oberst_enzian
Member
+234|6750|melb.au

EA wrote:

§ Items not included in this list would be up to EA & DICE to interpret.
PFFFT
so basically, all these rules don't mean very much, because at the end of the day, you reserve the right to reset anyone you want, because as has been argued ad nauseum on these and other forums, there are always problems interpreting some people's behaviour. well done.
NM156
The H4xor Mod
+161|6854|North Texas

<{SoE}>Agamemnar wrote:

Indian doesn't seem very intelligent. These rules are poorly worded.
Now why did you even post in this thread? If you don't have anything decent to contribute to this thread, I suggest you not post in here.

I'm going to start recommending DEMOTIONS for flaming such as this. We need to get these forums back in shape.

This is a warning to everyone: Shape up, or ship out. It's up to you.
Friluftshund
I cnat slpel!!!
+54|6720|Norway

NM156 wrote:

<{SoE}>Agamemnar wrote:

Indian doesn't seem very intelligent. These rules are poorly worded.
Now why did you even post in this thread? If you don't have anything decent to contribute to this thread, I suggest you not post in here.

I'm going to start recommending DEMOTIONS for flaming such as this. We need to get these forums back in shape.

This is a warning to everyone: Shape up, or ship out. It's up to you.
Hear, hear!
chuyskywalker
Admin
+2,439|6855|"Frisco"

§1.2 You may not market, promote or advertise anything, or make any other form of solicitation (this does not apply to trusted partners and in game server messages) on any ranked servers.
So if I'm playing with someone and we're getting on well, I can't say "hey, stop by my website, I'd like you to join our clan"? That doesn't make any sense. Perhaps the exception rule needs to be made for that, or this rule needs to apply to commercial solicitations and/or spam solicitation.

§1.6 Server administrators may not explicitly or implicitly (by actions) enforce restrictions on roles or kits that players can use while on your server.

This would include but not limited to:
§ Commander
§ Squad Leader
§ Spec Ops
§ Forced to Join Squads
Uhm, what's the point of the sub-points on this? Isn't the 1.6 bullet enough?

§1.7 Server administrators may not use non-standard (custom map packs) maps or modified versions of standard maps.
This rule is moot -- using a custom or modified map will force the server into unranked mode.

§1.9 Players may not Impersonate or abuse BF2RS ADMINS.
Picky: I doesn't need caps there

§1.10 Server administrators will not go to ANY public or clan ranked server and threaten or bully any clan or clan administrator.
§ Admins are to only observe and report back to their department head
§ Admins will not contact or interfere in clan ranked servers
§ Admins will at no time contact any trusted provider
§ Admins at no time will state rules if they see violations
Uhm, seriously? Wouldn't that preclude them from saying "chuy, you are stat padding, which is against the ROE. Cease or be kicked."?

That seems a bit odd.

3 LOCAL (PRIVATELY RENTED) RANKED SERVER RULES MODIFICATIONS

These are rules that are not enforced upon in EA’s public ranked servers but may be modified in privately rented ranked servers. These rules are decided by clan administrators for those servers and as long as they do not contradict any global rules enforced by EA are considered valid for those servers.

This would include but not limited to:
§ Artillery fire or bombing runs on main (uncapturable) bases may be prohibited.
§ Prolonged or sustained attacks on main (uncapturable) bases (i.e. spawncamping).
§ Using the Transport Helicopters to take flags (Blackhawk whoring or flag hopping).
§ Impersonating clan members.
§ Using C4 on jeeps, or other fast moving vehicles to take out other vehicles.
§ Clans may change or customise rules, provided they don’t violate the above ROE rules.
This section is very, very poorly worded. Edit as:

rewrite wrote:

3 LOCAL (PRIVATELY RENTED) RANKED SERVER RULES MODIFICATIONS

Any rule enforced on Non-EA Ranked server is valid as long as it is not in violation of any other ROE rules.

