Rune

28 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Thanks for the tag @Sean.

 

Is this what you fucking losers do on a Saturday night?

nah

 

blue mountain in the Adirondacks

 

good damn hike

 













 

the drive up was 3 hours both ways though, so you bet your ass i saw this and opted to comment lmao

Ho boy.

Tonight on sG complaint department cancer thread:

Here's my opinion and why I think it's better than yours.

More at 11.

54 minutes ago, *star* said:

I dont get why you're gunna sit here and act like this gmod server is protected from getting dosed, considering my experience when it comes to computers and the information i could achieve means that someone who even had a bit more of skill than i do, could really fuck up the server. Yeah not having an admin on will really change that, but still. Either way this server isn't protected whatsoever. 

 

i also dont get why we need to talk about this anymore. Can we just leave it at what it is instead of talking about it on other threads? That would be the adult thing to do. 

Idk what think you know about denial of service, but having an admin on the server isn't going to do shit lmao

Likewise, welcome to the sG forums. Maturity is something I'm still working on and beating a dead horse is something that we consider a past time here

Just now, lotmoshr said:

tfw someone accuses you of lying and then proceeds to lie for a whole post

" I used to be a sever owner, and if there aren't admins on that's how you get dosed"

Hahahahaha

@LunaBadger

lmao just accept it "my dude"

From what I can gather, you're trying to get L2 some form of admin with a needless over complication of jargon.

As our community would have it, if someone has proven themselves to be mature enough to be a server officer, they may apply as a member and receive such benefits should our esteemed staff members allow it. Far less complicated than.. this.

I don't mean to shit on your idea so readily, but I feel as though it's more over a problem of a lack of players as opposed to admins.

Just now, lotmoshr said:

You still didn't understand. Unless "can u read" is an insult I never insulted you but okay. I told you to stop arguing. Then

*DEAD* Skizzles: god ur a ignorant prick
*DEAD* sG | lotmoshr [SO]: stop arguing lmao
Try out our other servers! Type !servers
*DEAD* Skizzles: kiss my ass 
 

So ban

There's really nothing to think about. You said it yourself.

Not to mention the fact that you never said in your post that "he thought it was pretty fine that he damaged those people".

You're free to dismiss it as is, but the fact stands that you banned him because he insulted you. Which is fine by my standard, but a week is excessive considering the surrounding circumstance.

Just now, lotmoshr said:

@Rune as i said the incen did damage to multiple innos and he seemed to think this was fine

you banned him because he was arguing with you

@lotmoshr

banning someone for 1 week and saying they attempted mass rdm when the real reason is the fact that he was arguing with you is a bit excessive, don't you think?

im not sure anyone could plausibly perceive throwing 1 incendiary grenade as attempted mass rdm

WHERE THE FUCK IS MY REEEEEE EMOTE

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 

https://betterdiscord.net/home/

This has all of the twitch and BetterTTV emotes you apes.

@Staff

If you can remove the facebook link from GameMe logs of which Gashbell posted, I'd probably do so.

Import temple 

@nErd_ thought you were some rando (your profile is private) aimbotting, but i couldnt see any of the shots you got on me so i couldnt be sure you were legit lmao

then on my screen it looked like you didnt even start looking at dixon when you killed him so i was like "oh ok bye lol"

keep in mind im using an old 660 nvidia instead of my normal 980 ti and it skipped frames, the serverside lag didnt show me what i saw in your point of view (it honestly looked completely different from what i saw), or im just blind as shit and wasnt watching closely

probably the last part tbh, im a little tired

either way, i tried rewatching the .dem i took and it was stuck at 10 fps the whole time so i couldnt see anything fml

sorry though, no hard feelings

It's interesting that all of these kids in this retarded KKK group conveniently have been banned for racism beforehand.

https://sb.joinsg.net/index.php?p=banlist&searchText=XR%40y&Submit=Search

Lmao, would've banned Meow for a day for continuing his harassment from in-game onto the forums. What kind of shit is that?

I mean he's just being a garbage troll and there's nothing more to it. Although with the likelihood that he is a spastic autist, he's not really worth the speculation anyway.

I doubt the kid is going to get unbanned lmao

suck my front and my back nut

i can already tell this isnt going to work

people are going to have varying opinions on things and a few select people will want to be dubbed leader and itll crumble from there

either that or some squeaker will think he's funny when he surprise raids his own base. edgy

you can just look at our current Rust server for any indication on that

27 minutes ago, Darren said:

The best discussions start when those involved have different opinions. It's by discovering why someone has an opinion contrary to your own that you can better understand why you have your opinion, or why it might be wrong. If you said all you wanted to say then I don't object to that, what I object to is the idea that you think a difference of opinion is where a discussion ends. Correct me if I misunderstood your post.

