http://dbd.game/killswitch
Actual Footage of Go-Next Prevention In Action
Comments
-
You accused him, then begged for evidence when people said the system bans people. It's the same topic of discussion.
As far as I know, its not illegal to have an opinion about a streamer, even if my opinion is rude and false.
Even so this does not make it part of the topic, You will have to explain how me calling him theatrical and laying it on thick is related to the Go Next System's punishment. Ok so I "accused him" hows that relate to the punishment??I have no issue yapping about random problems you have with what I say, but honestly you have been making weaker and weaker connections without explaining it. You seem to just assume everyone agrees that there is a connection between them.
Why is it even relevant if a Streamer is doing that? I barely care, you seem to care. Are you a fan of his?You have dodged every point everyone has said in this thread.
I have literally addressed every point I have been given honestly and thoughtfully, you probably still think I assume that everyone here is lying, at least that's how idd make sense of you saying this. Its not like you have acknowledged the multiple times I have addressed this for you, you just seem to ignore it and move on complaining to me.
You keep responding though, do you have more to say?
Like I said I have no issue addressing your complaints to me, if you have something to say then you may say it.
If you didn't want me to respond and see it, you would not tag me, so obviously there is more for us to talk about if you want that.At least you seem done about the punishment topic and have moved on to talking about the streamer, so thats nice.
-4 -
As far as I know, its not illegal to have an opinion about a streamer, even if my opinion is rude and false.
I never said you couldn't have an opinion, but your entire demand for a source was to "prove" your opinion. Your opinion was that he was merely performing for "theater" and not because there was a possibility of him getting banned. People told you that he could get banned for it, and you demanded "source? source?" because you couldn't do your due diligence and read or reread the patch notes, or trust the many players who also claimed that it was happening to them too. You then went on an entire tirade about people not having media literacy when you yourself couldn't be bothered to hold yourself to the same standard. The whole "source" tangent is because you accused a streamer of performing theater, and then refused to listen to anyone's data showing you that there is a more popular opinion based on facts. There's also this statement you made:
At least in that scenario you would have evidence and video footage of the penalty, Trust me bro I want you to be right, I want to see the bad stuff happen. But we need video evidence of it.
Why do you want to see it? To disprove your opinion or to just relish in the chaos? You clearly haven't changed your opinion on the "theater" after being presented with data to contradict it being just "theater," so unless you provide another rational reason as to why you're asking for a source, I'm going to assume it's either chaotic in nature or because you had no other alternative but to try and engage in a red herring fallacy because your opinion was unpopular and the facts show otherwise.
That being said, you are entitled to your opinion, but when people disagree with your opinion, you can't just demand "source? source?" in an attempt to make yours seem more popular. Your opinion could be that the sky is green, but the majority of people disagree with you because the sky is blue based on actual facts. The system can ban people, and that's why people disagree with it being "just theater." You saying "source? source?" changes nothing about that.
you have been making weaker and weaker connections without explaining it.
See this right here, you are entitled to your opinion.
If you didn't want me to respond and see it, you would not tag me, so obviously there is more for us to talk about if you want that.
I tag everyone I respond to, that's common courtesy when I directly respond to someone's message.
At least you seem done about the punishment topic and have moved on to talking about the streamer, so thats nice.
I hope my above paragraph shows you why these are not separate topics.
2 -
Why do you want to see it? To disprove your opinion or to just relish in the chaos? You clearly haven't changed your opinion on the "theater" after being presented with data to contradict it being just "theater," so unless you provide another rational reason as to why you're asking for a source, I'm going to assume it's either chaotic in nature or because you had no other alternative but to try and engage in a red herring fallacy because your opinion was unpopular and the facts show otherwise.
The system can ban people, and that's why people disagree with it being "just theater." You saying "source? source?" changes nothing about that.
What? Do you think, that I think, that Dawko faked the Warning message? Are you serious?
or do you think, I think people are faking the message?
