2012
2012-07-09 21:28:39
rating 1.6
47 coaches online • Server time: 11:41
* * * Did you know? The most touchdowns in a single match is 23.
Recent Forum Topics  Please vote for our ... | solution for weak ga... | Secret League Americ... |
2012-08-30 18:29:02
23 votes, rating 3
23 votes, rating 3
Questions /Preguntas
Hoy un jugador me ha dicho que tenia un problema con uno de mis equipos y que le iba a pedir a un administrador que comprobara a ver si era o no legal.
Dicho equipo tenia 3 journeymen y 200k de pasta, y eso va en contra de las reglas o al menos eso pensaba el otro jugador.
El motivo de que el equipo este asi es bien sencilla. Cuando termino un partido me voy a mirar las habilidades y a no ser que falte algun posicional importante, me suelo olvidar de comprar peña nueva.
El porque esto era un problema para el otro jugador es algo que aun no he podido descubrir porque el no me lo ha querido contar, pero desde mi punto de vista si alguien no se preocupa y tiene que jugar con3 lineas looner es su problema, y desde luego no una ventaja.
Pero lo que me molesta un poco es que en las reglas he encontrado solo esto:
"Teams in competitive divisions are expected to strive for at least 11 players on the roster. While this doesn't mean that any team below 11 players must immediately hire a new lineman, coaches are expected to not let the team deteriorate on purpose."
Y leyendo esto entiendo que es recomendable tener el equipo con 11 jugadores, pero desde luego no obligatorio.
Bueno, pues el administrador me ha dicho que si es obligatorio y no me ha querido decir si aparece mas informacion escrita en algun sitio de las reglas o no, porque creo que si no aparece nada mas, mi equipo es perfectamente legal.
¿Que opinais al respecto? Solo por curiosidad
De cualquier forma el administrador me ha dejado bastante clarito que con el no se discute aunque yo lo unico que le he preguntado y varias veces es a ver si esto es una interpretacion suya, o hay mas reglas escritas en algun sitio.
Definitivamente su palabra es ley y como yo solo soy un usuario de esta pagina, tengo que acatarla.
Today a player had a problem with one of my teams and asked an administrator to check if it was legal or not.
That team had 3 journey men and 200k in cash and that was against the rules, or at least he thought it was.
The reason for that is quite simple. When I finish a match I just check for skills and usually forget about buying new players if all my important positionals are alive and ready.
Why was this a problem for the other player is still a mistery because he didnt want to explain it to me. From my personal point of view, if somebody is not paying all his attention to fumbbl and has to play with 3 looner linemen, that's his problem, but I cant find the point in which this could be and advantage or something...
But what pissed me a little of is this. In the rules I only found this:
"Teams in competitive divisions are expected to strive for at least 11 players on the roster. While this doesn't mean that any team below 11 players must immediately hire a new lineman, coaches are expected to not let the team deteriorate on purpose."
And with this, I understand it is recomended to have a full 11 players team, but not mandatory.
Well, the administrator told me it is mandatory, but didnt want to tell me if there's further information written somewhere in this site, because if there is not, only with the text I found in the rules, my team is perfectly legal.
¿What does people think about this? I would just like to know.
Anyway, the adminstrator make it perfectly clear there's no discussion with him about this subject (and I was only asking for further written information, not asking for the reasons).
His word is law and as I am only a user of this site I have clear I had to abide.
Dicho equipo tenia 3 journeymen y 200k de pasta, y eso va en contra de las reglas o al menos eso pensaba el otro jugador.
El motivo de que el equipo este asi es bien sencilla. Cuando termino un partido me voy a mirar las habilidades y a no ser que falte algun posicional importante, me suelo olvidar de comprar peña nueva.
El porque esto era un problema para el otro jugador es algo que aun no he podido descubrir porque el no me lo ha querido contar, pero desde mi punto de vista si alguien no se preocupa y tiene que jugar con3 lineas looner es su problema, y desde luego no una ventaja.
Pero lo que me molesta un poco es que en las reglas he encontrado solo esto:
"Teams in competitive divisions are expected to strive for at least 11 players on the roster. While this doesn't mean that any team below 11 players must immediately hire a new lineman, coaches are expected to not let the team deteriorate on purpose."