Some examples of common Non-EA Ranked Server Rules:
§ No Artillery fire or bombing runs on main (uncapturable) bases
§ No Prolonged or sustained attacks on main (uncapturable) bases (i.e. spawncamping)
§ Teams may not use the Transport Helicopters to take flags (Blackhawk whoring or flag hopping).
§ Impersonating clan members is not allowed.
§ You may not use C4 on jeeps, or other fast moving vehicles, for the sole purpose to detonating the carbomb.
Echo
WOoKie
+383|6727|The Netherlands

<{SoE}>Agamemnar wrote:

Indian doesn't seem very intelligent. These rules are poorly worded.
You dont seem to have much social skills. There's no need to insult indian, he's a decent bloke trying to help us and he even bothers to post here on these forums.

Btw maybe he's from a country where they dont speak english?
IndianScout
Member
+16|6683

<{SoE}>Agamemnar wrote:

Indian doesn't seem very intelligent. These rules are poorly worded.
excuse me??

I hold 2 degrees..

I personally could care less what you think of my intelligence..
Friluftshund
I cnat slpel!!!
+54|6720|Norway

chuyskywalker wrote:

§1.2 You may not market, promote or advertise anything, or make any other form of solicitation (this does not apply to trusted partners and in game server messages) on any ranked servers.
So if I'm playing with someone and we're getting on well, I can't say "hey, stop by my website, I'd like you to join our clan"? That doesn't make any sense. Perhaps the exception rule needs to be made for that, or this rule needs to apply to commercial solicitations and/or spam solicitation.

§1.6 Server administrators may not explicitly or implicitly (by actions) enforce restrictions on roles or kits that players can use while on your server.

This would include but not limited to:
§ Commander
§ Squad Leader
§ Spec Ops
§ Forced to Join Squads
Uhm, what's the point of the sub-points on this? Isn't the 1.6 bullet enough?

§1.7 Server administrators may not use non-standard (custom map packs) maps or modified versions of standard maps.
This rule is moot -- using a custom or modified map will force the server into unranked mode.

§1.9 Players may not Impersonate or abuse BF2RS ADMINS.
Picky: I doesn't need caps there

§1.10 Server administrators will not go to ANY public or clan ranked server and threaten or bully any clan or clan administrator.
§ Admins are to only observe and report back to their department head
§ Admins will not contact or interfere in clan ranked servers
§ Admins will at no time contact any trusted provider
§ Admins at no time will state rules if they see violations
Uhm, seriously? Wouldn't that preclude them from saying "chuy, you are stat padding, which is against the ROE. Cease or be kicked."?

That seems a bit odd.

3 LOCAL (PRIVATELY RENTED) RANKED SERVER RULES MODIFICATIONS

These are rules that are not enforced upon in EA’s public ranked servers but may be modified in privately rented ranked servers. These rules are decided by clan administrators for those servers and as long as they do not contradict any global rules enforced by EA are considered valid for those servers.

This would include but not limited to:
§ Artillery fire or bombing runs on main (uncapturable) bases may be prohibited.
§ Prolonged or sustained attacks on main (uncapturable) bases (i.e. spawncamping).
§ Using the Transport Helicopters to take flags (Blackhawk whoring or flag hopping).
§ Impersonating clan members.
§ Using C4 on jeeps, or other fast moving vehicles to take out other vehicles.
§ Clans may change or customise rules, provided they don’t violate the above ROE rules.
This section is very, very poorly worded. Edit as:

rewrite wrote:

3 LOCAL (PRIVATELY RENTED) RANKED SERVER RULES MODIFICATIONS

Any rule enforced on Non-EA Ranked server is valid as long as it is not in violation of any other ROE rules.

Some examples of common Non-EA Ranked Server Rules:
§ No Artillery fire or bombing runs on main (uncapturable) bases
§ No Prolonged or sustained attacks on main (uncapturable) bases (i.e. spawncamping)
§ Teams may not use the Transport Helicopters to take flags (Blackhawk whoring or flag hopping).
§ Impersonating clan members is not allowed.
§ You may not use C4 on jeeps, or other fast moving vehicles, for the sole purpose to detonating the carbomb.
I took the liberty of quoting you on the rankedserver thread concerning the RoE
http://www.bf2rankedservers.com/forums/ … #post20007
wooly-back-jack
Jihaaaaaad!!!
+84|6747|England
§1.4 Server administrators may not change any game settings defined as standard for ranked servers (ticket ratios, server password, round time, etc.)

huh, nearly all the servers have timelimit 0 anyway because timelimits suck, does this mean you are enforcing timelimit 0? if so yay thanks.
wingman358
The Original
+11|6662
I don't mean to insult anyone, but I really think that EA should at least proofread stuff like that before they go about posting it and calling it "official"
Echo
WOoKie
+383|6727|The Netherlands
Could you guys sticky this topic please cause it's rather important for the whole community to read this ROE.

