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 - NEGERTIVS
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9
46
« on: November 23, 2010, 18:42 »
As vaikiss said, Morph already has 2 excellent spells for mobility. He needs to pump up his stats ASAP to become a late-game monster. Manta should be your core item. For the price of a dagger you could have an ultimate orb.
Don't get +damage items or sodding lifesteal, they don't benefit your images and they dont synergise with his Morph ability.
47
« on: November 23, 2010, 18:34 »
The bot is public, so as far as I know anyone can host. Try /w playdota.eu !gopub gamename. If you cant join then you are probably either banned or you dont have the map.
GL HF
48
« on: November 22, 2010, 20:53 »
I do agree that listing unplayable conditions has a limiting effect. But right now, there is no general concensus about what they are (or aren't), which means that regardless of how fantastically well the mods interpret each situation on its own, their decisions will be arbitrary. For example: Domagoj's topic http://playdota.eu/forum/index.php/topic,21431.0.htmlHe refused to accept "omg techies in team must rmk" as a valid unplayable condition. He was banned for bad hosting by one mod, while another mod might have denied that request because he/she has a different vision on the game. Listing reasons that do not qualify as unplayable conditions seems like a good change to me, it'll make the 40% vote rmk rule a lot clearer.
49
« on: November 22, 2010, 14:19 »
A further improvement could be: "If 40% of the players in a game vote !rmk due to unplayable conditions in the first 10 minutes of the game, the game is over and all players are allowed to leave."
If you want players to be able to votermk the game for any reason, then this will do perfectly fine. If you only want this rule to apply to certain unplayable conditions, you could make a clause stating them, like this:
- this rule only applies for unplayable conditions: early leavers, unplayable lagspikes, etc etc.
- hero picks, team noob, early first blood etc. do not qualify as unplayable conditions.
50
« on: November 22, 2010, 13:15 »
Why should BD not be allowed? Because it's "lame"? How? It's just another strategy, which can be countered. Due to the tower heal it can't be used as anything else besides a desperate late-game measure to turn the tides.
I think the "beauty" of the game should also be considered here.. Allowing the possibility of BD makes the game more fast paced, dynamic and tense. A farmed clinkz / furion / whatever suddenly popping up top, while you are trying to push mid, forces your team to adapt, making the game more interesting.
51
« on: November 22, 2010, 13:10 »
I agree, right now they would technically be breaking the rules by playing on.
52
« on: November 22, 2010, 13:01 »
Found this one while going through my W3 screenshots  I have to admire these people for their creativity. Got any yourself? Share em! 
53
« on: November 22, 2010, 12:48 »
Well as I see it the first player left at 8:25, well within 10 minutes. Optionally, you can subtract the time before the creeps spawn, Im still not sure whether that's being used or not.
So 8:25 - 1:30 = 6:55. Then the first !rmk was at 8:33 (or 6:58), and the 4th and final needed vote was in by 9:43 (or 8:13), also within the first 10 minutes.
Whichever method is used, the votermk reached 40% of total votes within 10 minutes. So you were all free to leave. If they want to play against creeps, then lol why not let them... As Geisteblitz said, you can't force them to vote and Im very happy with that policy. It's called a "vote" after all.
54
« on: November 22, 2010, 01:22 »
Post the link to the game and/or banrequest, and please make your case a little clearer using readable english.
55
« on: November 22, 2010, 00:35 »
And I might add to Ali's post that fnelleh didnt even ask to have this mod demoted. But the mod banned him outright, without evidence (until he actually posts some, though I know he doesnt HAVE any, I was there). I hope everybody notices the difference.
56
« on: November 19, 2010, 18:12 »
Well you have proofed opposit cause even the kindergarten-style can not help you to understand things whe have wrote above.
What you have written above is not in correspondence with your own rules. Therefore it makes no sense. Your opinion is not law. The rules are (thats why they are called RULES. Laws and rules, GET IT?). Id be perfectly willing to accept a dismissal when you provide good reasoning behind it. So far I havent seen any. 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).