Y leyendo esto entiendo que es recomendable tener el equipo con 11 jugadores, pero desde luego no obligatorio.
Bueno, pues el administrador me ha dicho que si es obligatorio y no me ha querido decir si aparece mas informacion escrita en algun sitio de las reglas o no, porque creo que si no aparece nada mas, mi equipo es perfectamente legal.
¿Que opinais al respecto? Solo por curiosidad
De cualquier forma el administrador me ha dejado bastante clarito que con el no se discute aunque yo lo unico que le he preguntado y varias veces es a ver si esto es una interpretacion suya, o hay mas reglas escritas en algun sitio.
Definitivamente su palabra es ley y como yo solo soy un usuario de esta pagina, tengo que acatarla.
Today a player had a problem with one of my teams and asked an administrator to check if it was legal or not.
That team had 3 journey men and 200k in cash and that was against the rules, or at least he thought it was.
The reason for that is quite simple. When I finish a match I just check for skills and usually forget about buying new players if all my important positionals are alive and ready.
Why was this a problem for the other player is still a mistery because he didnt want to explain it to me. From my personal point of view, if somebody is not paying all his attention to fumbbl and has to play with 3 looner linemen, that's his problem, but I cant find the point in which this could be and advantage or something...
But what pissed me a little of is this. In the rules I only found this:
"Teams in competitive divisions are expected to strive for at least 11 players on the roster. While this doesn't mean that any team below 11 players must immediately hire a new lineman, coaches are expected to not let the team deteriorate on purpose."
And with this, I understand it is recomended to have a full 11 players team, but not mandatory.
Well, the administrator told me it is mandatory, but didnt want to tell me if there's further information written somewhere in this site, because if there is not, only with the text I found in the rules, my team is perfectly legal.
¿What does people think about this? I would just like to know.
Anyway, the adminstrator make it perfectly clear there's no discussion with him about this subject (and I was only asking for further written information, not asking for the reasons).
His word is law and as I am only a user of this site I have clear I had to abide.
Comments
Posted by robocoyote on 2012-08-30 18:34:08
The Rule was implemented to stop people from min/max cash hording. I myself used to run 3-4 loaner zombies because i didnt want them to skill. I dont remember when this rule went into effect, but the average guidline is if you have enough cash for your most expensive positional, do not use loaners
at least this is my current understanding of the rule
at least this is my current understanding of the rule
Posted by zakatan on 2012-08-30 18:38:44
Este tema ha sido discutido a muerte ya. La famosa norma de los 11 no tiene mucho sentido y los admins en verdad nunca han explicado por qué sigue ahí, existiendo loners.
Pero claro, también está la otra norma de "la interpretación de los admins es la que cuenta". Y ellos consideran que jugar con loners a pesar de tener dinero es abusar de la norma. No vas a sacar nada en claro de este tema más allá de que evites ponerte en esta situación.
Pero claro, también está la otra norma de "la interpretación de los admins es la que cuenta". Y ellos consideran que jugar con loners a pesar de tener dinero es abusar de la norma. No vas a sacar nada en claro de este tema más allá de que evites ponerte en esta situación.
Posted by grendel2410 on 2012-08-30 18:55:15
My point is that this text:
this doesn't mean that any team below 11 players must immediately hire a new lineman
dosent need interpretation. "DOSENT MEAN THAT PLAYERS MUST INMEDIATELY HIRE" is clear. It is not mandatory to buy the player you've lost.
And if they want to clarify this, they should rewrite the rule, which is something quite easy, isnt it? What is not fair for me, is that the rule is clear, but the admin understand it in another way...
No sabia que estoy taia ya cola. Me ha parecido la ordiga el tonito de administrador porque la verdad es que si no hay mas reglas escritas en ningun sitio, como si quieres jugar con 10 looners...si es que ademas es una putada, no?
this doesn't mean that any team below 11 players must immediately hire a new lineman
dosent need interpretation. "DOSENT MEAN THAT PLAYERS MUST INMEDIATELY HIRE" is clear. It is not mandatory to buy the player you've lost.
