another "TAXI" clarification

MuSeN · 2013-09-03 18:14:22

dary wrote:

GUN|BF.MuSeN wrote:
Seems like there is a golden opportunity for someone to get rid of my admin rights but dont you worry, I have tk to continue with and as an IT-consultant avoiding bans is the least of my problems Victory shall be mine! Muahahahaha!
After that around 100 admins got kicked by admins.

Darn, and I who already started plotting paying bitcoins to russians on the silk road to keep the server down until I was reinstated

Räkan · 2013-09-03 18:25:08

Is taxi with plane to jeep also allowed?

Red Scorpion · 2013-09-03 19:34:43

Yes but don't park in front of other jeeps please

DC · 2013-09-03 19:43:44

Well Lecter and tuias statement about kicking, baning and removing admin rights are not serious. Because guys who get autokicked and break rules can keep on playing. The admins rule the server not tuia because he is not active enough. And I am pretty sure noone will remove admin rights from musen, I guess so, cause he is doing one of the best admin jobs and everyone knows. If tuia would act like this there would be just bob admins there and that means this server would die. He knows that for sure.

So seriously do not talk those words too stern...

tuia · 2013-09-03 20:28:27

I don't think taxi rule is necessary. It's one less rule and since it is allowed to waste a jeep by driving away from battle for anything, why forbid to use a jeep to get to planes faster? You don't kick a noob for disruptive gameplay because he used a plane and wasted it on take-off.

moon' · 2013-09-03 20:35:03

Otherwise there would be more Otto Brauns getting angry because of nothing

DC · 2013-09-03 20:42:22

tuia that is a huge difference. The noob takes the jeep to come just earlier to the plane than the others. When a noob got a plane he tries to be part of the game, even if it does not work. That means that the jeep gets wasted, and a player makes an advantage because of his spawnpoint near jeeps. That is disruptive gaming, not wasting things because of skill level. Besides that there is also always the danger of destroying other vehicles, driving into tanks and others get a tk because of that etc. Everything of that just does not take place if you take the jeep just to make random shit at the edge of the map.

moonlight didn't I say you shall stop your senseless posts?

tuia · 2013-09-03 20:51:42

In the latter case, it's disruptive gameplay and admins are allowed to kick for that. It's a wasted jeep to get to planes, of course, but as I wrote, nothing stops a player for getting a jeep for sightseeing.

moon' · 2013-09-03 21:02:01

DC wrote:

tuia that is a huge difference. The noob takes the jeep to come just earlier to the plane than the others. When a noob got a plane he tries to be part of the game, even if it does not work. That means that the jeep gets wasted, and a player makes an advantage because of his spawnpoint near jeeps. That is disruptive gaming, not wasting things because of skill level. Besides that there is also always the danger of destroying other vehicles, driving into tanks and others get a tk because of that etc. Everything of that just does not take place if you take the jeep just to make random shit at the edge of the map.
moonlight didn't I say you shall stop your senseless posts?

I agree with ur stuff i meant exactly the same disruptive behaviour but you should stop posting useless extras to your posts.
~Moon

joint · 2013-09-03 21:08:05

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYB7ciCvBy8
delete this topic pls, admins can discuss the subject in a more quieter place:D

DC · 2013-09-03 21:27:57

well tuia seriously that is a very subjective decision admins have to make. You do not have to forbid taxiing, but do not allow it. So everyone of the admins can decide if the taxiing in special cases are disruptive playing or not. For example if you spawn and there are like 3 jeeps in the base, for sure you can use one to go near the plane and that would be not disruptive playing but for example in the beginning every admin does a good job if he kicks everyone who tries to get an advantage by going with tank/jeep to planes.

For sightseeing it is also possible to kick because of disruptive gaming.

And for all the admins should be normally clear that an admin should not take a jeep to taxi to plane cause every admin acts as an example for all the other players. That means if an admin does taxiing he should be kicked immediately and not warned, my personal opinion.

@moonbread I won't stop cause you are a random nerd. Just give me evidences that you are allowed to write here for example the screenshots you promised, the videos you promised and the 1 vs 1 you should play. Btw how was it against Timmos or were you just scared?

