This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - AliRadicali
1
« on: November 24, 2010, 18:04 »
Then the rules shud be rewritten.
If number of players in the opposing team is 3 or more greater than the number of players on your team and the game mode includes -so (-switchon) you are free to leave the game without ban;
2
« on: November 22, 2010, 20:33 »
The term "unplayable conditions" is what is called "general clausule". If you cut it out and just make list of the conditions you are limiting yourself to this list. If new problem not listed here appears you won't be able to rmk bcs of it.
So do the opposite: define what DOESN'T count as unplayable conditions. Something along the lines of "A team's hero picks doesn't count as an unplayable condition. As it stands, with no further information, anything counts as an unplayable condition. This is bad because plenty of reasons why someone would want to remake are "bad" reasons. Narrowing things down by excluding some "bad" reasons doesn't mean that we suddenly need an exhaustive list of every possible acceptable reason to remake. If "my ally's dog at his mouse so he cannot control his hero" is not on the list of unplayable conditions, that's fine because anyone can figure out that it's a valid excuse (if true). However, one quick glance at the list of exceptions would tell any user or mod that "omg techis GG nab tim" is not.
3
« on: November 22, 2010, 18:17 »
I would leave the unplayability of conditions on moderators.
I.e. there are tards who will !rmk when player pick techies. This is indeed unreasonable. However if you pick let's say never as first and then observe your allies picking gondar,riki,slark,mortred etc. it is indeed unplayable condition IMO (though u will hardly get another 3 votes).
The same situation is with noob team. If you thing somebody is noob, because enemy sucedeed in fb on him, is different than if he makes battlefury on centaur.
Why would you leave a vague term like "unplayable conditions" open to interpretation? Unplayable conditions could mean anything that a player might consider disruptive, from legitimate problems like 2 seconds of delay to completely retarded reasons like "OMG no tank gg". You say that we should trust the mods to make the distinction between playable and unplayable conditions, but that doesn't help you IN-GAME. If someone says "amagad we have techies, remake" then you'll probably have a hard time trying to explain how the rule doesn't count for that situation. A clause to explain what is and isn't an unplayable condition would be helpful in clearing up confusion about this vague rule. Furthermore, it'll probably save mods from having to deal with ban requests for players who think the 40% rule entitles them to a free remake regardless of the situation. I don't see any downsides here, and this isn't the first time this has been brought up, so why isn't this implemented yet? Your example is a perfect example of what the rule is NOT meant for. If you pick an awful team in an -ap game it's your own fault if you lose. If you don't want to play a 5 AGI carry team don't firstpick an agi carry, it's that simple.
4
« on: November 20, 2010, 15:21 »
@polska: +1
@negertivs: chinese walls can't get braindamage
@lobotomy: most valid post here. Everybody can claim that they "whispered something like: Hello buddy" and were banned for whispering spam. The other side can simply say they "recieved something like: Me fuck ur mother retard ok?" and we will have nice stallemate. If you want people to objectivly judge something bring some proofs.
The burden of evidence here lies with the mod who posted the ban lol. If you want to convict someone for a crime, you have to come up with evidence. Unless Night_must_Fail has a screencap with this supposed "whisperspam", there's no proof that the "crime" even took place. Of course, it would help if Fnelleh had a screenshot proving his statements, but as it stands it's just his word against that of the mod, which means the evidence is inconclusive either way.
5
« on: November 19, 2010, 21:46 »
Alright mrniceguy if apparently you are not capable of converting logical arguments in a logical plea into the rule-changes that would follow logically, then sure, Ill lay it out for you kindergarten-style.
Ok here is explanation why your proposals will not be accepted:
1. If you want to be able to unban disconnecters, make a rule that allows disconnecting. You people claim that disconnecting is not a bannable offense, but there is no rule for it. Right now, according to the rules, a disconnecter is simply a leaver or even a plugger.
1. Disconnecting is something that can happend everyone: power failure, losing connection, w3 crash, losing connection with bot (thats why gproxy++ has been inventend and it will be implemented in our bot).
And yes that is not bannable offense cause it is very easy for me, and I believe for all moderators to divide what is disconnecting and what is leaving/unpluging on purpose. If you can not understand that then you are not welcome to be host on our bot, rather play on it and avoid hosting.
2. Unplugging/leaving is something what you do when you are losing badly and you cant stand it anymore. Unplug the cable or leave the game.
We wont implement your proposal cause of that.
Our point is that the current rules do not allow disconnecting. Unless you change the current rules, what you're doing (I.E. unbanning disconnecters) is not in accordance with your rules. What we're proposing; a clause that says "Disconnecting is not punishable with a ban", would mean that what you're currently doing as mods becomes according to the rules. Get it?