And if they want to clarify this, they should rewrite the rule, which is something quite easy, isnt it? What is not fair for me, is that the rule is clear, but the admin understand it in another way...
No sabia que estoy taia ya cola. Me ha parecido la ordiga el tonito de administrador porque la verdad es que si no hay mas reglas escritas en ningun sitio, como si quieres jugar con 10 looners...si es que ademas es una putada, no?
Posted by zakatan on 2012-08-30 19:05:26
la verdad es que no está nada claro. Esta norma está ahí desde lrb4 en que no había loners, y hubo algunos equipos con 3 jugadores y montones de dinero. Con las nuevas normas no le encuentro la gracia pero bueno, mandan ellos.
Yo con mis Elfos pro, al ritmo que caen, a menos que pueda comprar todos los posicionales y dos suplentes, voy tirando de loners...
Yo con mis Elfos pro, al ritmo que caen, a menos que pueda comprar todos los posicionales y dos suplentes, voy tirando de loners...
Posted by Kryten on 2012-08-30 19:19:24
I agree, the rule should be made more clear. In my opinion, we waste time chasing minor violations of the 11 player rule. Most coaches are not letting their teams deteriorate on purpose. Few coaches use journeymen to pile up a huge amount of cash, and I believe that amount of cash would have to be truly monstrous to really confer that unfair advantage.
Posted by grendel2410 on 2012-08-30 19:30:54
At least now I'm in peace. I thought It was only me thinking this was stupid.
But, one question: If I have plenty of money and build up an horde with inducements, My oponent will also recieve the same amount for his inducements, wont he?
Then, again, where is the advantage for the looner user?
Yo con skavens no he conseguido acumular ni 100k, me da la risa. Pero con enanos me ha ido haciendo heridas a lineas que he echado del equipo por mantas y no me he preocupado en reponer mas que a los buenos y la verdad me ha sorprendido el tipo que se ha quejado al admin...
But, one question: If I have plenty of money and build up an horde with inducements, My oponent will also recieve the same amount for his inducements, wont he?
Then, again, where is the advantage for the looner user?
Yo con skavens no he conseguido acumular ni 100k, me da la risa. Pero con enanos me ha ido haciendo heridas a lineas que he echado del equipo por mantas y no me he preocupado en reponer mas que a los buenos y la verdad me ha sorprendido el tipo que se ha quejado al admin...
Posted by WhatBall on 2012-08-30 19:45:25
200K and 3 loners is not abusive imo.
Posted by ClayInfinity on 2012-08-30 21:32:35
As an aside, I appreciate what the OP has done in which English is not his main language and yet he expressed his point in his native language and then made a good attempt in English.
This site is English and the language on the forums and in #fumbbl is english but I believe that this guy had a genuine concern and was finding it hard to express the words in English to make his point.
Perhaps that is why the admin gave him short shrift - admin thought he was being badgered whereas the OP was only try to ask a legit question in bad english.
This site is English and the language on the forums and in #fumbbl is english but I believe that this guy had a genuine concern and was finding it hard to express the words in English to make his point.
Perhaps that is why the admin gave him short shrift - admin thought he was being badgered whereas the OP was only try to ask a legit question in bad english.
Posted by Naru1981 on 2012-08-30 21:39:30
i've seen teams with same thing. 200-300k cash but run with a couple of loners. These are mostly for frontline duty. But mainly so they can instantly replace their main players should they die or get INJ.
having 6 Loners and 700k cash in OTT.
Last week saw a Dwarf team with 70k cash and 8 LONERS.
They decided to restart their team, and retire all injured.
having 6 Loners and 700k cash in OTT.
Last week saw a Dwarf team with 70k cash and 8 LONERS.
They decided to restart their team, and retire all injured.
Posted by licker on 2012-08-30 21:39:42
I don't think the inducement 'edge' is really that big, but you can play small games with the numbers if you are the dog heading in.
Say you're the dog by 60k, you spend 150k to buy a wiz, that gives your opponent 90k to play with.
90k is pretty much useless for most rosters, it's a babe and 40k wasted.
Again, this is hardly something to worry about when you're also playing with multiple loners.