-5 -
What? Do you think, that I think, that Dawko faked the Warning message? Are you serious?
or do you think, I think people are faking the message?
No. As I clearly said, and I will say again, you believe he reacted out of "only theater" and not because there was an actual chance he could get banned from it. We are talking about his reaction, not if he "faked a ban message." I'm not really sure how you could interpret my message to be saying they're faking screenshots when my criticisms were clearly about you not taking people's word when they have literally nothing to gain from lying about it, especially after the system was disabled and proof existed that it was falsely banning people.
0 -
Why do you say this then?
You clearly haven't changed your opinion on the "theater" after being presented with data to contradict it being just "theater,"
The system can ban people, and that's why people disagree with it being "just theater." You saying "source? source?" changes nothing about that.
What Data would contradict a reaction? HUH???
To me this looks like you are telling me, I dont think its theater, but why would I then ask for a source for the reaction?
This isnt what Im asking for a source on though.-2 -
Oh my you have completely lost the plot.
I never said you couldn't have an opinion, but your entire demand for a source was to "prove" your opinion. Your opinion was that he was merely performing for "theater" and not because there was a possibility of him getting banned.
Incorrect, While I do have that opinion of him, that was not what I asked for a source for, it was clearly for the possibility of getting banned, both @Hex_Ignored and @CrypticGirl understood that when I asked for it. Neither of them have been talking about the theater part because its largely irrelevant to the important stuff. You are the only one who suddenly for some reason wont separate those topics, its both irrelevant and unimportant to anything.
People told you that he could get banned for it, and you demanded "source? source?" because you couldn't do your due diligence and read or reread the patch notes, or trust the many players who also claimed that it was happening to them too.
I never demanded a source, I asked them for it, calmly and in good faith. Your mis characterization is majestic. Lets read again.
You then went on an entire tirade about people not having media literacy when you yourself couldn't be bothered to hold yourself to the same standard.
Oh so that really made you angry huh, well you asked me why I questioned it and to explain myself and I gave the philosophical reasons for it. You asked me if I believed that everyone was lying to me, a tangent which you don't seem to be over now.
Read what you wrote to me again, if you dont want me to explain it to you. Dont ask me questions.
Furthermore I asked for a source, which is literally the standard I promote, its literally what I explained to you.The whole "source" tangent is because you accused a streamer of performing theater, and then refused to listen to anyone's data showing you that there is a more popular opinion based on facts.
They never showed me any Data, that claimed the DC penalty was invoked from the Go Next Prevention without evidence.
They said the proof was in the video, which it wasn't, a Warning Screen isnt proof of a system in extension of it. Read it again.
Post edited by Emeal on-4 -
I legitimately have no idea what you're saying. A rational person, after being shown evidence that a system would be able to ban someone, would maybe change their opinion about someone's reaction being "just theater." I don't know if you're being intentionally dishonest or what, because legitimately nobody would draw that conclusion from what I'm saying.
Neither of them have been talking about the theater part because its largely irrelevant to the important stuff
Because you steered the conversation into this "lecture" about media literacy, when it had nothing to do with the original topic at hand.
Incorrect, While I do have that opinion of him, that was not what I asked for a source for, it was clearly for the possibility of getting banned, both @Hex_Ignored and @CrypticGirl understood that when I asked for it. Neither of them have been talking about the theater part because its largely irrelevant to the important stuff. You are the only one who suddenly for some reason wont separate those topics, its both irrelevant and unimportant to anything.
People react to the Warning Message like its a personal slight against them, they dont want to be told they played incredibly poorly. So poor in fact that a system designed to track people who kill themselves on purpose are suspicious of them.
You do know how other games tell you, that you are bad? They give you a Game Over.