6
« on: November 19, 2010, 14:28 »
Negertivs,
since you like to type and argue a lot, please type here with quotes witch rule should be different and more clear than it is now.
Cause you have wrote some rules for moderators and that will never be accepted, since you are regular player.
Post here your opinion about rules you would like to change (but post what kind of change), and we will respond is it possible or not to implement that (well I will respond and I think ek0 will respond too).
Ok?
Well, since the current rules don't adequately cover "what to do if someone discs/plugs/leaves before creepspawn", this wouldn't be about changing the rules inasmuch as it would be about making them. Personally, I think making distinctions between different types of leaver is completely arbitrary and requires hosts to make judgement calls that they can't possibly make, so I'd get rid of the whole "leaving before creepspawn rule", but seeing as you guys seem adamant about keeping it, this is how you should change your interpretation of the rules: Stop banning hosts who ban someone for leaving before creepspawn. A host doesn't have a a special !warn-command, so he can't give the "correct" punishment in-game. He has to go on the forums to write a report, only to see the leaver get warned. This is a such a waste of effort that it's no wonder no-one ever does it. But since no-one ever bothers to write reports about this stuff, it shouldn't come as a surprise that repeat-offenders (I.E. Serial Laggers) don't get caught. Allow hosts to ban early leavers. Sure, this forces people with a "legitimate" reason for leaving to go and write an unban report. So what? If you ruin a game by disconnecting at start, you probably wasted 9*10 = 90 mins of other peoples' time, so being forced to actively get yourself unbanned is the least amount of effort you can do. Using the !ban command when someone leaves after loading is not host abuse; it's common freaking sense. If you really want to distinguish between leavers and disconnects then you should at least require the leaver to make sure he's dealt with accordingly, not force the hosts to make a distinction they can't.
7
« on: November 18, 2010, 18:52 »
If they have lame connection why they r playing mp games and wasting time of other players as i said before if u cant ban plugers make them bannable by request only like before
Yes, I agree that such players should be banned, only if they join and ruin many games.
But if it happened only once, I don't know why should the host waste your time writing an unban request.
Guy, if you agree that a bad connection is something the player should be held accountable for, then why don't you let us ban them? They can still post unban requests so if it's their first time, they can get an unban. But at least this way all cases of leaving are recorded. I don't think it's fair to force a host to post a warn request to get a lagger punished for ruining games.
8
« on: November 18, 2010, 16:35 »
Why is it so hard for you guys to just objectively look at NEGERTIVS' suggestion? He's not trying to get anyone banned or unbanned, he's just trying to get a ridiculous rule changed that allows mods to ban hosts for banning leavers (lol).
9
« on: October 17, 2010, 23:26 »
What i wanted to point out with homeless shelter is that we are free in response to what aliradicali posted. There are no customers here, there are no paid jobs here, there is no quality of service that you can demand here.
But we are trying to compete with other DotA communities by making a better rules and better bots. As i said above, we will update the rules and the bots extensively sometime this month.
What exactly is pd.eu's objective, if not to provide casual DotA players with a place to play DotA? Assuming that that IS your objective, why would you want to ignore feedback from said casual DotA players? No-one's demanding anything here, I'm merely curious why I get labeled "spammer" for disagreeing with certain rules. As far as I can tell, my suggestions would have a positive influence on the overall enjoyment of pd.eu DotA games, and implementing them is a matter of copypizza, so the real question would be why NOT implement them.
10
« on: October 17, 2010, 17:07 »
@ AliRadicali
This system IS working fine else here wouldnt play 90% population on bnet. Just as I sad before, I will say it again:
If u have productive idea, plz share it with us at our feedback section else dont post crap like playdota.eu is shit and finish your story there. If u dont like here, plz be free to play at other realms. I do have productive ideas, they just get locked because you ignore them. Just like you ignore my several complaints. Part of your JOB is to listen to customers' (AKA players) complaints and to improve the services you provide. But instead of listening to complaints and seriously trying to adress the issues brought up, you respond with one-liners like "rules are fine", "if you can't understand the rules don't host" and best of all "If you don't like it go play on another server". LOL! Let's draw an analogy here: I'm a customer in a restaurant. I think my food tastes a bit plain, so I ask the waiter for some salt. Should the waiter: a) Tell the customer to go eat somewhere else if he doesn't like it. b) Give the customer some salt. Well? I have made a complaint about the aforementioned "40% rule" in another thread, and it got pointedly ignored. I'll make my suggestion again: Add an exception to the rule: "Hero picks do not count as an "unplayable condition." Why? Because "our team has a (insert hero here), REMAKE!" should obviously not be considered a proper reason to remake a game. Now are you going to tell me to go find another restaurant, or are you going to give me my damn salt (or at least explain why you can't give me any)? Oh.. and yes, our system works fine
a) I disagree with you. The rules are too vague and open to multiple interpretations, and several of the most common scenarios aren't covered by the rules. The fact that disconnecting is not mentioned in the rules at all proves this point perfectly IMO. b) Even if that were true, that doesn't mean things cannot be improved. The T-ford was an amazing vehicle when it was introduced, but that didn't mean that people went around saying "OMG this car is fine, no need to change it! LOCKED!" Would you rather drive this:  or this: 
11
« on: October 17, 2010, 15:06 »
No, the "unplayable conditions" line should definitely be explained thoroughly in the rules. And if i understood correctly, mrniceguy said it would be done when the new set of rules arrives.
