Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Hezekial

IT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL!!!

93 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

71
[-PUG-]
Alpha Tester
127 posts
18,059 battles

I submitted a ticket for team damage to support.

See link https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/160016-friendly-fire-damage-just-remove-it/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-3798761

The response I got was I agreed to their rules when I signed the EULA and would have to wait out my suspension.

And they helpfully quoted me the rule that applied in that case, and I quote:

"4. Inappropriate conduct in game / Fair play principles The following actions are prohibited in game:4.01. Intentionally damaging vehicles belonging to a player on the same team (team damage).4.02. Intentionally destroying vehicles belonging to a player on the same team (team kill)."

Hang on a minute, the damage was not intentional and by your own rules there should be no cost or punishment.

If you cannot show damage was intentional, the only option you have is to remove team damage.

DO IT WARGAMING! DO IT!

  • Funny 1
  • Angry 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
71
[-PUG-]
Alpha Tester
127 posts
18,059 battles

It is, they said it was intentional, it was not, got them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,262
[WOLF3]
Members
2,135 posts
4,427 battles
24 minutes ago, Hezekial said:

I submitted a ticket for team damage to support.

See link https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/160016-friendly-fire-damage-just-remove-it/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-3798761

The response I got was I agreed to their rules when I signed the EULA and would have to wait out my suspension.

And they helpfully quoted me the rule that applied in that case, and I quote:


"4. Inappropriate conduct in game / Fair play principles The following actions are prohibited in game:4.01. Intentionally damaging vehicles belonging to a player on the same team (team damage).4.02. Intentionally destroying vehicles belonging to a player on the same team (team kill)."

Hang on a minute, the damage was not intentional and by your own rules there should be no cost or punishment.

If you cannot show damage was intentional, the only option you have is to remove team damage.

DO IT WARGAMING! DO IT!

Another pink stink. :Smile_facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,403
[POP]
Beta Testers
4,288 posts
6,102 battles

pay your debts to society and come back as a reshaped and better person,prison is not that bad,trust me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
141
[VIP-2]
Members
814 posts
2,939 battles

Until they add a manslaughter clause, or any other mitigating circumstance, intention is an absolute.

You fired.

There have been concessions on the absolute nature of driving, not shooting.

Motion to dismiss, denied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,313
Alpha Tester
3,710 posts
1,392 battles

Hold on now, rule of law is important to me. I think OP has a point. They should change the rule to remove the 'intentional' bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,262
[WOLF3]
Members
2,135 posts
4,427 battles
1 minute ago, Elysion said:

Hold on now, rule of law is important to me. I think OP has a point. They should change the rule to remove the 'intentional' bit.

Here we go...

 

splitting-hairs.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,897
[PVE]
Members
3,687 posts
15,704 battles

WG can't do that.  Because, they can't figure out what intentional is, even if a video shows you actually blowing a team mate up !  I've aimed near mates before.  Torps have hit mates before and none of it was "intentional" !

A True TK is obvious and everything else id coincidental or collateral damage....  So, you get the max because they own the game.............Oooooops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
801
[NWNG]
Members
3,056 posts
4,925 battles

You intentionally fired your weapon, during a period of time, in which your ally was in danger of being hit by your attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
141
[VIP-2]
Members
814 posts
2,939 battles
5 minutes ago, Elysion said:

Hold on now, rule of law is important to me. I think OP has a point. They should change the rule to remove the 'intentional' bit.

Order in the court.

Bailiffs remove the disruptive party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,262
[WOLF3]
Members
2,135 posts
4,427 battles

Are we really going to argue over legalese?

You decide to pull the trigger makes you culpable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,313
Alpha Tester
3,710 posts
1,392 battles
1 minute ago, Asym_KS said:

 Because, they can't figure out what intentional is,

Which is why they should edit it:

"4. Inappropriate conduct in game / Fair play principles The following actions are prohibited in game:4.01. Damaging vehicles belonging to a player on the same team (team damage).4.02. Destroying vehicles belonging to a player on the same team (team kill)."

I have fixed the problem.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
141
[VIP-2]
Members
814 posts
2,939 battles

My point really is not to stir up a bunch of baby diaper prizes.

OP may have enough to file a claim, he/she can get a lawyer and fight that one out.

I will enjoy the fact that people get their hand slapped for blue falconry, while im waiting for the decision to be handed down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,262
[WOLF3]
Members
2,135 posts
4,427 battles
1 minute ago, Elysion said:

Which is why they should edit it:


"4. Inappropriate conduct in game / Fair play principles The following actions are prohibited in game:4.01. Damaging vehicles belonging to a player on the same team (team damage).4.02. Destroying vehicles belonging to a player on the same team (team kill)."

I have fixed the problem.