I gotta say I have no time for a guy who sits and looks at a warning message for 10 seconds, then looks at chat and then looks back at the message. Its Theater, He wanted to make a point cause he felt insulted by the warning.These were your words, not mine. You made the claim that his "theater" was him being insulted by the warning because he played poorly, nothing else. After people said you can get banned from the system, that's when you doubled down on this "source?" tirade because the data showed that your opinion of his "theater" probably isn't the most popular nor plausible interpretation of the events that unfolded.
I never demanded a source, I asked them for it, calmly and in good faith.
Replying 4 separate times asking for more sources after being shown sources is not "in good faith."
Oh so that really […...] you off huh, well you asked me why I questioned it and to explain myself and I gave the philosophical reasons for it. You asked me if I believed that everyone was lying to me, a tangent which you don't seem to be over now.
No, it didn't. I just find it hilarious you don't hold yourself to the same standard that you hold the other people on this forum to.
I don't want to muddle this thread with further frivolous explanations that fall on deaf ears, so unless you have anything of actual value to add to the conversation, this will be my last response on the matter.
3 -
At this point, I've been getting tagged every time there's a comment and I'm just kinda
13 -
A rational person, after being shown evidence that a system would be able to ban someone, would maybe change their opinion about someone's reaction being "just theater." I don't know if you're being intentionally dishonest or what, because legitimately nobody would draw that conclusion from what I'm saying.
Not at all, a rational person does not need to change their opinion about a reaction to a message, just because that system is capable to banning them. Even when I learned that it changed nothing about what I think of his reaction to the message.
This is why I kept saying you are making bring unessesary and irrelevant parts into the discussion, I could not care at all about the reaction. Its his stream, its his show. To me its not relevant to the question of if the System could ban or not.
I also dont see why this is dishonest, like I kept asking you to explain why the two topics are relevant to each other and you never answered this. So is this why? You think I ought to believe now that his reaction isn't theatrical and over the top, because I learned that the system he got the message from COULD have banned him? I don't see why.
These were your words, not mine. You made the claim that his "theater" was him being insulted by the warning because he played poorly, nothing else. After people said you can get banned from the system, that's when you doubled down on this "source?" tirade because the data showed that your opinion of his "theater" probably isn't the most popular nor plausible interpretation of the events that unfolded.
Even if he WAS banned, idd still find his reaction theatrical, cause his reaction is unrelated to the DC penalty.
I'm really sorry guys, but I'm not into evidence because you guys think my comments about Dawko's Reaction were bad.Ofc neither of us can prove what is going on inside my head, but I seriously dont care that much about you guys.
Replying 4 separate times asking for more sources after being shown sources is not "in good faith."
What they showed me literally was not a source, it was hearsay, which is why I ask them where they got it from.
I just find it hilarious you don't hold yourself to the same standard that you hold the other people on this forum.
You have literally questioned me for hours now and I have answered at length, but you don't think I don't hold myself to the standard of being questioned or asked for evidence?? That is literally what we have been doing this whole time.
I don't want to muddle this thread with further frivolous explanations that fall on deaf ears, so unless you have anything of actual value to add to the conversation, this will be my last response on the matter.
Just because you dont like my answers, does not mean I have not added value here. You may hate me, but I have answered everything you asked of me. Getting the answers you want isn't the only thing that holds value here, its about answering honestly and in good faith. And getting to the bottom of our dispute, which seems to be we have now? So all is good?
-4 -
Me too, I honestly wanted to see how this ends.
-2 -
Make sure to hydrate! I'm sure you've had a lot of popcorn by now 😂
2 -
Not at all, a rational person does not need to change their opinion about a reaction to a message, just because that system is capable to banning them. Even when I learned that it changed nothing about what I think of his reaction to the message.
Hence why I said this:
That being said, you are entitled to your opinion, but when people disagree with your opinion, you can't just demand "source? source?" in an attempt to make yours seem more popular. Your opinion could be that the sky is green, but the majority of people disagree with you because the sky is blue based on actual facts. The system can ban people, and that's why people disagree with it being "just theater." You saying "source? source?" changes nothing about that.
