|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
10-05-2020, 10:50 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
- Look at the Who column - now ask yourself, why is "F" in almost every single line as the accused party (right side of the 'versus') - the reason that people want to believe is because Riot is a 'lawyerquest' guild, they can only win by petitioning etc. but this statement is only true if most of the petitions results are "no violation". as of today, out of 6 petitions against F, only 2 were 'no violation' while 4 were either suspended (guilty), or dropped (conceded). so the petitions raised were indeed justifiable as F was indeed guilty the majority (4 out of 6) of the times - this may get worse when you consider the current pending petitions. Kittens v F for LTK was particularly nasty as F trained and wiped Kittens at LTK, left without helping them do CR to kill Yelinak, and went to POG to kill Tunare which was only possible because Riot left POG to help Kittens do CR. F offered to concede future LTKs (which would have been a relatively small concession to make given what they accomplished that day). Kittens justifiably said no and wanted tougher penalty - F continues to push the limits and tries to get away with things. if they commit a foul but no one has fraps, they WILL get away with it. (the first question their leaders will ask is "do you have fraps?") - in the meantime, the number of outstanding petitions keep piling up. part 2 of the strategy is to eventually make the GMs lose their patience and suspend-bomb all the big 3 guilds, which net net would be beneficial for F - overtime, this strategy does pay off because F gets to keep the raid loots from those mobs that were petitioned. Loot 1 concede 2 is a viable strategy because they will occassionally get Loot 1 and get a pass (because no fraps or GMs get tired of all the bs) - Solution? (1) harsher (much harsher) punishments for repeated offenders, (2) raid loot deletion | |||
|
|
||||
|
|
Threaded Mode