So everyone knows what they can or cant do on a ranked server and they can avoid their stats getting wiped. Thx!

Last edited by General-Echo (2006-02-08 16:18:56)

nordicfireman
Member
+7|6680

IndianScout wrote:

<{SoE}>Agamemnar wrote:

Indian doesn't seem very intelligent. These rules are poorly worded.
excuse me??

I hold 2 degrees..

I personally could care less what you think of my intelligence..
ok...<{SoE}>Agamemnar has a legitimate point in that the rules ARE very poorly worded, and also, indian wasn't helping his image by saying things like "this is what the rule applies 'too'", and "if you 'player' can come up with better wording for this rule". obviously agamemnar wasn't saying indian is a total dumbass prick sumbitch, but he was pointing out what is a somewhat disconserting lack of grammar skills for the writer/editor of an "official" document like these rules of engagement. just...try to understand what people are saying instead of just jumping on them and calling it a flame. also: "i personally could care less what you think of my intelligence"...if you could care less that means you care some already, the term was "couldn't" care less. couldn't. yeaap.
IndyV72
Member
+0|6663
I, too, would like some clarification on the 'High Points' server rule. I've played on a few that have 18 or 20 player max but use the 64 player map size (therefore more tickets to burn, usually 300-300 / 330-300 compared to 200-200 / 220-200 on 32 player map size). I enjoy playing a long time while STILL going for my objective which is to CONQUER by taking all the flags. I've seen it once on Karkand where it was 6-5 for MEC, me and some clanmates were USMC and we took over the map in no time flat with a score of 303-0 (losing only 27 tickets). I don't see what the problem is with this. SOmeitmes, yes, it can go a very long time and therefore get some pretty high scores. As long as we're trying to cap flags and bleeding the tickets out, how is it different than ging to a 40 player server with a 64 player map yet only 9-10 players in it. The same effect happens.
Yes, I know that it can be argued that there is more opportunity for more players to join and less of a high score, but I hate personally going to a server of more than 24 players max. I want to live a little bit before dying (like a couple of mins), unlike a 32/40+ server where you wait 15 secs to spawn, live for 30 secs, perhaps kill someone, die and wait another 15 secs to spawn. Also, because of more players, the ticket bleed is quicker and it can be difficult to get those expert badges when players spawn camp to get them (eg, the APC idiots who rape the alley at the Hotel on Karkand).
I can understand if there was a server that was using it for the sole purpose of stat padding (by making sure neither team tries to take flags to make ticket count down less, or not at all), but if the tickets are going down because players are capping flags, what's wrong with that? I play to win, and that's to cap flags. Killing is second (meaning, if your in my way of me capping or going to cap a flag, then I'll do my best to kill you!).

I'm not sure if I make sense in this, but clarification on that rule would be great, cause right now, I'm avoiding those servers cause I like my stats just where they are, clean.
AoP
Member
+1|6760

IndianScout wrote:

ok wording has changed to

§ Using Vehicles removed from battlefield for purposes of artificially inflating points

that sounds alot better
Indeed and it gives some relief. Thanks a lot Indian.
Skruples
Mod Incarnate
+234|6708
Why shouldnt he use player lingo, when his audience is the players themselves. Any 12 year old whose played this game for more than 30 minutes probably has some idea what stat-padding is, but if it was worded: "players may not engage in activities that artificially enhance their official score through abuse of gameplay dynamics" then some people might be left in the dust.
Buzerk1
Member
+44|6844

IndianScout wrote:

ok wording has changed to

§ Using Vehicles removed from battlefield for purposes of artificially inflating points

that sounds alot better
Does it applies to commander that sit in a tank just to boost their time in an armor???
F.Rabshaw
Member
+37|6689
Excuse me if I'm an idiot.... but I read the entire ROE and did not see the whole blackhawk repair issue. Did they aready change it?
Skruples
Mod Incarnate
+234|6708