Your arguments would give the wheel a run for its money for how circular they are.
Even if he WAS banned, idd still find his reaction theatrical, cause his reaction is unrelated to the DC penalty.
So by your logic, if you were pulled over by the police for speeding but issued a warning, you're then not allowed to have a reaction to it when you share that story with others because you didn't get a ticket. I honestly don't understand your reasoning behind this.
What they showed me literally was not a source, it was hearsay, which is why I ask them where they got it from.
I hate to break it to you, but 99.999999999999999999999999% of conversations are hearsay by the definition. That's like telling someone who said "I had a sandwich for lunch" that their claim is hearsay because they didn't take pictures of the sandwich, since no person would ever do that for every meal they ever eat.
Just because you dont like my answers, does not mean I have not added value here. You may hate me, but I have answered everything you asked of me. Getting the answers you want isn't the only thing that holds value here, its about answering honestly and in good faith. And getting to the bottom of our dispute, which seems to be we have now? So all is good?
I'm not sure why you're trying to assume my opinion of you, that's a bit odd. You have answered, but your answers are non-answers and/or sophistry. You still have yet to explain to what purpose you wanted the "proof" that people could get banned anyway. Why did that information mean so much to you?
0 -
So you never actually address why a rational man would need to change their opinion about a reaction to a message, just because that system is capable to banning them. Idd like to know why you think that, you seem to just glaze over that and don't address is at all in your response. All you say is this, which isnt even related to it.
That being said, you are entitled to your opinion, but when people disagree with your opinion, you can't just demand "source? source?" in an attempt to make yours seem more popular. Your opinion could be that the sky is green, but the majority of people disagree with you because the sky is blue based on actual facts. The system can ban people, and that's why people disagree with it being "just theater." You saying "source? source?" changes nothing about that.
in an attempt to make yours seem more popular
You say that I did this to make my point seem more popular, which is absolutely false. Like logically that would not even make sense to me. But if that is what you keep thinking is my rationale for asking for a source then you are wrong and you clearly didn't listen when I explained why sources and how we know things are important to me.
So by your logic, if you were pulled over by the police for speeding but issued a warning, you're then not allowed to have a reaction to it when you share that story with others because you didn't get a ticket. I honestly don't understand your reasoning behind this.
No, a more correct logic comparison would be if someone received a bill and then made a tiktok of them making a silly reaction to it, and then I look at that tiktok and say, wow that is a silly reaction. And then you come up to me and say, But that bill is going to bankrupt him if he fails the next payment.
And I then wrongly believed that this type of bill could not bankrupt him, so then I say back to you, What's your source that this bill is going to bankrupt him? You then tell me, well loads of people have been bankrupted by bills, but then I ask yeah, but what is your source for this bill is going to bankrupt him.
And then Hex_Ignored shows up and say, here is what the bill says and this is how it will bankrupt him.
And then I say, "Oh I see. That is a source for that claim" and then you say, so why dont you change your opinion of the tiktok?
And then I say No, cause the tiktok and his reaction to the bill is unrelated to what the bill can do to him.
And then you say to me, No a rational person would change their opinion of their reaction.And I ask why and then you dont explain it. Pretty much what happened as far as I see it. like I said multiple times its unrelated.
I hate to break it to you, but 99.999999999999999999999999% of conversations are hearsay by the definition. That's like telling someone who said "I had a sandwich for lunch" that their claim is hearsay because they didn't take pictures of the sandwich, since no person would ever do that for every meal they ever eat.
I already know this, I just don't care what you had for lunch, its irrelevant to me.
So I have no reason to ask you for your source regarding the sandwich claim.
Unlike DBD, my favorite game which we play, which I dont want my friends to be banned from.I'm not sure why you're trying to assume my opinion of you, that's a bit odd.