Say you're the dog by 60k, you spend 150k to buy a wiz, that gives your opponent 90k to play with.
90k is pretty much useless for most rosters, it's a babe and 40k wasted.
Again, this is hardly something to worry about when you're also playing with multiple loners.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2012-08-30 21:49:26
Another blog whining about the same thing.
1. The team in question wasn't the team I warned him about, however I did point out that most likely it would be illegal soon.
2. If staff say it's a rule, it's a rule. You don't need to go looking for rules to argue the point. If we say it's a rule, and clarify why and what a coach needs to do, that's what you do. His team wasn't retired, due to there being a good chance he wasn't aware the rule was enforced like that.
3. I clarified that yes the rule he pointed out was the rule in question.
4. The OP continued to be pedantic and wanted me to confirm it with a definitive yes (presumably to make a blog like this to ridicule me).
1. The team in question wasn't the team I warned him about, however I did point out that most likely it would be illegal soon.
2. If staff say it's a rule, it's a rule. You don't need to go looking for rules to argue the point. If we say it's a rule, and clarify why and what a coach needs to do, that's what you do. His team wasn't retired, due to there being a good chance he wasn't aware the rule was enforced like that.
3. I clarified that yes the rule he pointed out was the rule in question.
4. The OP continued to be pedantic and wanted me to confirm it with a definitive yes (presumably to make a blog like this to ridicule me).
Posted by Nelphine on 2012-08-30 22:18:41
And having recieved similar warnings, I find that the admins are always fair and helpful - I recieved a warning about one team, which had 400k cash and 5 loners, but because I hadn't played the team in over a year, and the last game had been against WMD's (who trashed the heck out of me, and turned me off of the box), the admin accepted that there were reasons and did not retire the team; and now I (as with Grendel) know where the line is, which is the whole point of these warnings. They are not 'omg you are terrible person', they are 'on this site, we have this rule and you are getting close to infringing on it - you still have time to fix it though'.
Posted by Araznaroth on 2012-08-30 22:45:30
aaaand its gone!
Posted by grendel2410 on 2012-08-30 23:04:01
1. The team in question (200k and 3 journeymen) was said to be illegal when reach 210k.
And the illegal team is a skaven team with 220k and 2 journeymen.
2. Admins word is rule. Ok. No problem with that point. That point is clear in the rules. But if you mean that once an administrator says a word, we can't ask further questions, you are wrong. Those days are over.
3. You didnt clarify what I was asking. I was asking if there is further information about this rule, written somewhere in the site and you didnt clarify or even answer to this simple question. Still dont know why
4. You were talking like almighty god. Saying things like "this issue is finished" "I will not read any more message on this "...
when I was still waiting you to answer my simple question.
And of course I wanted and absolute yes or a no to it.
Anyway I didnt mention your name in the whole post so, if you thing this was to ridiculize you, you're wrong. If that were my intention, the name of the post would have been something like "Harvestmouse sucks and has delusions of grandeur"
And I havent done so.
By the way, is my english so wrong? I dont think so, and I'm sure Harvestmouse understood what i was asking in the very first moment.
And the illegal team is a skaven team with 220k and 2 journeymen.
2. Admins word is rule. Ok. No problem with that point. That point is clear in the rules. But if you mean that once an administrator says a word, we can't ask further questions, you are wrong. Those days are over.
3. You didnt clarify what I was asking. I was asking if there is further information about this rule, written somewhere in the site and you didnt clarify or even answer to this simple question. Still dont know why
4. You were talking like almighty god. Saying things like "this issue is finished" "I will not read any more message on this "...
when I was still waiting you to answer my simple question.
And of course I wanted and absolute yes or a no to it.
Anyway I didnt mention your name in the whole post so, if you thing this was to ridiculize you, you're wrong. If that were my intention, the name of the post would have been something like "Harvestmouse sucks and has delusions of grandeur"
And I havent done so.
By the way, is my english so wrong? I dont think so, and I'm sure Harvestmouse understood what i was asking in the very first moment.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2012-08-31 00:09:29
Posted by harvestmouse on 2012-08-30 17:45:08
As I stated. My explanation was regarding the rule you pointed out. If you send me any more messages on this issue, I will not read them.
