Nondisclosure of account status

[aerokella]

If you quit because he broadcast that a bunch of exploiters were banned, youre probably a little exploiting bitch anyway.

[fiegi]

Originally Posted by aerokella [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you quit because he broadcast that a bunch of exploiters were banned, youre probably a little exploiting bitch anyway.

Classic example of our school systems failing us

[aerokella]

No i just dont take the time to type all eloquently on....dundundun... The internets.

[Humerox]

The primary difference is that Nihi reported the problem. They got no response at the time, so they killed a bugged Naggy. BFD. That crap happened on blue, too.

Holocaust took the info from Heartbrand and abused it. They had no intention of reporting it, and didn't care.

There's no doubt in my mind Nihi could have contended (PvP - but they didn't) the Naggy kill that Holo exploited, and I have no doubt the information was given to Holo leadership that there was a problem and that it had been reported.

There's a real difference here, and anyone that argues to the contrary is a complete idiot in need of a frontal lobotomy to permanently shut their pie-hole.

[Torven]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The primary difference is that Nihi reported the problem.

That log suggests premeditation. Going after Nag with such a weak force to begin with is highly suspicious. Pulling Nag very far from his spawn point instead of using the nearest corner. The very little healing. The bard melee. The water pet from the get go. The not aborting the pull even when two pet casters are dead.

Everything seems to indicate that Nag never AoEed at all, not half-way through the fight as they claim.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Torven [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That log suggests premeditation. Going after Nag with such a weak force to begin with is highly suspicious. Pulling Nag very far from his spawn point instead of using the nearest corner. The very little healing. The bard melee. The water pet from the get go. The not aborting the pull even when two pet casters are dead.

Everything seems to indicate that Nag never AoEed at all, not half-way through the fight as they claim.

They already admitted they knew of the problem, reported it, waited for GM response which they didn't get...and proceeded to kill Naggy anyway. I don't know that I'd have done differently in that situation.

As far as I know they didn't do it again. If they had they'd be as wrong as Holo.

[Peppers]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the information was given to Holo leadership that there was a problem and that it had been reported.

They had no intention of reporting it

There's a real difference here, and anyone that argues to the contrary is a complete idiot in need of a frontal lobotomy to permanently shut their pie-hole.

1. Problem reported, nothing done, no one cares.
2. holocausts knows this.
3. Humerox applies full extent of his brain.
4. failure insues.

[Torven]

One correction: Hughman also died. The apparently only death to Nag that wasn't during the pull.

[Supreme]

So what are you trying to say Torven?

[Melveny]

I like this torven he has a brain and uses it.