 

Do people think WG doesn't have or consult lawyers to write these things up? I doubt Serb is in the back writing these out himself so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,313
Alpha Tester
3,710 posts
1,392 battles
Just now, xalmgrey said:

Do people think WG doesn't have or consult lawyers to write these things up? I doubt Serb is in the back writing these out himself so to speak.

It is possible they have already covered the issue by stating elsewhere they get to decide whether or not it was intentional. Lets go read it and see :^)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,262
[WOLF3]
Members
2,135 posts
4,427 battles
3 minutes ago, Elysion said:

It is possible they have already covered the issue by stating elsewhere they get to decide whether or not it was intentional. Lets go read it and see :^)

Or the law doesn't recognize the small things like intentional VS ignorance.

You do something regardless if you know its illegal and you are still going to get charged. Doesn't matter what it is. The courts say ignorance of the law isn't defense. So i doubt he has much of a case.

After all there is a victim here. This act injured another party.

Edited by xalmgrey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,313
Alpha Tester
3,710 posts
1,392 battles
5 minutes ago, xalmgrey said:

Or the law doesn't recognize the small things like intentional VS ignorance.

You do something regardless if you know its illegal and you are still going to get charged. Doesn't matter what it is. The courts say ignorance of the law isn't defense. So i doubt he has much of a case.

Ignorance of the law would be claiming you did not know team killing was against the rules. If an actual law was written this way then it would require convincing a jury that something was done intentionally, not just that it was done.

Unfortunately for the OP the entirety of section 5 outlines the automated detection system WG employs, which describes the method by which the system determines if something is being done intentionally or not. And OP agreed to the whole eula, not just section 4.

" 5.03. If the damage ratio for such user exceeds the verifying coefficient, introduced in order to make distinction between intentional and accidental team killers, such user is identified as an offender and goes onto the suspension list. "

 

Edited by Elysion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
491
[YAN]
Members
1,700 posts
8,085 battles

Team damage is just stupid.

WG keeps introducing these harsher and harsher rules and punishments, but this just makes the system worse then it ever was.
Its easy to tell they have no intention of fixing issues at hands, as the easiest solution is just to remove team damage.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,262
[WOLF3]
Members
2,135 posts
4,427 battles
4 minutes ago, Elysion said:

Ignorance of the law would be claiming you did not know team killing was against the rules. If an actual law was written this way then it would require convincing a jury that something was done intentionally, not just that it was done.

Unfortunately for the OP the entierty of section 5 outlines the automated detection system WG employs, which describes the method by which the system determins if something is being dont intentionally or not. And OP agreed to the whole eula, not just section 4.

" 5.03. If the damage ratio for such user exceeds the verifying coefficient, introduced in order to make distinction between intentional and accidental team killers, such user is identified as an offender and goes onto the suspension list. "

I was more thinking of "ignorance" (Like say shooting torps behind team mates because you say haven't looked, even if you didn't mean to do it!! ) leading to hurting (team killing) another  as in the other player "lost" something and therefore was a "victim"

The OP needed a slap on the wrist to learn not to do whatever he did that caused someone else on his team to lose anything by pulling the "trigger".

Edited by xalmgrey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
71
[-PUG-]
Alpha Tester
127 posts
18,059 battles
1 minute ago, Cruxdei said:

pay your debts to society and come back as a reshaped and better person,prison is not that bad,trust me.

Any lawyer would tear them a new hole in the wording of that "Law".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
71
[-PUG-]
Alpha Tester
127 posts
18,059 battles
8 minutes ago, xalmgrey said:

I was more thinking of "ignorance" (Like say shooting torps behind team mates because you say haven't looked, even if you didn't mean to do it!! ) leading to hurting (team killing) another  as in the other player "lost" something and therefore was a "victim"

The OP needed a slap on the wrist to learn not to do whatever he did that caused someone else on his team to lose anything by pulling the "trigger".

Er, no.

Just had another game where I am stationary behind an island in the Atlanta firing over two islands hitting a DD hiding there.

Guess what dumb BB player did?

Went between the island and me, and even with max elevation he got hit.

Stupid rule cannot allow for my stupid team mate(s) going into friendly fire.

The trigger was pulled well before this Captain headed into the fire.

Consider the slap returned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,365
[--K--]
Members
6,396 posts
14,068 battles

I am intrigued, the technical/literal smart aleck in me agrees with you. They really should word their rules the way they want to enforce them... Rofl 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,262
[WOLF3]
Members
2,135 posts
4,427 battles
Just now, Hezekial said:

Er, no.

Just had another game where I am stationary behind an island in the Atlanta firing over tow islands hitting a DD hiding there.

Guess what dumb BB player did?

Went between the island and me, and even with max elevation he got hit.

Stupid rule cannot allow for my stupid team mate(s) going into friendly fire.

The trigger was pulled well before this Captain headed into the fire.

Consider the slap returned.

Own your ordinance. The rest of us have.

You are going to see that quite a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×