HM
This wasn't clear enough? What do you wish me to do, tattoo it on my forehead? The point is, it's not the point. If it's written somewhere or not. If I tell you what you are doing wrong, and give you the opportunity to fix the problem, and let you no the consequences if you don't, is enough.
I'm happy to clarify points that you are unsure of. I.e. what you need to do, when you need to do. However I'm not interested and won't if I choose to, debate the rule, and your interpretation of said rule.
If I state 'This is the rule, this is what you have to do'. Yes, you do as stated or there will be consequences. This isn't a democracy, you are a guest, and abide by the rules of the house.
I'm not sure you understand this. It isn't Xbox live, you aren't playing for a service.
You don't get absolute answers if we aren't willing to give them or think them unnecessary. Here, those days aren't over.
"Harvestmouse sucks and has delusions of grandeur"
And I havent done so.
Yes, but you're thinking that though. Possibly similar to my feelings towards people who make whiney blogs about admin decisions ;)
As I stated. My explanation was regarding the rule you pointed out. If you send me any more messages on this issue, I will not read them.
HM
This wasn't clear enough? What do you wish me to do, tattoo it on my forehead? The point is, it's not the point. If it's written somewhere or not. If I tell you what you are doing wrong, and give you the opportunity to fix the problem, and let you no the consequences if you don't, is enough.
I'm happy to clarify points that you are unsure of. I.e. what you need to do, when you need to do. However I'm not interested and won't if I choose to, debate the rule, and your interpretation of said rule.
If I state 'This is the rule, this is what you have to do'. Yes, you do as stated or there will be consequences. This isn't a democracy, you are a guest, and abide by the rules of the house.
I'm not sure you understand this. It isn't Xbox live, you aren't playing for a service.
You don't get absolute answers if we aren't willing to give them or think them unnecessary. Here, those days aren't over.
"Harvestmouse sucks and has delusions of grandeur"
And I havent done so.
Yes, but you're thinking that though. Possibly similar to my feelings towards people who make whiney blogs about admin decisions ;)
Posted by grendel2410 on 2012-08-31 09:54:53
The correct answer to this question:
Is there any further information about this rule, written somewhere in the site?
Is:
No. There's no further information written in the site about this rule.
Is this so difficult for you? This was my question in my first message. 5 messages later you still havent answered it.
Also in my first answer I told you that it was fine for me and that I will apply the necessary changes to those teams. Cant you understand that either?
But then I made a simple question that somehow enervates you.
That is not my problem. Perhaps you need some help, or being administrator really stresses you. But from that question on, you are being demagogue and absolutely prepotent in your answers, both hateful qualities.
And by the way, if you can read clearly enought my post, I wrote up there this:
"and as I am only a user of this site I have clear I had to abide"
So that stupid comment on Xbox live or whatever is also pure waste and demagogue, like almost all the things you write, as I see.
Is there any further information about this rule, written somewhere in the site?
Is:
No. There's no further information written in the site about this rule.
Is this so difficult for you? This was my question in my first message. 5 messages later you still havent answered it.
Also in my first answer I told you that it was fine for me and that I will apply the necessary changes to those teams. Cant you understand that either?
But then I made a simple question that somehow enervates you.
That is not my problem. Perhaps you need some help, or being administrator really stresses you. But from that question on, you are being demagogue and absolutely prepotent in your answers, both hateful qualities.
And by the way, if you can read clearly enought my post, I wrote up there this:
"and as I am only a user of this site I have clear I had to abide"
So that stupid comment on Xbox live or whatever is also pure waste and demagogue, like almost all the things you write, as I see.
Posted by koadah on 2012-08-31 13:23:59
>Another blog whining about the same thing.
Surprise, surprise. People don't like being hauled before the admins over unclear rules.
If we're allowed 250k tell us. If it's only 200k tell us that.
Put it in IN THE RULES instead leaving people to root through dozens of forum posts or wait until someone grasses them up.
Surprise, surprise. People don't like being hauled before the admins over unclear rules.
If we're allowed 250k tell us. If it's only 200k tell us that.
Put it in IN THE RULES instead leaving people to root through dozens of forum posts or wait until someone grasses them up.
Posted by Garion on 2012-08-31 14:54:56
Not having a go at the admin here, as this rule has clearly been decided upon at some point and it is their job to uphold them. Also we dont knwo the full picture here either.
But generally speaking it is a daft rule. I don't see how anyone gains an advantage here.
If someone really wants to horde money it is really asy to min max and do it anyway, but thats seen as okay.
Personally I think this rule should just be dropped. At the moment it reads to me as - You can be lame if you min max stay at a lwo tv and hord cash. But you cant do it by not replacing journeymen which is probably makes your team worse anyway.ok
But generally speaking it is a daft rule. I don't see how anyone gains an advantage here.
If someone really wants to horde money it is really asy to min max and do it anyway, but thats seen as okay.
Personally I think this rule should just be dropped. At the moment it reads to me as - You can be lame if you min max stay at a lwo tv and hord cash. But you cant do it by not replacing journeymen which is probably makes your team worse anyway.ok
Posted by grendel2410 on 2012-08-31 15:23:15
I see many people thing as I do. Fine.
Yesterday talking with some friends we all get to the same conclusion. The rule is perfectly clear. So there shouldnt be administrators interpretation.
It says you dont have to buy 11 players. It is advisable but not something mandatory.
So, why people complain about it and why do admins apply a certain yardstick when the text is clear?
If thay think it should be different, just change the text. Easy.
And finally I get the other player's reason for complaining about my team. He thinks is unfair to use free player in the LOS, while he is using the normal ones he has payed for. He feels that is not fair because he is risking more than I do.
I do not agree with him but at least is a reason. I told him, in our match I'll wont use the looners in the LOS so I hope he will look the match with better eyes.
By the way he is going to whack me because his team is better and he also is a much much much better coach.
Yesterday talking with some friends we all get to the same conclusion. The rule is perfectly clear. So there shouldnt be administrators interpretation.
It says you dont have to buy 11 players. It is advisable but not something mandatory.
So, why people complain about it and why do admins apply a certain yardstick when the text is clear?
If thay think it should be different, just change the text. Easy.
And finally I get the other player's reason for complaining about my team. He thinks is unfair to use free player in the LOS, while he is using the normal ones he has payed for. He feels that is not fair because he is risking more than I do.
I do not agree with him but at least is a reason. I told him, in our match I'll wont use the looners in the LOS so I hope he will look the match with better eyes.
By the way he is going to whack me because his team is better and he also is a much much much better coach.
Posted by koadah on 2012-08-31 15:29:29
It's good to know that it wasn't just someone reporting you to the admins to be spiteful because you won or killed one of his players. ;)
Posted by harvestmouse on 2012-08-31 16:22:56
Koadah wrote: '>Another blog whining about the same thing.
Surprise, surprise. People don't like being hauled before the admins over unclear rules.
If we're allowed 250k tell us. If it's only 200k tell us that.
Put it in IN THE RULES instead leaving people to root through dozens of forum posts or wait until someone grasses them up.'
That's just it. Nobody was hauled up in front of the admins. I don't even lock accounts for this sort of thing. I simply send a pm, letting them know how the rule should be adhered too. What they need to do, and when they need to do it. We are fully aware a coach like Grendel may not be in the know.
The problem here is that reading the rule he decided I was in the wrong (if the rule he quoted was the rule in question).
So he asked me whether or not there was another rule. So that if there wasn't another rule, he could complain to me that my interpretation was wrong.
I told him that it didn't matter what he thought, and that if I told him that's how it is, and that's what he has to do. I also confirmed (ok in hindsight I should have simplified that confirmation, even though I didn't need to confirm this at all) the rule he quoted was the rule in question.
I also told him I wasn't willing to have a discussion on his and my interpretation of the rules.
The simple fact here is 1. He was unwilling to accept this rule and 2. Was unwilling to accept my direction and wanted to debate the point regarding the rule, when I confirmed the rule in question was the rule.
I wasn't willing to do that. He can either go with my direction or lose his teams if he doesn't.
Surprise, surprise. People don't like being hauled before the admins over unclear rules.
If we're allowed 250k tell us. If it's only 200k tell us that.
Put it in IN THE RULES instead leaving people to root through dozens of forum posts or wait until someone grasses them up.'
That's just it. Nobody was hauled up in front of the admins. I don't even lock accounts for this sort of thing. I simply send a pm, letting them know how the rule should be adhered too. What they need to do, and when they need to do it. We are fully aware a coach like Grendel may not be in the know.
The problem here is that reading the rule he decided I was in the wrong (if the rule he quoted was the rule in question).
So he asked me whether or not there was another rule. So that if there wasn't another rule, he could complain to me that my interpretation was wrong.
I told him that it didn't matter what he thought, and that if I told him that's how it is, and that's what he has to do. I also confirmed (ok in hindsight I should have simplified that confirmation, even though I didn't need to confirm this at all) the rule he quoted was the rule in question.
I also told him I wasn't willing to have a discussion on his and my interpretation of the rules.
The simple fact here is 1. He was unwilling to accept this rule and 2. Was unwilling to accept my direction and wanted to debate the point regarding the rule, when I confirmed the rule in question was the rule.
I wasn't willing to do that. He can either go with my direction or lose his teams if he doesn't.
Posted by awambawamb on 2012-08-31 20:24:30
I bet 5 bucks on harvestmouse.
Posted by grendel2410 on 2012-09-03 23:49:25
Bueno, pues estupendo, mi cuenta bloqueada todo el finde (menos mal que eran jaias de plencia y no me he enterado hasta hoy), todos mis equipos y partidos excrupulosamente inspeccionados y un tercer grado digno de la estasi..
Como resultado de tocarle las narices a un administrador, ha encontrado otras normas que he violado. Todas por haber jugado varios partidos con equipos ranked contra el mismo equipo de un amigo, y por haber jugado desde la misma IP (estabamos en mi casa, uno en el portatil y otro en el de sobremesa)
Todavia no he encontrado la regla en la que ponga que tengo que avisar a nadie de esto, pero antes de que se me malinterprete, acato su decision. Solo que no puedo adivinar todas las reglas que hay en su cabeza asi que seria mucho mas comodo si las escriben. La de no jugar varios partidos contra el mismo si que la habia leido, la verdad, pero como tambien pone que la idea es que no se puede entrenar en ranked, pues tampoco me parecia mal porque todos esos partidos seguidos con mi amigo han sido a cuchillo.
Por lo demas seguimos con la demagogia aferrandonos a que yo no queria hacer caso a la norma ni al administrador. Falso, porque de las primeras cosas que le dije al tipo fueron que por mi perfecto y que cambiaria los equipos a la primera oportunidad (que si no lo he hecho antes ha sido por vago, que no es una estrategia vamos)
Y que si queria que me contestara a si habia o no otra regla al respecto era precisamente para ver como funciona esto. Y ya lo he visto.
Conclusion: no trates de joder a hacienda.
And you will win.
My account blocked, my last post erased, all my teams and matches carefully inspected and I had to answer few questions as if I were arrested in Iran.
As a result of disturbing and administrator, harvestmouse has found other rules I have violated, all of them because I played with a friend some matches with ranked teams from the same IP without notifying it to the administraotrs. And the teams were too diferent team rating I think.
I havent seen in the rules that I have to advice anybody if I play from the same IP with my friend. Again, its fine for me, try not to misunderstand me this time, but the point is that I cannot imagine all the rules in your head so It would be better if you write them down somewhere. I know the one about playing againts the same guy many continuosly is there.
And again this is demagogue ans lying:
"The simple fact here is 1. He was unwilling to accept this rule and 2. Was unwilling to accept my direction and wanted to debate the point regarding the rule, when I confirmed the rule in question was the rule"
Because the simple fact is that the first two things I told him when all this begun were that it was fine for me and I was going to do as he said accepting his direction.
But apart form that rule that I really didnt mind (because I didnt buy players only because I'm lazy), I wanted to know if there were further rules or it was just his decision.
This is also wrong:
"So he asked me whether or not there was another rule. So that if there wasn't another rule, he could complain to me that my interpretation was wrong."
If there wasnt another rule, I could then know how do things work here. I didnt want to complain at all, because at the very begining I told you It was fine for me.
Conclusion: Dont mess with IRS
Como resultado de tocarle las narices a un administrador, ha encontrado otras normas que he violado. Todas por haber jugado varios partidos con equipos ranked contra el mismo equipo de un amigo, y por haber jugado desde la misma IP (estabamos en mi casa, uno en el portatil y otro en el de sobremesa)
Todavia no he encontrado la regla en la que ponga que tengo que avisar a nadie de esto, pero antes de que se me malinterprete, acato su decision. Solo que no puedo adivinar todas las reglas que hay en su cabeza asi que seria mucho mas comodo si las escriben. La de no jugar varios partidos contra el mismo si que la habia leido, la verdad, pero como tambien pone que la idea es que no se puede entrenar en ranked, pues tampoco me parecia mal porque todos esos partidos seguidos con mi amigo han sido a cuchillo.
Por lo demas seguimos con la demagogia aferrandonos a que yo no queria hacer caso a la norma ni al administrador. Falso, porque de las primeras cosas que le dije al tipo fueron que por mi perfecto y que cambiaria los equipos a la primera oportunidad (que si no lo he hecho antes ha sido por vago, que no es una estrategia vamos)
Y que si queria que me contestara a si habia o no otra regla al respecto era precisamente para ver como funciona esto. Y ya lo he visto.
Conclusion: no trates de joder a hacienda.
And you will win.
My account blocked, my last post erased, all my teams and matches carefully inspected and I had to answer few questions as if I were arrested in Iran.
As a result of disturbing and administrator, harvestmouse has found other rules I have violated, all of them because I played with a friend some matches with ranked teams from the same IP without notifying it to the administraotrs. And the teams were too diferent team rating I think.
I havent seen in the rules that I have to advice anybody if I play from the same IP with my friend. Again, its fine for me, try not to misunderstand me this time, but the point is that I cannot imagine all the rules in your head so It would be better if you write them down somewhere. I know the one about playing againts the same guy many continuosly is there.
And again this is demagogue ans lying:
"The simple fact here is 1. He was unwilling to accept this rule and 2. Was unwilling to accept my direction and wanted to debate the point regarding the rule, when I confirmed the rule in question was the rule"
Because the simple fact is that the first two things I told him when all this begun were that it was fine for me and I was going to do as he said accepting his direction.
But apart form that rule that I really didnt mind (because I didnt buy players only because I'm lazy), I wanted to know if there were further rules or it was just his decision.
This is also wrong:
"So he asked me whether or not there was another rule. So that if there wasn't another rule, he could complain to me that my interpretation was wrong."
If there wasnt another rule, I could then know how do things work here. I didnt want to complain at all, because at the very begining I told you It was fine for me.
Conclusion: Dont mess with IRS
Posted by grendel2410 on 2012-09-06 13:00:05
Y finalmente el tio que denuncio mi equipo de enanos al administrador ha conseguido que no se juegue el partido que teniamos en blackbox.
Yo he tenido un fin de semana y un comienzo de la misma muy liado y solo me ha propuesto horas en las que yo no podia.
Ayer, ya no estaba el partido asi que me imagino que habra pedido al adminstrador que lo elimine.
Al final si me quedo pensando que es que no queria jugar sus amazonas contra mis enanos....
And finally the guy that asked the admins to check my team has got the match unscheduled.
I have had a very busy weekend and week start and he only proposed times in which I couldnt play.
Yesterday the match wasnt there so I suppose he asked the admin to delte it.
At the end I'm going to think he really didnt want to play his amazons against my dwarfs....
Yo he tenido un fin de semana y un comienzo de la misma muy liado y solo me ha propuesto horas en las que yo no podia.
Ayer, ya no estaba el partido asi que me imagino que habra pedido al adminstrador que lo elimine.
Al final si me quedo pensando que es que no queria jugar sus amazonas contra mis enanos....
And finally the guy that asked the admins to check my team has got the match unscheduled.
I have had a very busy weekend and week start and he only proposed times in which I couldnt play.
Yesterday the match wasnt there so I suppose he asked the admin to delte it.
At the end I'm going to think he really didnt want to play his amazons against my dwarfs....