big battle, Dach threated to ban anyone who made a catapult, which is a smart play.

[Sandersson Jankins]

The only good part about this thread is the part about the seven year old Mexican.

[Phantasmal]

In regards to the VE v OCC battle, you are selectively forgetting that OCC built a siege tower first that the house attached to.  Not intended, but should OCC archers have climbed onto the house portion (not the siege tower itself or in it) and started shooting arrows?  No.  I then built a catapult to shoot the siege tower down.  But instead it took the house away from them so they couldn't abuse it.  As a side effect, however, while the catapult was not on the flags, the house ended up being over them.  There should or could have been admin intervention then.  In the next big battle, Dach threated to ban anyone who made a catapult, which is a smart play.

There are instances of "the other side" abusing scenery as well. One that comes to mind is the siege of Caraf Castle. When TKoV brought the wall down with the catapult, archers could stand in the wall and shoot from the cover without being seen. I think it is safe to say that both sides have abused these features and the fingerpointing will get no one anywhere. I was in the hosp TS for both siege tower battles and I assure there was no malicious talk in TS about placing it to block flags.

The flags are reachable under the siege tower as well (I could set my flags on them when I was on the ground). But the flags on the siege tower seem to have a completely vertical field of interaction (to clarify, I could set flags when I was at the very top of the siege tower trying to pick up my arbalest).

Sadly, NA has become a fest of "well the other side did X, so we are now justified to do Y". Shamefully, after being shot up from that glitch in Caraf castle numerous times, when SS attacked that castle and took down that same wall I was there with the rest of the Pew-Pewers, raining fire from the safety of the scenery.

[oprah_winfrey]

Basically what I'm saying is that I want more admins or more involved admins.  I want rules enforced, if there are going to be rules, and I want us to be able to avoid selective adminning.  But all if you guys in this thread are trying to debate that this is not a good thing.  But of course the two biggest debaters are from Hero Party and Chaos.  The first, when formed, had a Dev and two admins, the second with a Head admin and another admin.  Oddly enough, those are the two clans I am subtly accusing of selective adminning.  But of course, you guys seem to be enjoying your one sided admin decision.

In regards to the VE v OCC battle, you are selectively forgetting that OCC built a siege tower first that the house attached to.  Not intended, but should OCC archers have climbed onto the house portion (not the siege tower itself or in it) and started shooting arrows?  No.  I then built a catapult to shoot the siege tower down.  But instead it took the house away from them so they couldn't abuse it.  As a side effect, however, while the catapult was not on the flags, the house ended up being over them.  There should or could have been admin intervention then.  In the next big battle, Dach threated to ban anyone who made a catapult, which is a smart play.

All I am saying is that I dont like people gettimg banned for things that they didnt do to abuse the system. Such as hospitaller with the seige tower or you with the catapult. Especially with strat bugged the way it currently is.

If I build a weapon rack and when I throw in the 5th block it bugs out and bans the entire enemy team, one that would be hilarious, but do you think I should be banned?

[DUKE DICKBUTT]

All I am saying is that I dont like people gettimg banned for things that they didnt do to abuse the system. Such as hospitaller with the seige tower or you with the catapult. Especially with strat bugged the way it currently is.

If I build a weapon rack and when I throw in the 5th block it bugs out and bans the entire enemy team, one that would be hilarious, but do you think I should be banned?

So now you're saying that the siege tower built itself?

And no one is saying ban the entire team.  Issue a warning and tell the offending team to break the offending object.  Wait one minute.  If no one listens, tell them its now first priority.  Threaten to kick or ban the commander of the battle, probably by clan, if not by actual party owner, if he does not personally do it.  It should be the entire team's responsibility to play fairly, but if no one is responsive, then make the parties with ownership responsible.

I mean, all I am really looking for is some pink text and some follow through.  Mistakes happen, but they seem to keep happening to certain parties more than others.  Clans who are mindful of the rules are getting screwed the worst, when it should be the other way around.  Bring on some flying carpets.  Keep people in check.

You also act like bans aren't an every day thing.  What we have is a bullshit system that plays favorites.  In fact, its devolved into a meta game of seeing who can get who banned.  Look at shit like this:
http://forum.meleegaming.com/na-%28official%29/ban-request-47843/
http://forum.meleegaming.com/na-(official)/unban-request-zeenerd/

Everyone wants to see what they can get away with.  See who I can trick into hitting me more times, so they get banned.  See which admins are their friends and will watch out for them.  See which admins will shorten a ban behind another admin's back.  Unfortunately, in my opinion, that's spreading into Strategus.

Alternatively, you can just get rid of the rule.  I mean, this one hasn't been THAT big of a deal yet, but then we're just going to see how far it can be taken.

But please, keep dodging the actual issue at hand and keep putting words in my mouth.  You'll never be Smoothrich Jr, now matter how hard you try.

[Artyem]

Did anyone but Kesh read my post?  I pretty much explained the whole situation, so stop pointing fingers.

Bunch of jive ass turkeys...

[oprah_winfrey]

Look through the forums for hom many ban requests I have made. I believe it was one, like 2 years ago. Ask an admin to look up my ban history. As far as I know its 0.  I dont like people gettimg banned unless it is cut and dry. I have talked to admins about how dumb the ban request forum is, especially third party ban requests. Yes some people need a time out, but I dont agree with a lot of the bans that take place. If an admin would have said attackers stand still while they break the seige tower, I would be fine with that other then the clock loss. Yes maybe there shoyld have been some pink text but its hard to moderate things like that.

[DUKE DICKBUTT]

There are instances of "the other side" abusing scenery as well. One that comes to mind is the siege of Caraf Castle. When TKoV brought the wall down with the catapult, archers could stand in the wall and shoot from the cover without being seen. I think it is safe to say that both sides have abused these features and the fingerpointing will get no one anywhere. I was in the hosp TS for both siege tower battles and I assure there was no malicious talk in TS about placing it to block flags.

The flags are reachable under the siege tower as well (I could set my flags on them when I was on the ground). But the flags on the siege tower seem to have a completely vertical field of interaction (to clarify, I could set flags when I was at the very top of the siege tower trying to pick up my arbalest).

Sadly, NA has become a fest of "well the other side did X, so we are now justified to do Y". Shamefully, after being shot up from that glitch in Caraf castle numerous times, when SS attacked that castle and took down that same wall I was there with the rest of the Pew-Pewers, raining fire from the safety of the scenery.

I'm pretty sure the opposite way happened in Mayaburg castle.  The inside team could shoot and walk out, but the outside team could not shoot in or walk in.  There were many admins present for that, and I believe they agreed upon warning everyone not to leave the castle through that glitched wall.  That was one example of admins being there and enough of them on to form a fair decision.