Unplayable conditions in first 10 min of the game:
5v4 situation (where 1 player is out of game)
5v4 situation (1 or more players are afking,but afk must be more than 5 minutes so you can -kickafk him, if he moves his hero on purpose u can vote for rmk and report that user on forum )
Where 1 or more players have lag! But if the ping is below 100-150 his complains about lag will not be taken as proof (this sentence will be changed probably)
5v3 and rest that quon wrote, you can leave the game whenever you want and host does not have right to ban you!
As I said, If you started game with a noob in team, that is not reason to leave the game or afk, you wonder why? Because before game starts you have time to check !sd of every player!( with new scoring system and new bot upgrade I think if you dont want noobs in game they will not be able to join, and count down will last 10 sec instead of 5 so you will have enough time to leave lobby if you dont like your team mates)
I think I was helpful here explaining about unplayble conditions!
P.S. Once again NO ONE IS OBLIGATED TO VOTE FOR ANY KIND OF COMMAND, !VOTEKICK, !RMK OR !SWITCH, HOW EVER IF YOU HAVE 4 votes for rmk in first 10 minutes of the game you can leave the game and host does not have right to ban you!
This is all fine and dandy, but as long as this sort of stuff isn't stated in the actual rules, "unplayable conditions" will remain a vague term open to anyone's interpretation (which, in turn, leads to people thinking they can leave the game if someone picks techies). Furthermore, I very much doubt that all mods unanimously agree with you that a total noob is not a valid reason to remake. Lastly, you mention that if 4 players vote remake, then everyone is free to go. Well what if they remake for a terrible reason (I.E. techies)?
12
« on: October 14, 2010, 13:24 »
Considering the player base, no, it isn't a good rule. It'd be a good rule in an ideal society where people only use this rule when they genuinely need a pause. On Eurobattlenet however, that pause is gonna get used by mentally handicapped kiddies to waste the winning team's time.
13
« on: October 13, 2010, 17:34 »
That's what brain is for 
Does someone with K/D score 10/3 have a reason to plug? Chances are low, so here applies presumption of innocence.
What about player that has score 3/10 and disconnects right after he's killed? Pretty obvious, most of the time.
Rather simple system, in my opinion. I don't see how you can have trouble understanding it.
Hurr, darr. This feels like talking to an extremely ignorant wall, but here we go again: 1. The rules don't mention that banning d/c's is not allowed. 2. probability =/= certainty. Getting a bluescreen after giving firstblood is worth a ban, but plugging with 9-0 'cos you forgot about an important appointment should not be punished? Bullshit.
14
« on: October 13, 2010, 14:28 »
I don't know what message do you mean, but the one that appears in chat when a player leaves behaves as I described in my previous post.
That's where you should look before banning a player.
The bot-generated bullshit text doesn't distinguish between plugs and discs so it can be ignored.
15
« on: October 12, 2010, 22:57 »
I don't think you'd have to append that rule, since everyone agreed on this thing. Mods, us, we all agree here. So until only a few idiots think that techies is a reason to !rmk, I don't think u'd have to add an explanation to that rule.
But also, it doesn't hurt to have one more line there, so why not...
40% of players voted rmk in first 8 minutes, i sustain my decision . the rule doesn`t define "unplayable conditions", so it`s up to everyone; if 4 players thought they can`t play like that, i respect their decision . whats the point in playing a game against 4 players who don`t want to play anymore from minute 8 of the game? and it was a private game, next time pick in ur private game players who u like to play with
At the start of this thread, that 40% rule was given as a reason to deny your ban request, so apparently the rules aren't even clear enough for the mods, let alone the general populace. Assuming people have common sense on this sever is a horrible mistake.
|
WiKi
How To
Rules
Ban
Unban
LA Staff
Maps
Streams
Show Posts