Sure it can happen randomly. That's probably why disconnecting at the start nets you only a warn on first offense. So that has been accomodated in the rules. But it happens a lot more if you have a crappy connection and computer. By not making sure your equipment is set up right, you are ruining games and should in my opinion be accountable for that. Did you even understand my first proposal? It was to make disconnecting allowed in the rules, it would make the current status quo perfectly fine, mods unbanning disconnecters etc. Right now you are breaking the rules by unbanning disconnecters. If this were to be implemented you would not. Im aware of the difference between leavers and pluggers, thank you very much. 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.
Oh Im sure that in most cases, mods are perfectly capable of determining whether a player is a leaver or a disconnecter. But that's not really the point, is it? A host can't, that was a major point in the debate, remember? So who would you rather see going through extra trouble, the disconnecter, or the host/players whose game he has ruined? Should hosts play detective and make long banrequests for as little as a warn? Why not leave that up to the rulebreaker? In the end it will still be the mods who determine if he has disconnected or not. Hosts will be spared, ego's will be satisfied, disconnecters will be encouraged to improve their setup. Everybody's happy. Host was never banned for banning the rulebreakers, YOU IN OTHER WAY DID NOT BANNED THE RULE BREAKER YOU HAVE BANNED SOMEONE WHO LOST CONNECTION AT LOADING THAT IS BAN ABUSE.
Losing control, are we? Actually I was. He left the game ---> I banned him. There is no rule that allows disconnecting. Go to the ingame rules, hit control + F, search for the word "disconnect". It's not mentioned at all. So I hope you now understand why I keep saying that you make up rules. There is nothing in the rules that allows people to get away with disconnecting. Only in your head. I agree that its logical to be lenient with disconnecters, but right now you are breaking the rules by unbanning them. That's why I proposed to make it legal to disconnect in the rules. YOU CANT KNOW DID HE LEFT ON PURPOSE OR LOST CONNECTION THAT IS WHY YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BAN HIM ON 00:00.
A host can't know. Exactly my point. Should he play detective and spend lots of effort, when it was someone else who disconnected or left, thus ruining the game? It doesnt matter whether this player left or disconnected, the effect is the same, right? 8 players and the host have to waste 10 more minutes to find the next game. As Ali said, thats 9x10 = 90 minutes of wasted time in total. The disconnecter will still only get a warn in the end. The only difference will be that he would have to make an unbanrequest instead of putting the host through extra trouble. Im perfectly fine with making a distinction between leavers and disconnecters. Just don't make the hosts go through extra trouble. As I understand the current situation, hosts have lots of responsibilities already and a lot of rules apply to them, mostly unwritten rules. While disconnecters have none, even though it is them ruining games. It doesnt matter if it was intentional or not. All Im proposing is to level the playing field and make it more fair for hosts. Why is that so rediculous to you? Now, this will not be implemented cause there is no any reason for that. And if you want that someone accept you as sirious here, try to avoid provocations like this
Well when you ignore argumentation, close topics without any valid reason, interpret reasonable suggestions as attacks, etcetera etcetera I really do get the feeling Im in kindergarten. Im perfectly willing to lay off, if only you'd stop your unbelievable ad-hominem arguments like "WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE", "joo no pay money joo not entitled to opinion", "fix joo problems get brain surgery" etcetera etcetera. and all that you posted below ------------------------------------.
What is this? I dont quite get it. It looks like an unfinished post to me. Or are you conceding? I think anyone with half a brain and at least some basic ethics would conclude that having a code of conduct for mods is not such a bad idea for the community. It doesnt have to be the rules I proposed, I merely put down what I thought would be good rules, for discussion. Instead of at least allowing discussion, the topic was closed instantly. I think that's childish.
57
« on: November 19, 2010, 16:50 »
Im sorry if it doesnt make sense to you. It makes perfect sense to me and apparently to others as well. The obvious next step that you've left me, as an open door, would be to question your intelligence. But I wont do that. Remember that you don't have to read it. But then don't post here.
58
« on: November 19, 2010, 14:24 »
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. I dont like "arguing" half as much as you think. I deposit logical suggestions and you return me ad-hominem manure. Please actually respond to my arguments instead of hacking away at my person, or I will be forced to call you an "unbelievable tard", because thats exactly what you'll be then.
