×

Notice

The forum is in read only mode.

admin abuse

  • =HOG=Haley11thACR
  • =HOG=Haley11thACR's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
6 years 9 months ago #11066 by =HOG=Haley11thACR
Replied by =HOG=Haley11thACR on topic admin abuse
same rules for many years and only u seem not to understand...u present us with the option to articulate specific distances and to address every scenario...we choose to rely on common sense...it works with rare exception...do us a favor and stay away from the fort.
More
6 years 9 months ago #11067 by Jevski
Replied by Jevski on topic admin abuse
And if you had read ALL the rules we wouldnt be here.

IF mortars are built in fortress USMC is allowed to eliminate the threat if fired upon by means of CAS Huey, COBRA or mortars under no circumstances is any USMC infantry allowed to enter or be near fortress until AAS marker indicates to do so.

Here we explain that if the situation happens that mortars are there, then you are allowed to destroy them in a certain way, as to make it fair for US since they cant enter the cap. And it also again, tells you that INF IS NOT ALLOWED NEAR OR IN FORTRESS.

So how is it, that above needs more explaining?
  • jim
  • Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
More
6 years 9 months ago #11068 by jim
Replied by jim on topic admin abuse
1] Still waiting for BR file to be available to fulfill a we-don't really-care hurdle. Apparently BR files become available at some unknown time in the future, unlike the old way of minutes after a round ends.
2]common sense .... would imply that I should not have been kicked. I in no way hindered or affected the MEC team with my actions.
Common sense would dictate open transparency with rules that come close to modeling the desired limits of behavior. Or is "common sense" a code phrase with hidden meanings, sort of like "fort" which is not even close to describing the true meaning?
I offer - that the rule can be more accurate, not necessarily "specific distances" as it seems my words have been twisted into. Let me rephrase my own words: a less inaccurate statement of distances. As far as: "to address every scenario", I never even came close to saying that. If I had, you could jump quickly on the plagiarism train and put it in the rules. There will always be rule breakers and always some with intent, but with such poorly written rules, you will always end up kicking some people who were following your rules.
Now if I am stepping on some toes and some people are getting upset that their handcrafted spotless product is getting questioned; please; put ego aside and read this with common sense (meant as defined in dictionary) and consider more accurate, better written rules that *do* *not* change the intent (the rules residing identically in every HOG admin's head) but convey the meaning in a more authentic, faithful manner to every player who of course reads or needs to read the rules.

3]Taking things out of context.
"IF mortars are built in fortress", well mortars were not in fortress, therefore that portion of the rules was inactive. It seems this may be another portion of poorly written rules. It is an IF-THEN conditional statement, the IF portion was not present therefore the THEN portion is not applicable.
Welll, maybe another case of ... the rules should be rewritten to reflect what is meant.
  • =HOG=Haley11thACR
  • =HOG=Haley11thACR's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
6 years 9 months ago - 6 years 9 months ago #11069 by =HOG=Haley11thACR
Replied by =HOG=Haley11thACR on topic admin abuse
Im not really sure if u r trolling or just really do not understand...

under no circumstances is any USMC infantry allowed to enter or be near fortress

near
adverb

1At or to a short distance away; nearby.
‘a bomb exploded somewhere near’
comparative ‘she took a step nearer’
Last edit: 6 years 9 months ago by =HOG=Haley11thACR.
  • =HOG=Haley11thACR
  • =HOG=Haley11thACR's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
6 years 9 months ago - 6 years 9 months ago #11070 by =HOG=Haley11thACR
Replied by =HOG=Haley11thACR on topic admin abuse
How about this....U write the rule u want and we will review it
Last edit: 6 years 9 months ago by =HOG=Haley11thACR.
More
6 years 9 months ago - 6 years 9 months ago #11071 by Jevski
Replied by Jevski on topic admin abuse
You are correct it's a if then statement, but about destroying mortars not about inf is allowed there.
It only makes it even more clear that inf isn't allowed there.
You are really grasping at straws here, now that you have been proven wrong.

The If/then statement does tell you precisely what is allowed. It says that IF mortars are built there you can destroy them with CAS etc. It also tells you that the in a binary statement, in which situation inf is allowed at fortress.

IF mortars are built in fortress USMC is allowed to eliminate the threat if fired upon by means of CAS Huey, COBRA or mortars under no circumstances is any USMC infantry allowed to enter or be near fortress until AAS marker indicates to do so.


It clearly states that the ONLY situation that inf is allowed at fortress or to be near fortress, is when the AAS marker indicates it.

See its pretty clear. Under no circumstances is it allowed for inf to be there it says, and then it you the tells you under which conditions it is allowed. It does not say anything that comes close to running past, observing, peaceful demonstration or what ever you can come up with.


This rule combined with the "Do not enter into fort as infantry unless the attack flag is on it." makes it pretty clear, as it specifically says "enter or NEAR fortress"
Last edit: 6 years 9 months ago by Jevski.
Time to create page: 0.175 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum