• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Soren

  • Rank
    Blank Flank
  • Birthday 02/24/91

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Favorite Pony
  1. Well, what I meant was that you would have had us metal wise, but you were interrupted several times by other players while trying to destroy the sentry. A KGB heavy stopped you once, and a scout another time I think. Without those interruptions, we would have ran out of metals several times.
  2. Edit: I think it best to shorten my post. I really don't need to bore people with a Wall O' Text. I wanted to say, I was the engie in that video. You probably could have won that round too. Either by overpowering our dispensers with not raging at all, or by you and your minions pulling back after each hit. It was due to sheer luck we won for the most part as we had failed putting our dispensers in the best spots for this particular job. We were relying on only one dispenser by pure fluke. This was basically your problem. If you wouldn't have raged and got those pinkies who got the bright idea to roleplay as Mr.Burns' diseases all coming through the door at once you would have "probably" won. Nightmarity is the only boss that comes to mind that we automatically win against once we have the double engie setup built. I find that most hales who we do the double engie combo against actually have alternatives to beat us, they just lack the cunning mind to think of those ways a mist the chaos of the match. Celestia for example. Wallable on some level. A taunt kill would be effective against the sentry I believe, especially in a choke point like the forge on MC village, as there would be no room to do what Steel suggested. If I'm not mistaken, any attempt to knockback the hale during the taunt would be ineffective because you would always hit the sentry if the hale is right up against it keeping you locked in the building. The hitbox of the sentry is far too large after all. However, this may not be the case if you choose a choke point with more room, like some other buildings in the MC village. I'm not sure. Perhaps I will look into this later tonight. Anywho, taking away the jag's quicker swing speed wouldn't really accomplish anything here. A single hit from the pinkie pie brought the turret down to a single thread of health, and one hit from each of the two engineers brought it right back up to full health. We don't need the extra swing speed of a jag to wall this particular way. We merely use the jag because we find the increased firing rate overpowered. Lowering the amount repaired by a wrench would be fruitless unless you lower the repair rate by at least 50% since people could just bring a third engie along if need be. Now, this 50% reduction on repairing a building would have to be applied to all wrenches just too accomplish what you want here. Raven and I were also the same engies who DamgedandDisowned saw wall that Rainbow Dash. I can tell you now that walling a Rainbow Dash is never a guaranteed win on Castle Siege. It was merely due to the Hale's lack of knowledge that the wall was successful. They could just the rage to go through the sentry and kill the engineer. So long as you have a line of sight between you and the engineer, it should be possible. It's really the same theory for R-Dash 5000 as well. Albeit, I'll admit I haven't gotten to test it enough to be sure with R-Dash. MC village is the only map that comes to mind for having points where the engineers can build and wall a RD, while still keeping out of her line of sight. Under normal circumstances, the hale really isn't wallable in the slightest if you got a pro behind the wheel. So in short, the jag is OP, and it could use a nerf, but it actually isn't the problem here. Either do what someone else suggested and make disabled turrets take more damage. This would help against double engie walling certain hales, but it would actually promote double engie walling weaker hales like Rarity and RD. But it would also help prevent single engies walling weaker hales. Or you could take away the level 3 sentry's ability to survive a hit from an average hale. Which would not really help against weaker hale classes. There is always the option of just making it against the rules to wall a hale this way. I have no objections to that ether. Laws change, and sometimes it is necessary for the rules to be clarified for the sake of balance in the metagame. This could be one of those times. I should also probably say any walling like this you've seen up until now is probably the fault of me or my friends. As far as I know we are the only ones who bother with these particular types of engie strategies. Most of these new players flooding the servers are engies who just like to find a corner to build and die in.
  3. My argument is that you are interpreting the rules to your own end to fit the situation. Which is a biased move. What's worse is you acted on only "the information that was provided to you", You acted on circumstantial evidence even though I said frivolous actions like these ones would be subject to people acting on circumstantial evidence. You also made the decision that an action that can't possibly be seen as harassment IS harassment simply because you said so. And then you are saying okay because it's under the rules when I'm arguing it's not under the rules at all. You haven't explained in the slightest why this action is actually harassment, why it is actually against the rules, even though I have explained and even cited examples why it isn't harassment, and isn't against the rules. You haven't disputed my point is wrong at all, rather you just ignore it and say you are just enforcing the rules, when clearly my entire point is that you aren't because this isn't a rule. Heck, you haven't tried to enlighten me why I am wrong in the slightest for any of the other points I've made. All you've basically said is 'This action is harassment because I say so, end of story. I am law!'. I thought you served the law, not that you are the law. There is a difference between the two after all.
  4. For the sake of convience, I will just quote your post and work here. It's much easier for me to work with all of this piece by piece. And I presume it's okay if we put this is the spam section. If it belongs to another section you can feel free to move it. I'm saying you are interpreting the law entirely wrong from my point of the view. You are interpreting the law to such a point that I am arguing you are changing the law, not interpreting it. You used the analogy that you are a cop. So I'll go along with it. You are supposed to enforce the law. You are not the judge, or the jury. You are a moderator, which I am lead to believe moderators only enforces the law, and do not change it or interpret the law in any way they see fit. I did not mean any offense when I said you are "only a moderator: earlier. I meant that this matter isn't within your job description, not that you are inadequate for it. This decision reflects on the law as a whole. The judge's decision on a case is often referenced in future cases because this is how the government now interprets the law. Your decision effects all future cases, as such only someone of the highest authority should make the decision. Because the decision is basically rewriting the law, right here, right now. In short, plenty of other people could be banned by moderators because you decided this or that is not allowed now. If you are arguing because you have Raini's trust that means you can't be wrong and you have the authority to change the rules then I believe you are wrong. Rainidear wrote the rules. They have changed over time to fit certain situations, and Rainidear may not have necessarily always made the decisions herself of changing this or that rule. But no where did I see that these rules are subject to change at the discretion of any one moderator. I guess this one was my fault here. I wasn't clear enough. Something as trivial as spraying over someone else's spray is just too hard to moderate effectively. A moderator may not be able to watch two people simultaneously at every living second. It takes only a moment to spray under someone else's spray and then blame it on them. A moderator is only able to see that one spray is sprayed over the other. Not WHICH spray was actually sprayed there first. He has no way of knowing if someone is telling the truth when they say someone else sprayed over their spray. In fact, a moderator has to be WATCHING both parties just to be absolutely sure. That is how impossible of a task it is for someone to moderate spraying over someone else's spray. Take for example when you were online earlier today. Did you personally observe Biomatrix spray over Zari's spray? Did you see the supposed 1 second crime happen right before your eyes? Then see Zari ask her to stop, and then she did it again? Or did you just see the result? You only saw the result and heard Zari's word. You never saw the crime being committed in the act as it is impossible to watch the two parties all by yourself. I'm not saying Zari framed Bio. I'm sure that wasn't the case as I was there for the whole ordeal. But I was not capable of watching both parties at the same time, I was only capable of watching a single wall at a time which I didn't see you watching these walls with me. And these walls only provided me with circumstantial proof. I would only have circumstantial proof to act on. Like you did earlier this day. So yes, if you are capable of acting without absolute proof, I would say other moderators would also be capable of doing what you did if they are forced to moderate against a nearly impossible to fully moderate situation. Unless you are suggesting a team of two moderators. Which is the only way this could be done. I see the problem here. It is your interpretation of the word harassment itself. Let me ask you something. If someone talks about Cream Gravy in the Funbox server, and I ask them to stop, and they refuse to stop. Is that harassment? If someone does the sniper thrust and I ask them to stop, is that harassment if they don't comply? What if asking someone asks you to stop spraying over their spray and you ask them to stop asking that. Is THAT harassment? Are both people harassing each other at that point? Harass paradox? No. Anyone could be offended by literally anything. You can't just dictate any action you like as harassment just because it offends someone and the person doesn't want to stop at the request of someone else. People ask the hale not to kill them all the time. As such, the only real way something can pass as harassment is if the action itself is deemed offensive by a general authority. Is spraying over someone else's spray deems as an offensive action now because you've said so? Members have been banned in the past for interfering with other members' ability to play. Examples are getting in their way of placing down buildings or even trying to block that person's view purposely or block their shots purposely. People have also been banned for verbal harassment. Assaulting the person verbally in the chat, or even with sprays personally attacking them. But spraying over someone else's spray is not a hostile action. Spraying over someone else's spray is not a hostile action. It does not interfere with that person's ability to play the game or talk to others. It's an action that is literally done mountains of times every hour on every server. Intentionally and not so intentionally. It's done so much to the point where people have sprays that only have one purpose, and that purpose is covering someone else's spray. That was the point I was trying to make with Krazy's spray. I should have chosen my words more carefully here. You aren't harassing an individual. As I've already explained this can't possibly be counted as harassing an individual. As then your definition of harassment is open to anything is harassing. You are apparently harassing a spray? Should we hand out restraining orders to keep sprays away from each other? What are we gonna moderate next? If weapon's name is harassing people? If I name my weapon "Mr.Kenyon Bane" will I need to change it? This would just be ridiculous. You are really suggesting acting against someone for an action as frivolous as this? It's against the rules to have sprayed over someone else's spray if they don't like it? Can you say that with a straight face? It's just unheard on any TF2 server to act against something something this trivial. Are you seriously suggesting that sprays are their own people now with their own personal space? And other's aren't "allowed" to violate that personal space? So you've defined that spraying over someone else's spray is rude and that's why it's harassment? At least that's what I think you are saying. I've already explained above that spraying over someone else's spray is a neutral action. I'll say this again. Spraying over someone else's spray could only be interpreted as an offensive thing by the individual as there is not necessarily any hostility in the action itself. What you seem to be suggesting nominates not just spraying over someone else's spray as a potential capital offense, but everything as a potentially capital offense. Because anyone can be offended by anything. That is why I am against it. That is why I'm making this post. I could cite endless examples of why just because someone tells you to stop doing anything they don't want you to do and you not complying can apply to everything you can possibly do on the server, but I feel as though that would start to get redundant. These were the points I was trying to make. The way you have currently "interpreted the law" is far too loose and vague, which means everything and anything could pass as harassment. So if you are correct, every moderator will be forced to moderate by your definition of harassment just to back your decision, or else your decision here would be invalid. Which is why Raini should handle this decision, since it carries so much potential weight. Because by saying this against the rules, it is also making a huge commitment for the entire network of these pony servers and it will effect everyone, vastly. I just don't believe anyone but Raini should be in that position. No matter how much she trusts all of her moderators and admins. I'm not trying to be disrespectful when I say you shouldn't make the decision. I'm not saying you aren't fit to make such a decision, I'm saying no one except that Raini should make the decision. Maybe Simple too, because I'm not sure of his exact position. Maybe he counts as a co-owner or something. I am unsure of the entire affair. TL;DR: You're syllogism that this is harassment just because someone requests you to stop doing anything they dislike and you don't comply is a flawed on in my opinion. Anything could be justified as harassment then. I disagree with it in fine detail above. But perhaps if you are willing to come to a new syllogism which broadens your view of harassment, I would be happy to hear it and continue debating with you.
  5. I can't really help since I don't know the first thing about TF2 or computers for that matter, but do you run the game in direct x 8 or 9? I can run it perfectly fine in dx9, but I don't always load up fast enough for the first match, so I tried dx8 to solve that. Needless to say, I did load up for matches quickly, but dx8 also causes a lot of crashes when playing on either of the texas servers.
  6. So I'll take that picture as you bringing up the fact that the Goddess from the Kid Icarus series will be in the game? Well, I'd like to bring up the fact that Mii's will also be a playable character in the game. Has anyone ever been to any sort of events, like conventions? I've been to a few anime conventions recently and people love their 3DS street-passing there. You can usually get 100-200 street-passes in a day. Why do I bring this up. Well, you rarely get someone who thinks they're being clever by making their Mii's face resemble that of a male's genitalia. I half-wonder if it will be a problem in online play for the 3DS version.