You have literally suggested many times, that I'm doing all of this out of dishonesty among other things.
You still have yet to explain to what purpose you wanted the "proof" that people could get banned anyway. Why did that information mean so much to you?
Because it confirms the hearsay, like I said sometime in the beginning, I wasn't able to find anyone on reddit that was banned.
So if it is a thing I would like to know about it and I didn't recall the patch notes about it. So ofc I would ask for a source if someone responded to me claiming it was a thing.-3 -
So you never actually address why a rational man would need to change their opinion about a reaction to a message, just because that system is capable to banning them.
I've explained this 3 times to you, I'm not going to do it a 4th. You are entitled to your opinion, but to simply hold onto an opinion out of stubbornness and a desire to be "right," despite a plethora of evidence to the contrary on the intentions behind the reaction is not a good look when trying to convince people you're "intellectually honest" and acting "in good faith."
No, a more correct logic comparison would be if someone received a bill and then made a tiktok of them making a silly reaction to it, and then I look at that tiktok and say, wow that is a silly reaction. And then you come up to me and say, But that bill is going to bankrupt him if he fails the next payment.
No it isn't. Your argument was directly based on the fact he had any reaction at all that you deemed inappropriate to the situation. You expected, based on the evidence you had on hand, that he should have just taken the ban warning and moved on because he was bad at the game, and that he shouldn't create "theater" to save his ego. Also define the "silly" reaction in your hypothetical. If the person said "oh I'm not paying that" with no other context, then yes, I'd agree with you, what a silly reaction. That's why context matters. Your hypothetical is too abstract and lacks actual premise behind it.
Unlike DBD, my favorite game which we play, which I dont want my friends to be banned from.
Are your friends bad at the game? Considering your words:
People react to the Warning Message like its a personal slight against them, they dont want to be told they played incredibly poorly. So poor in fact that a system designed to track people who [go next] on purpose are suspicious of them.
So either your friends intentionally go next, or they are so bad at the video game (your words not mine), they would trigger the same system.
Let's assume they are not very good at the game, which is perfectly fine. What if they were issued a warning, same as the content creator, and they had a "theatrical" reaction to it. What would you say to them?
You have literally suggested many times, that I'm doing all of this out of dishonesty among other things.
I literally have not rendered any opinion on you as a person. All I have done is discussed what you have typed. Me discussing your intentions behind your posts is not the same as me talking about you as a person.
-1 -
I've explained this 3 times to you, I'm not going to do it a 4th. You are entitled to your opinion, but to simply hold onto an opinion out of stubbornness and a desire to be "right," despite a plethora of evidence to the contrary on the intentions behind the reaction is not a good look when trying to convince people you're "intellectually honest" and acting "in good faith."
You literally have not. When you say 'opinion' in this sentence,
Do you mean that I thought the Go Next could not make bans OR is it about that Dawko's reaction still?Despite a plethora of evidence to the contrary on the intentions behind the reaction is not a good look when trying to convince people you're "intellectually honest" and acting "in good faith."
Sure it would be a bad look, if that was what I was doing. I mean its pretty clear to me you would not know what "evidence" is if you ever saw it. You keep mixing in irrelevant subjects into this conversaion, like the Dawko Reaction which litteraly dont matter to me.
No it isn't.
It actually is, that summary is literally what happened.
Your argument was directly based on the fact he had any reaction at all that you deemed inappropriate to the situation.
You expected, based on the evidence you had on hand, that he should have just taken the ban warning and moved on because he was bad at the game, and that he shouldn't create "theater" to save his ego.Do you mean my opinion of his reaction was based on the reaction? Yes ofc it was.
No that isn't what I expected, what I didn't expect though was someone sitting in silence and then peeking at chat.Also define the "silly" reaction in your hypothetical. If the person said "oh I'm not paying that" with no other context, then yes, I'd agree with you, what a silly reaction.
