What IB does after losing again to TMO

[Lazie]

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

TMO gave up three VP dragons last week and three VP this week due to IB rule lawyers.

Basically, IB got suspended for camping a raid force deep in VP and not wanting to work it out between the two guilds. Then IB dug up some old fraps of someone desyncing and bringing 1 mob to the zone in - which was quickly engaged and dispatched. With quality rule lawyers, they were able to argue that TMO was in the wrong too (sometime in the past, and for something completely unrelated), so the GMs decided to either hand IB 3 mobs 1 weekend and 3 mobs the next weekend, or give TMO a suspension that lasted longer than IBs, which would have defaulted 6 VP mobs and whatever spawned outside of VP to IB.

IB would have probably killed 1 out of the 6 VP mobs over this time span. Instead they get 6 free VP mobs!

See people, this is what quality lawyers are for!

Well they would have gotten 2 maybe to be fair. Of the ones we could contest they got 1 out of 6.

[Hitpoint]

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

Is nexona dead yet btw?

Negative.

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

??? That was last week. And it's because frapsquest is still alive and well [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] GMs put shitloads of rules in place -> rules get broken -> people provide evidence -> GMs mad they have to look at fraps. lulz.

This was supposed to be solved by heavy-handed suspensions to the rules-breakers. Not negated by "two wrongs make a right" philosophy.

[Alarti0001]

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

This was supposed to be solved by heavy-handed suspensions to the rules-breakers. Not negated by "two wrongs make a right" philosophy.

BDA #1 most suspended guild in new rules format know whats up!. BDA should have been suspended for ALOT longer. Yendor agrees.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

BDA #1 most suspended guild in new rules format know whats up!. BDA should have been suspended for ALOT longer. Yendor agrees.

BDA didn't realize we could pull up some old incriminating FRAPS of some other guild and use it as a bargaining chip to reverse our suspension. Our rules lawyers aren't that clever/insidious, son.

We took our suspension and owned up to wrongly interpreting a then recently clarified rule.

[Hitpoint]

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

This was supposed to be solved by heavy-handed suspensions to the rules-breakers. Not negated by "two wrongs make a right" philosophy.

When unintentional trains must be punished just as severely as intentional ones. And they do...

And accidentally having 2+ chars past zone in is punished just as harshly as doing it on purpose. And it is...

Accidents will happen. The solution isn't to ban every guild forever. It's to work out a fair way to make amends between them.

[Kekephee]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

BDA #1 most suspended guild in new rules format know whats up!. BDA should have been suspended for ALOT longer. Yendor agrees.

I don't think you've been on for a while. "First guild to get suspended" doesn't mean "most suspended guild" anymore after other guilds have also gotten suspended, which they have. At one time this was a cool little catchphrase, but it is no longer accurate



Also, another point I would make is that Yendor is advocating a strong and consistent punitive approach to guilds that break the rules. When BDA got suspended for being too close to Trak when he spawned, they took it. "I broke the rules and I deserve this suspension" is hardly the battle cry of a bunch of hypocrites screaming for the rules to be applied to everyone but themselves, don't you agree?

[Alarti0001]

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

BDA didn't realize we could pull up some old incriminating FRAPS of some other guild and use it as a bargaining chip to reverse our suspension. Our rules lawyers aren't that clever/insidious, son.

We took our suspension and owned up to wrongly interpreting a then recently clarified rule.

Get with IB about reusing previously used fraps.

[Alarti0001]

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

I don't think you've been on for a while. "First guild to get suspended" doesn't mean "most suspended guild" anymore after other guilds have also gotten suspended, which they have. At one time this was a cool little catchphrase, but it is no longer accurate

Any guilds with more than 1 suspension?

[Kekephee]

I really couldn't tell you because I"m not keeping track. I just know for a fact that there have been other suspensions, and therefore the best you can do with "BDA Most Suspended" is "BDA Now Tied For Most Suspended With At Least One Or Two Other Guilds That Have Also Been Suspended A Single Solitary Time" which really doesn't have the same ring to it, I don't think