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. It could be done in a number of ways, but the easiest one would be to append the "player must not leave" rule, as such:
Player must not leave;
- An unintentional disconnect does not count as leaving
There, that wasnt all that difficult, right? OR if you want to be able to punish disconnecters then leave the leaver rule as it is now, and add a punishment clause at the bottom of the rules (where for example it says "warn" for leaving before the creeps spawn): as such:
Disconnecting (before creeps spawn) Warn 1 Day ban (or whatever) 3 day ban (or whatever)
Disconnecting (after creeps spawn) No punishment 1 Day ban (or whatever) 3 day ban (or whatever)
Again, not all that difficult.
2. Now on to the rule changes resulting from my plea: I think hosts should not be bannable for banning rulebreakers. This could be done in several ways:
Appending the "ban abuse" rule would be the easiest way:
Game owner must take control of the game
- Abusing the !banlast command is not allowed.
- Banning a rulebreaker is never ban abuse.
There you have it. Banning an early disconnecter is not "ban abuse" anymore now, and rightfully so. The disconnecter can easily go to the forum, put in some extra trouble and get warned instead of banned no problem. Since he has broken a rule and ruined the game for 9 people, he should be the one to request himself an unban. Do not punish the host or the other players for his failure.
Now if you would implement a rule that allows disconnecting altogether, then this specific case would be irrelevant. But I still think this would be a very good rulechange to protect hosts with good intentions. After all a lot of the "bad host" bans are made from what I call "mod logic" instead of properly sticking to the rules. How is banning a rulebreaker ever a violation of the "bad host" or "ban abuse" rule?
And might I also add that simply allowing all disconnects would be unwise, since plugpulling and then claiming a disconnect is rediculously easy and therefore very abusable. And I am of the opinion (like I said before) that a disconnecter is liable for his own bad connection and/or hardware/software, and should therefore feel the consequences when he ruins the game for other people by disconnecting. Allowing disconnects would let these people off the hook too easily and would be abusable to the point where any plugger/loading screen leaver can claim disconnect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last but not least the mod rules I suggested. Lol. Your reactions to a proposed set of rules for mods, like the ones being used all over the world and in many, many gaming communities, was so unreasonably defensive that I could hardly believe it. They are apparently NOT for PD.eu? OHNOES, a code of conduct that would make mods actually do their jobs instead of randomly ninja-banning people. I think it would be very beneficial to the entire community and as Domagoj stated before I also think it would generate a lot of support. Maybe that's why it was closed within minutes by ek0? You're scared of discussing making the conduct of mods more fair to the community, is that it?
I had a hilarious exchange of pm's with ek0 about it. Apparently there already are rules for mod behavior in place, but according to ek0 the players will not be allowed to know them! How hilarious is that! His reason for this is (and I quote, Im not sure if Im allowed to quote a pm but this line is just TOO GOOD to deprive the public of it):
"I don't have any intention to posting these moderator rules to the public, because I doubt that a player who just enters the site would care about moderators and what they do."
Can I get a LOLOLOL here? That's got to be the weakest excuse Ive ever heard, for anything. Hello?! I'm caring here! Id like to know! As would I think many players who feel a mod has abused them and who just want to know their rights. Is it that unreasonable to publish them? Is this really DPR Korea?
59
« on: November 19, 2010, 13:18 »
Actually you'll find that you are the one spamming here. Who is off-topic here? You. Who's making useless statements here (get "google lesence" people QUICK!)? Oh WAIT, it's you. I "spam" because I "talk a lot"? Wut? Typing without knowledge? Perhaps you should read the rules and reconsider that statement. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- erm ek0, I never said that. I said that if you have a crappy connection, then you are more likely to disconnect, thus making it your fault. Yes, I agree that such players should be banned, only if they join and ruin many games.
In the above statement you already said you agreed to this, right? The rules are quite clear yes, a leaver is a leaver, where is this "rule" that allows people to disconnect? Because it doesnt seem to exist in my space-time continuüm. Please quote it for me litterally, from the ingame rules section. The point of debate was if it could be possible to not punish the host for this leaver/disconnecter by actually making the one who ruined the game go through the extra trouble of requesting an unban/conversion to warn. Sigh.
60
« on: November 19, 2010, 00:42 »
Blink on riki... but why?  So you can blink while you blinkstrike? Why not get lothars, then you can invis while you invis and backstab while you backstab! hmm Xibit must be around somewhere..
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9
|
WiKi
How To
Rules
Ban
Unban
LA Staff
Maps
Streams
Show Posts
