Give me opinion about mods&rules (tophats aproved this)

I had a convo with tophats, I screened everything no fakies.

Little summary:
Tophats told me I wasn't the one starting sharing syrians pic. But yet I was the one with the highest ban/mute of all the people. I asked why and he told me because of me ''larger history'' I told him that it doesnt stands in the rule to extra mute/ban some1 because he has an larger history than the rest. Ofc I have a larger history i play longer than most of these people do. He also couldn't give me proof of his way of extra muting/banning me because it doesnt stands in the rule. I marked some things in our convo, but dont forget to read everything

Ofc there will be some guys calling me retard and noob and disagreee with me because they dont want to be one of those guys we have negative critics/comments about the moderators, and that kinda bugs me out.

Having a history of trouble with mods I will say this: Anyone can make mistakes. However, there is one mod who I think should have never gotten this position, and who always punished the victim instead of punishing the one who initiated the insult or broke another rule. He would then proceed to say: you are no better if you respond. Translation: you have no right to self-defence. VRIL was plain retarded.

Just to clarify, I have nothing against tophats and most of the mods. Its just in general about the mods. Dont take it as offense just take it as supporting critic..

Waffel i love u but wat's the point of this thread? i get the chat and all but i still dont get point of it and what's the outcome which you're expecting? Lol

Your opinion. I want to know you people allow this kind of management just getting warned/muted/banned whenever the mods feels like doing it, with invalid reasons and not standing in the AW rules.

Tophats: doesn't matter who started it. you are both in the wrong.

Here's why this is wrong.

Of course it matters. He INITIATED the abuse/insult. He caused the situation in the first place, how can you say it doesn't matter? This implies that you shouldn't answer/defend yourself and instead you should be nice.

You don't understand the concept of self-defense do you.
The idea that I should not reply to rudeness with rudeness, is identical to the idea that I should not respond to the initiation of force with force. You are saying "you have no right to self-defense". It's the person who initiated the insult who should be held accountable. Responding is perfectly acceptable. If I punch you in the face, and you don't beat me up because "you are not the same, you are better and you rise above that", you're an idiot. You just allowed me to kick your ass.

I must say iv seen good friends of mine get banned by the faggot vriL and its total bullshit. I wish you guys would take more into account what is really going on in the game and not just support someone becuase they posted "Im banning Tunder3 for multiple counts of warnings/ban, (or however it was said i lost the ss.) Anyways please do try a little harder or pass the job to someone who will.

If i was mod i would unmute waffel immediately only for his cuteness in that coversation

<33

This thread lacks a point. What is your argument? Why are you posting this? You suggesting something? Please be clearer next time

Scris de Acquiesce, 30.04.2014 at 16:58

This thread lacks a point. What is your argument? Why are you posting this? You suggesting something? Please be clearer next time

Like I already said before, I want to know your guys opinion, I also asked tophats if I could make a forum about this and look what the people think about this situation. Maybe some reading would help .

According to hear some thing from people, its only ''me'' having a problem with all of this, I just wanted to see if maybe more people had problems with it. Am i crossing another rule?

Unleashed self-defense seen in the terms of force cannot be analogous to online chat rudeness at all. Physical force can cause physical harm or can threaten your life, online rudeness doesn't. In real life if you get physically attacked, of course self-defense in terms of physical force is justified. On an online game, when someone starts the rudeness, it's up to the others to make the report to the mods, and not get involved.

Yes it can. Online or not, it's an agression. Responding the same way is justified, and no one can/should take this away from you. If you are presented with a situation like this, assuming you are right in the head, you would first punish the first offender (who initiated everything), and then, and ONLY then, think about punishing the victim.

Nero4Mod

Scris de Acquiesce, 30.04.2014 at 16:58

This thread lacks a point. What is your argument? Why are you posting this? You suggesting something? Please be clearer next time

His argument was that all players should be punished in terms of their action only. And the player history should have no influence on one's punishment. So for example: let's take waffel vs a player who never did anything wrong. If they both abuse global similarly they should both receive the same punishment.

Unleashed we did punish the one who started it. And, we also punished waffel who acted in the same way. Waffel was not at all a victim, it wasn't his information that was shared.

I'm not reffering to this particular case. I am speaking in general. Saying "doesn't matter who started it" is NOT ok.

And let me guess: the initiator of insults got a smaller penatly.

Scris de tophat, 30.04.2014 at 19:54

His argument was that all players should be punished in terms of their action only. And the player history should have no influence on one's punishment. So for example: let's take waffel vs a player who never did anything wrong. If they both abuse global similarly they should both receive the same punishment.

I couldn't disagree more with this. Recurrence is a factor taken into account by the justice system in the whole world.

Scris de Pinheiro, 01.05.2014 at 11:05

Scris de tophat, 30.04.2014 at 19:54

His argument was that all players should be punished in terms of their action only. And the player history should have no influence on one's punishment. So for example: let's take waffel vs a player who never did anything wrong. If they both abuse global similarly they should both receive the same punishment.

I couldn't disagree more with this. Recurrence is a factor taken into account by the justice system in the whole world.

Exactly.

Scris de Pinheiro, 01.05.2014 at 11:05

Scris de tophat, 30.04.2014 at 19:54

His argument was that all players should be punished in terms of their action only. And the player history should have no influence on one's punishment. So for example: let's take waffel vs a player who never did anything wrong. If they both abuse global similarly they should both receive the same punishment.

I couldn't disagree more with this. Recurrence is a factor taken into account by the justice system in the whole world.

The justice system also punishes the agressor, not the victim who acts in self-defense. Are we gonna emulate the entire thing, or just the parts that we like?

Both should be punished, since there's no victim. The self-defense concept applies when the person who's getting attacked acts because his personal life is in danger, How it can be applied here?

Scris de Pinheiro, 01.05.2014 at 19:54

The self-defense concept does not applies when the person who's getting attacked acts because his personal life is in danger, How it can be applied here?

What?!

Scris de Unleashed, 01.05.2014 at 19:57

Scris de Pinheiro, 01.05.2014 at 19:54

The self-defense concept does not applies here, because the person who's getting attacked in the real world, acts, because his personal life is in danger. How it can be applied here?

What?!

fixed

Sorry about my poor english, edited. Basically, I meant that the self-defense concept has nothing to do with what happens here.

I think Waffel has a point, because you guys don't have a rule book for proving that why are you banning/muting people. I guess this is a negative point of atWar. Just get a rule book so, it helps people not to do something funky. I hope it gets implemented.

Scris de Pinheiro, 01.05.2014 at 19:54

Both should be punished, since there's no victim. The self-defense concept applies when the person who's getting attacked acts because his personal life is in danger, How it can be applied here?

So what you're saying is that I cannot repsond to rudeness with rudeness. That's insulting and disgusting beyond any other insults you've ever seen from me.

Well...i think yes, people should be treated the same way no matter what they are doing, i mean, can you blame someone for doing something like a year ago?

Scris de Columna Durruti, 03.05.2014 at 13:46