Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws

[jerclay]

I've tried to email Gabe; I'll try Robin as well. And regardless, do you see now how ridiculous it is (and how valid my accusation of a personal issue is), that I've been doing that for MONTHS, seen by several admins, and without warning, I get a ban? He even meant it to be a 10 day ban.

Here's a movie of the action I'm doing in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVgeUOeuHAg

I've already shown there's no evidence of an actual architecture flaw in the map design, that it's ok to shoot stickies from battlement to battlement, and that it's ok to kill people from my "safe" position I was doing it at. To state doing them both in combination is a questionable judgment call at best, and taking that opinion and making it a no-warning, meant-to-be-10-day ban, for his first ban (his words)... Sounds pretty personal to me.

[Hell-met]

hahahahahah

this is getting funny, post more

[OmegaZero_Alpha]

Well, yeah - he's using every shred of vagueness to misconstrue. Being detailed makes that more difficult.

And you are using overly-long posts to try and obfuscate the central point: You got banned for not obeying the server rules. Get over it.

Also you would have been warned if you had bothered to read the rules. One of them states that all exploits are an instant and permanent ban.

The definition of exploit (as recognized by SourceOP servers) is an unintentional feature in a game that may or may not give a player non-standard characteristics or advantages.

Seeing as this is a design feature I would say that that it was unintentionally made a gun-port. It is in a game. And the advantage of being able to spray stickies across the map without people being able to openly fire back from any but extremely limited angles in non-standard for TF2.

In fact, if Robin replies to ANY of you and says that this window was placed there for any reason other than to give one team a clear advantage then I call for his ban to become permanent in the interest of justice.

[Snarf]

You were banned for one day and instead of just taking it you decide to start a huge flame war and make it even worse.

[Hell-met]

permanent is a bit harsh OZA

unless of course if he intends on using this again

[ibby]

I've missed you Omega

[WombRaider]

Well, yeah - he's using every shred of vagueness to misconstrue. Being detailed makes that more difficult.

And you are using overly-long posts to try and obfuscate the central point: You got banned for not obeying the server rules. Get over it.

Also you would have been warned if you had bothered to read the rules. One of them states that all exploits are an instant and permanent ban.

The definition of exploit (as recognized by SourceOP servers) is an unintentional feature in a game that may or may not give a player non-standard characteristics or advantages.

Seeing as this is a design feature I would say that that it was unintentionally made a gun-port. It is in a game. And the advantage of being able to spray stickies across the map without people being able to openly fire back from any but extremely limited angles in non-standard for TF2.

In fact, if Robin replies to ANY of you and says that this window was placed there for any reason other than to give one team a clear advantage then I call for his ban to become permanent in the interest of justice.

did you even read the thread? because whether or not it's an exploit is extremely debatable, and it doesnt give one team an advantage over the other since both teams have the same capability

[jerclay]

this is getting funny, post more

I was wondering how long until you'd stop defending the reasoning you gave after it was shown flawed, and just resort to belitting the idea in general. Four pages. It's easy to predict if (that was the first reply), the hard part is predicting when.

The definition of exploit (as recognized by SourceOP servers) is an unintentional feature in a game that may or may not give a player non-standard characteristics or advantages.

Oh please. I can't even begin to cover the gray area there. How are headshots through the slats in the bridge roof any different from shooting through the slats in the battlement roof in strict terms of "unintended features?" Because at least a couple of your mods have used it against me. If you try really hard, I guess there's differences in difficulty to counter, but as I stated, that's a gray area.

And the advantage of being able to spray stickies across the map without people being able to openly fire back from any but extremely limited angles in non-standard for TF2."

And see, this is exactly why I keep replying to this. You act as if it's over, when it's not. Per that statement, it's an "exploit" to do the exact same thing from the opposite side as well. Even though it has been stated in this very thread that it's ok. You're indirectly proving how vague that statement is, and validated my concern that the reasoning for my ban was personal.

In fact, if Robin replies to ANY of you and says that this window was placed there for any reason other than to give one team a clear advantage then I call for his ban to become permanent in the interest of justice.

And this is proof of how much you understand the issue. Both sides have similar structures that allow the same thing; no team has a clear advantage with it. For that matter, if Robin replies back that it's a legitimate use, will you concede you're wrong? Or is this just a one-way road?

You were banned for one day and instead of just taking it you decide to start a huge flame war and make it even worse.

Because as OmegaZero_Alpha has exemplified, it isn't over. He's insisting that I should be permabanned for things other mods have stated is ok here. I was banned for one day, fine; that has NOTHING to do as to why this is kept up. It's still here becuase I could be permabanned for vague reasons, and OmegaZero_Alpha has proved it.

[Snarf]

You know nobody would be suggesting that if you didn't turn this into 4 pages of he said she said.

[OmegaZero_Alpha]

did you even read the thread? because whether or not it's an exploit is extremely debatable, and it doesnt give one team an advantage over the other since both teams have the same capability

I didn't feel I needed to read the full thread because I actually PLAY on 2fort and I actually understand the issue, and I agree that the subject is debatable. If you had read MY post you would have noted that in any debate the person who has the end-all authority as to the matter is the server administration. As son as they make their decision the matter is as good as closed and your opinion is invalid.

Oh please. I can't even begin to cover the gray area there.

Welcome to the world of politics and lawmaking. If you had any higher understanding of the matter you would realize that rules HAVE to be intentionally vague (while being clear at the same time) as to make them better fit every scenario. Rules aren't about being an end-all guide book giving you every scenario, they are to start out as a rough-cut guideline to be further defined by higher powers as situations arise.

You're indirectly proving how vague that statement is, and validated my concern that the reasoning for my ban was personal.

You are being egotistical to even think that you are important enough for Hell-met to ban you for 'personal reasons'. I am sure there are many (much more relevant) people way higher on a much longer list that would have been banned years ago if he were going to ban people just for not liking them.

For that matter, if Robin replies back that it's a legitimate use, will you concede you're wrong? Or is this just a one-way road?

Honestly, it would give you something to work with. If they said it was legitimate then it means that it is intentionally left in there by the game crew and probably wouldn't be considered an exploit.

And that begs the question: If he says that it isn't intended to be used that way would you gracefully back away when you received a permanent ban?

Because as OmegaZero_Alpha has exemplified, it isn't over. He's insisting that I should be permabanned for things other mods have stated is ok here. I was banned for one day, fine; that has NOTHING to do as to why this is kept up. It's still here becuase I could be permabanned for vague reasons, and OmegaZero_Alpha has proved it.

I didn't prove anything, I simply voiced my opinion. In all honesty even the banning admin was against it, too. I would say you had little to no chance of being permanently banned unless you went back onto the server and did this again.