Correct me if I'm wrong.

=HOG= wrote:

if you were an admin and the player base was yelling at you, why would you in turn do that to another admin, dont you know better?
Not saying your immature but a mature person doesnt scream and yell at people to get their way.

When someone feels strongly passionate about a subject do they always decide the most rational behavior? I'm certain everyone at one point in their lives have spoken with passion about a subject they believe in.
I for one have a strong belief in what is fair and right.
It was not fair for GEO to quickly ban an innocent player. So when GEO incorrectly put his views that the boragh is an APC over the fact that it is an armored tracked vehicle (that was his definition of APC over TS when discussing with Haley) I found that two reasons against my values to be displeased with GEO's decision.

I understand, shit happens however I repeat that ban should have never happened.
When I administrated a PR server I too had run ins with the playerbase and instead of throwing them out of the channel and refusing to listen I took my time out of my own gameplay to let the player understand why they received administrative action. My decisions were fair and systematic and never quick without good enough reason. I had the understanding that when someone is pissed they will be yelling and cursing. It is going to happen if the player feels they have been wronged. This is much deeper than a simple maturity, immaturity label. It is a whole psychology and sociology topic that I can go on about since I have dabbled in the subject however I doubt anyone really wants to talk about it.

To put your words into perspective. Not saying GEO is immature but a mature person does not refuse to listen as an administrative figure by throwing the player out of the TS channel and claiming they are correct regardless of anyone else's views.

If you get to know me I'm just a very passionate person and will fight tooth and nail for what is right and fair.

=HOG=Haley11thACR wrote:

I agree. We will make sure to tell everyone they are not claimable. This vehicle falls into apc and a vehicle that can be soloed, being as they are able to be one manned we will abide by the rule that if it can be soloed it can not be claimed.

Kimber is correct. Now you are getting a week off for your actions toward an admin.

I'm glad this is getting settled. If I'm taking a week for typing fuck you to GEO then so be it.
I disrespected an admin however if that is the case then I request GEO to be thoroughly aware of the rules that he enforces including the interpretation of the rules by the other admins. The administrative team needs to listen to the playerbase to keep this game and server going. The community is dwindling. The old adage, if you want respect you need to earn it. If GEO is going to ban without enough conviction that the report is true and if GEO is going to stay on his high horse like a dictator refusing to listen to the playerbase and keeping with his antiquated views of the rules then how is one to respect his decisions.

GEO your nearly 10 years of playing PR without ever being banned does not really say much about yourself.
If you never had enemies then you never stood up for something.

I only want to better this community and server. It's not my intention to go about things in ways that are viewed unconventional or counter intuitive. It's just seems to be how I am. I may bring conflict however it is with good intentions.

=HOG=Haley11thACR wrote:

Its time for these rule obsessed admins to get a taste of what rule after rule will result in...for some reason I notice some people require strictly constructed hard and fast rules, they cannot just passively admin they need the details explained, every possible nuance laid out in detail...enforced to the point of everything a player does can be construed as a rule violation...forget the fact that we have been using a rule system that has resulted in us having the number one ranked server year after year...lets focus on what does not work and fix fix fix

It seems the rule
Do not solo/one-man heavy assets if they require more than one person to operate properly. Any helo that has a gun for the copilot must be manned by 2 crewman.
Was used to justify the use of the open top light armored personnel carrier as a non-claimable asset.

I suggest the only addition to the Heavy Asset rulebase would be

Open Top Light Armored Personnel Carriers that can be single manned without second crewman are not claimable assets IE: BORAGH, VAB VTT, TPz FUCHS

Not certain if the Chinese ZSL-92A can be soloed.
However the 3 vehicles above are on maps that either already have an arsenal of heavy APCs that are claimable (Boragh Muttrah) or are the only form of vehicle troop transport (IE VAB Op Marlin/ FUCHS Ulynavosk)


There does not seem to be a rule in regards to shooting in main.

I suppose an addition to the general rules

Do not shoot, throw smoke, or be a nuisance in main.

Would suffice?


Does not seem to be difficult to add those into the rules without being a conflict with other rules.

I dont see need to change any rules when it come to this. APC IS APC simple as that. it always been like that. Chinese have had 50 cal apcs from way back and they always been APC's.

Wow this guy is out to get me lol. Good luck

If I'm not mistake the open top chinese 12.7 APC requires 2 CREWMEN to operate. Also with the layout of the game there would be 2 open top chinese APC and 2 heavy APC. The rest of the vehicle layout would be troop trans and FAV

For the past year the Boragh, FUCHs and VAB has been treated like a light armored vehicle such as a uparmored HMMWV. The only difference is that the Boragh FUCHs and VAB require 1 crewman to drive.

To treat these vehicles like they are APC only because they are "armored personnel carriers" without any thought of the actual gameplay would be a disaster.

On Op Marlin the VAB VTT are plentiful and the only form of vehicle transportation for troops. To label that as an APC would mean the APC squad is in charge of not only 2 VBCI APC and 4 VAB VTT.
On Ulynavosk the Germans would have 2 PUMA APCs and 3 FUCHs

If the FUCHS and VAB is treated like an light armored vehicle such as an Uparmored HMMWV so should the Boragh

On Muttrah the MEC have 3 BTRs, 2 closed MTLB 1 Scorpion. That 1 boragh that is 1 crewman operated. Speaking of gameplay the APC squads do not always work hand in hand with INF at all times. They are busy attacking other armored vehicles. The Boragh, VAB and FUCH are more like a HMMWV in which they are always used by infantry and used hand in hand to support the infantry. They are a force multiplier for the infantry.

It is not as simple as APC is APC. It has been that way up until last year when the 3 new open top 1 crewman vehicles were introduced in NOV 2015. Things have changed to better suit the gameplay.

You seem to be the only admin to have this antiquated view on what constitutes as an APC.
This is the reason why I was pissed and frustrated with you GEO. You are refusing to view things in a different light.

I'm not "out to get you". I'm just bringing up the inconsistency and issues.