Sure, I dont see how it matters it does nothing for the context for me, but it if does for you.
Ahem* "And then the tiktoker, stared at the bill for 10 seconds while peeking at the tiktok live chat"
It doesn't change anything for me, but if it works for you, here you go.
Are your friends bad at the game?
So either your friends intentionally go next, or they are so bad at the video game (your words not mine), they would trigger the same system.
Yes, they suuuuuck. But they are my friends so I dont mind.
Let's assume they are not very good at the game, which is perfectly fine. What if they were issued a warning, same as the content creator, and they had a "theatrical" reaction to it. What would you say to them?
Sure. "Stop acting like a child, you need to consider better how you play this game"
and depending on if I know what I know now add to it: "This system can ban you for this if you keep it up."I literally have not rendered any opinion on you as a person. All I have done is discussed what you have typed. Me discussing your intentions behind your posts is not the same as me talking about you as a person.
I appreciate the clarification. But you HAVE rendered opinions on me. I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page, because it felt personal the way you kept bringing it up. Like you are trying to gaslight me into believing it myself by repeating it constantly, which upon reflectionI have also done to you in regards to me thinking you are very confused in regards to the topics and how you dont seem to understand that the Dawko reaction means nothing to me.
-3 -
You keep mixing in irrelevant subjects into this conversaion, like the Dawko Reaction which litteraly dont matter to me.
It matters enough to you to spend 20+ responses between two days defending your opinion on it.
Sure. "Stop acting like a child, you need to consider better how you play this game"
Sure, Jan. I 100% believe that would be your carefully curated an intellectual response to a friend you want to keep. Yep, no doubts from me.
But you HAVE rendered opinions on me.
Of you as a person? Where? I've never done that.
Like you are trying to gaslight me into believing it myself by repeating it constantly
Disagreeing with you with proof is not gaslighting.
you are very confused in regards to the topics and how you dont seem to understand that the Dawko reaction means nothing to me.
See my first response in this message.
1 -
So you never actually addressed why a rational man would need to change their opinion about a reaction to a message, just because that system is capable to banning them. Again you just claim you have done that, but never actually doing it.
It matters enough to you to spend 20+ responses between two days defending your opinion on it.
Only cause you keep asking me about it, I have no interest in it otherwise, I care more for a bug in my Garden.
Sure, Jan. I 100% believe that would be your carefully curated an intellectual response to a friend you want to keep. Yep, no doubts from me.
Not all friends need a carefully curated an intellectual response.
Do you want to meet them? if it would help put your mind at ease you can meet my friends. We can play dbd.Disagreeing with you with proof is not gaslighting.
Well as far as I have seen, you have not provided proof for your claims, all you have done is say you have done that.
Like this is why I say, I don't think you know burden of proof, evidence or how to prove anything.-2 -
It's insane & incredible how this thread as evolved (or devolved?) into a battle between @Valuetown and @Emeal that everyone else is just spectating, finding the argument much more entertaining than the already-answered topic.
5 -
Only cause you keep asking me about it, I have no interest in it otherwise, I care more for a bug in my Garden.
Actions speak louder than words. You wouldn't be typing paragraphs upon paragraphs if you truly are only responding out of obligation. Your actions do not match your words.
Not all friends need a carefully curated an intellectual response.
Do you want to meet them? if it would help put your mind at ease you can meet my friends. We can play dbd.
Not all, but most. I don't imagine most people would respond positively to "stop acting like a child" after having a reaction to a message telling them they're going to be banned.
Well as far as I have seen, you have not provided proof for your claims
…
If saying it would only make it so…
0 -
😅😅😅
It just doesn't sit well with me that, in my view, someone would blame the victims of this atrocious system and be content with calling those reactions purely "theater," when the system was disabled after numerous reports of it handing out matchmaking bans, showing that it was, in fact, doing that.
3 -
Actions speak louder than words. You wouldn't be typing paragraphs upon paragraphs if you truly are only responding out of obligation. Your actions do not match your words.