@joint Isn't the whole community allowed to take part of this discussion or why do you want to lock this topic for all players beside admins?

joint · 2013-09-03 21:34:28

DC, just to discuss this without annoying distractions, dont get me wrong, i like spam, i am a spam, but..

DC · 2013-09-03 22:12:50

well joint I guess it is easier to ban the spammer

Sunshine · 2013-09-04 00:59:21

Many new players may not know what a "no taxi rule' is. It would be so much easier to have 1 simple rule: Don't be a dick. That pretty much covers everything.

Timmos · 2013-09-04 01:15:38

Let's ban moonlight then

*####*|Ldr.|1614 · 2013-09-04 03:41:04

Sunshine wrote:

Many new players may not know what a "no taxi rule' is. It would be so much easier to have 1 simple rule: Don't be a dick. That pretty much covers everything.

Haha Epic!

moon' · 2013-09-04 13:27:17

DC wrote:

well joint I guess it is easier to ban the spammer

Its easier to ban the anoying person that made him do 50% of his posts

Ticket_to_Death · 2013-09-04 17:28:43

Moonlight wrote:

DC wrote:
well joint I guess it is easier to ban the spammer
Its easier to ban the anoying person that made him do 50% of his posts

Your brother?

moon' · 2013-09-04 17:37:52

Ticket_to_Death wrote:

Moonlight wrote:
DC wrote:
well joint I guess it is easier to ban the spammer
Its easier to ban the anoying person that made him do 50% of his posts
Your brother?

Fuu ticket that was 10% of bread account i think but i mean DC

DC · 2013-09-04 17:50:16

I force you to post here?! Man I have the whole power over you. Then I will try it: Stop posting shit here.

Nosferatu · 2013-09-06 23:59:32

Please stop this retarded rule... The only thing I see lately is players abusing jeeps to get the soonest to the planes... Then I see 20 seconds later that they crashed and killed a teammate in their attempt to do something useful with the plane.

Why not keep that "Taxi rule"? The only ones who get punished are the ones who can't read.... So no need to punish the 'thinking' players of bf1942.

Hopefully others have the same idea/suggestion,

Regards

tuia · 2013-09-07 00:06:25

We're changing the taxi rule. There is a poll running at the admins section.

dary · 2013-09-07 00:13:46

How many people can vote in the admin section?

Intermediate result is 31:10 for the taxi rule. How many voters are left anyway? I bet not more than 20.

tuia · 2013-09-07 00:15:39

Yes, it seems clear taxi rule is preferred by majority, unless something surprising happens tomorrow.

dary · 2013-09-07 00:25:49

Who knows? Maybe 30 fake accounts.

tuia · 2013-09-07 00:27:30

Or one vote counting as 30.

say · 2013-09-07 00:28:20

SiMPLY If it happened then call it magic xD

Wiener-Schnitzel · 2013-09-07 12:06:21

tuia wrote:

Or one vote counting as 30.

That is your vote Tuia..

SiMPLE | Forum

Announcement

#31 2013-09-03 18:14:22

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#32 2013-09-03 18:25:08

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#33 2013-09-03 19:34:43

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#34 2013-09-03 19:43:44

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#35 2013-09-03 20:28:27

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#36 2013-09-03 20:35:03

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#37 2013-09-03 20:42:22

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#38 2013-09-03 20:51:42

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#39 2013-09-03 21:02:01

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#40 2013-09-03 21:08:05

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#41 2013-09-03 21:27:57

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#42 2013-09-03 21:34:28

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#43 2013-09-03 22:12:50

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#44 2013-09-04 00:59:21

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#45 2013-09-04 01:15:38

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#46 2013-09-04 03:41:04

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#47 2013-09-04 13:27:17

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#48 2013-09-04 17:28:43

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#49 2013-09-04 17:37:52

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#50 2013-09-04 17:50:16

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#51 2013-09-06 23:59:32

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#52 2013-09-07 00:06:25

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#53 2013-09-07 00:13:46

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#54 2013-09-07 00:15:39

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#55 2013-09-07 00:25:49

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#56 2013-09-07 00:27:30

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#57 2013-09-07 00:28:20

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

#58 2013-09-07 12:06:21

Re: another "TAXI" clarification

Board footer