I'm actually really tired right now, so coherent thought isn't something I can really manage. None the less, I am apt to agree with you that the best discussions occur between differing opinions. Although, between the several posts that I read about supporting banning people who leave directly following a slay, I can't 100% agree. I can see banning someone for leaving before a slay is even given, because that's quite obviously RDM and leave. Perhaps if they leave the second they get slain I could get behind. Even that's pushing it pretty hard.

I understand your reasoning that it's to prevent RDMs from happening further, but I can't really agree with that. I cannot see any real correlation between the ban for leaving after a slay because they didn't stay, and having them RDM less after the fact. 

Never the less, I'm only really just restating my reasoning for my opinion and going in circles. I didn't say the discussion needed to end, everyone else is quite free to discuss and argue as they wish. I only meant that I have nothing left to discuss because I've already stated everything I can in the matter. Whether or not it swayed your stance on it, I don't know. All I know is my opinion in the matter and I can't really get behind yours 100%.

As an example:

Let's say I was playing TTT. I keep getting killed and I get mad tilted and salty, even more so that I accidentally RDM. When I RDM, the first thing I do is slay myself mid round no matter what. Now let's say an SO sees this and chooses to slay me next round. Engage me wanting to leave because maximum salt. I take the slay the next round and leave because I don't feel like playing any longer. I know I'm not going to RDM, and nor did I mean to intentionally, but if I were to get a day ban for that I would find that outrageous.

I understand new players for sure, because they're wild cards. However, when you're going to ban a regular because they RDM'd, took a slay, then left because they're salty; that's pushing it. You say the reason to ban is to prevent RDMs in the future, but regulars know they aren't going to RDM. You know regulars aren't going to RDM. Banning them for taking a slay and leaving is a bit counter intuitive in my opinion.

Trying to force them to stay on the server to serve a slay after that fact is beyond the scope of the punishment. To me I find that totally power tripping, whether it's meant to be or not. sG should not be telling players they need to stay on a server for an extra 5+ minutes or they'll get banned because they made a mistake. I can't foresee people wanting to play that server very often if that were a frequent thing, even on JB for example.

I guess I did have more to say? I dunno, it's late and it was late when I made the previous post. It's likely why I just wanted to end the discussion.

2 hours ago, Darren said:

He replies with the frustrating "we have different opinions, and mine won't change" cop-out that immediately turns a decent discussion into a complete waste. What about any of that suggests that I wasn't considering his side? I was responding to his points before he shut the discussion down with his cop-out. Why should I continue to respond to someone who's not open to having their opinion challenged?

It would be meaningless to continue a discussion that's based on two opinions that differ when I've already said all that I can on the matter. The fact that you find that frustrating at all is kind of disappointing, but I suppose to each their own. I'm really not sure what more I would have wanted to say, thus my reaction. What more did you want to say?

2 hours ago, Darren said:

The bottom line is this; if you break a rule and decide to leave before completion of a slay, then (unless otherwise notified) we have no cause to think it's for any other reason than to avoid the slay. 

And as I've stated before, I don't know why you care. They took the slay, they're already going to miss the round. Whether they leave the server is only relevant to the punishment because our administration has this notion that they should wait to leave. In my opinion, like the many other opinions that I have against this, it shouldn't matter because the slay was already given and that was their punishment. Whether they re-enter the server afterwards doesn't matter because they have already missed the round. I understand your feelings in the matter, I've read your feelings in the matter; unfortunately, as I've said before it is only an opinion in the matter based on the punishment. It could easily be changed and the outcome would still be the same. Thus why it is an opinion, and why my opinion won't be changed.

I understand the reasoning, but it doesn't change my opinion in the fact that it's more of a power trip than anything. Personally, I don't see it as RDM and leaving when you take the slay and leave. Trying to keep them there perpetually for another 2-5 minutes when they want to leave after the fact is just dumb. The argument that a mod falls apart without enforcement is also egregious to the argument in lieu of banning people if they stay a round. Especially considering it did just fine when this wasn't a thing back when I played it.

If they RDM and leave in the same round; then sure, the day ban is warranted. That's how I always did it back in TTT custom on Gmod when I was an SO / Paidmin. Whether or not they stayed the duration of the round after the slay was irrelevant. I'm not going to try to control someone staying on a server they don't want to participate on. It's likely they're just going to go AFK regardless. I suppose times change, and it's just another reason I won't be coming back to Gmod TTT. I can think of several reasons why I think the rule in general is dumb, but it won't change the fact that we have differing opinions and it just so happens yours is the enforced rule.

4 minutes ago, Junzou said:

 

On their own time, when they want.  They will sit out a round on our time, when we want, for breaking the rules.

 

Did your parents tell you "Go to your room... whenever you want," when you did something bad?  You were going to go there anyway for bed eventually.

This is the first time I've found your logic absolutely baffling. I understand a good portion of the server are probably children, but when you start treating everyone like that the reasoning becomes egregious. Trying to force people to stay in the server because they've made a mistake when they would rather leave, then punishing them for it because they didn't ask for permission is beyond stupid.