Why would I not want to see where you are going with all this? I'm literally typing these in-between matches.
No, I'm not obligated. But I'm curious.Not all, but most. I don't imagine most people would respond positively to "stop acting like a child" after having a reaction to a message telling them they're going to be banned.
Yeah, well its not in English so the cultural context is different.
As far as I have seen, you have not provided proof for your claims
If saying it would only make it so…Indeed, that's why if you wanna prove something, it helps to make a logical structure.
- Make a clear claim.
- Give reasons that support your claim.
- Add evidence to back up each reason.
- Consider and respond to counterarguments.
- Conclude by summarizing your case and restating your claim.
Do you wanna do that? We can if you want.
It just doesn't sit well with me that, in my view, someone would blame the victims of this atrocious system and be content with calling those reactions purely "theater," when the system was disabled after numerous reports of it handing out matchmaking bans, showing that it was, in fact, doing that.
When the heck did I blame the victims?? When did I say everybody's reaction was pure "theater"??
-4 -
Yeah, well its not in English so the cultural context is different.
I had no idea that the English language had cultural context. Usually I just err on the side of human decency.
When the heck did I blame the victims?? When did I say everybody's reaction was pure "theater"??
People react to the Warning Message like its a personal slight against them, they dont want to be told they played incredibly poorly. So poor in fact that a system designed to track people who [go next] on purpose are suspicious of them.
You do know how other games tell you, that you are bad? They give you a Game Over.
I gotta say I have no time for a guy who sits and looks at a warning message for 10 seconds, then looks at chat and then looks back at the message. Its Theater, He wanted to make a point cause he felt insulted by the warning.… 😐️
Yeah, we're clearly done here. It's been a good conversation, but this back and forth is clearly going nowhere, and I'm tired of reexplaining everything for you to just ignore it. Feel free to have the last word, and have a good anniversary event.
Same to the spectators as well! Have a happy 9th anniversary!
Post edited by Valuetown on1 -
I had no idea that the English language had cultural context.
Ask a Linguist.
Yeah, we're clearly done here. It's been a good conversation, but this back and forth is clearly going nowhere, and I'm tired of reexplaining everything for you to just ignore it. Feel free to have the last word, and have a good anniversary event.
I understand why you are tired, you explain without proving and claim to prove with explaining. But I read everything you said and responded to it, In mass in fact. You could not explain why a rational man would do as you said, nor prove that.
Honestly I respect the effort you made, you clearly have a strong set of morals, but you have a really hard time making clear arguments and then prove those. We got lost in the cornfields for a long time over you trying to explain those.
-6 -
And since you asked for the proof of the ban happening, someone shared this video in another thread.
7 -
Oh Trust me, we are a little past that stage now, but I appreciate the thought, and I do agree. If BHVR wants to have a system like this, there cant be false positives.
-2 -
You dont think a warning that you're at risk of being banned because of something you didn't actually do (die intentionally) isn't "bad stuff"? You don't think the game is likely to follow through with the ban if it continues to detect these things that aren't happening? Do you think this situation really would have no impact on new players to the game? They just paid money for a game, maybe minutes beforehand, and are now told their ability to play said game is compromised. Put yourself in their shoes.
5 -
When that message was written I was misremembering the content of the patch notes, so I was not under the impression it was able to cause DC Penalties and further a ban. You are like two days late for this point in the conversation.
-5 -
Yea… this thread is interesting.
From what Ive gathered there are basically two crowds; the "I think this system needs to be refined more" or the "I think players should be hit with a drone strike for sucking at the game too much and getting warned for it". Regardless of what camp you lie in, this has probably the funniest week watching people fight over the whole thing.
4 -
Honestly, I can't see how this could ever work properly without flagging innocent players. It should just stay killswitched. The removal of intentional deaths on hook should be enough.
8