Buzerk1 wrote:

IndianScout wrote:

ok wording has changed to

§ Using Vehicles removed from battlefield for purposes of artificially inflating points

that sounds alot better
Does it applies to commander that sit in a tank just to boost their time in an armor???
I hope not. I sit in tanks and other vehicles when noone from my team is around. Nothing says "stay away from my UAV trailer" like a 120mm tank round.
nordicfireman
Member
+7|6680

NM156 wrote:

<{SoE}>Agamemnar wrote:

And mod, please shutup before jumping my ass. I'd hate for these forums to turn into some quintessential nazi-mod breeding ground like so many other gaming forums.
I would suggest you change your tone, as I won't be the one shutting up. If you don't like it, take it up with Chuy or Voodoo.

Again, if you don't have anything to add, other than your snide comments, then don't post. Any more BS, and I'll remove your comments from this thread.
definitely have to agree with agememnar here, NM156, i think you're severly overreacting. you did call his post where he said "indian doesn't seem very intelligent" a flame. i think if he had said "indian is a fucking retard", that would qualify as a flame and be obnoxious. as it is, he was just making a relevant point. so yeah, you were basically jumping his ass.
Husker~ifh~
Beer Consumption Expert
+25|6738|Beerville, USA
I agree with a majority of the new ROE but am skeptical as to how EA or Administrators will enforce them especially in privately rented servers (i.e. clans).  It seems to me that this will depend on the honesty of the server admins to bring to light anyone not following the ROE and we all know for the most part that isn't going to happen. 

With the number of happy go lucky admins out there that are kick/ban happy or that may become irritated with getting owned I foresee the number of "This guys is a haxor/padder so delete his account" complaints doubling for you in the near future.

Lastly, I understand that clans/individuals pay for private servers (as does my clan) and may modify the server rules as long as those mods do not violate the ROE.  How is EA going to validate the hundreds of ranked server to ensure they are ROE compliant.  What will be the result should a player go into a private server and not know what that servers ROE is (i.e. it isn't posted and no script messages), jihad jeeps or something to that affect, and is turned in by server admins?  Will it be investigated or will thier account be reset without warning?  I think the ROE needs to contain not only a list of Violations but also a list of Consequences.

Don't get me wrong, as I said above I like the ROE, rules govern battles and without them chaos is sure to reign.  It just seems as valid as having a ROE is, actually validating it will be next to impossible (with the exception of EA serves).
nordicfireman
Member
+7|6680

<{SoE}>Agamemnar wrote:

nordicfireman wrote:

NM156 wrote:


I would suggest you change your tone, as I won't be the one shutting up. If you don't like it, take it up with Chuy or Voodoo.

Again, if you don't have anything to add, other than your snide comments, then don't post. Any more BS, and I'll remove your comments from this thread.
definitely have to agree with agememnar here, NM156, i think you're severly overreacting. you did call his post where he said "indian doesn't seem very intelligent" a flame. i think if he had said "indian is a fucking retard", that would qualify as a flame and be obnoxious. as it is, he was just making a relevant point. so yeah, you were basically jumping his ass.
To make matters worse this "mod" just deleted more of my posts...

Why does he have this need to police and be the judge of a completely valid post? Could you atleast explain how my post wasn't constructive? I was making a statement that had to deal with the topic at hand... isn't that what a FORUM is about?

Who even made you a mod in the first place is a bigger mystery?
chuyyyyyyyyy make it all better
IndianScout
Member
+16|6683
These are community rules, put out for discussion and tweaking as EA has stated.  As some of you may have noticed some of the rules have been modified and or tweaked due to the feedback EA and our program has received...

and yes these rules are Official...

you know it really doesnt bother me, as english is my second language and I have had to deal with stupidity and racism my whole life..

I am not from some other country, I

I am native american, born and raised on an Indian reservation here in the US,,

so say what you will,

it's all been said before...

Indian
Crosell
Member
+0|6678
Now now, lets not get all pissed off here. Now perhaps, who ever said that comment argaman? He did have a point just phrased wrong. His choice of words was not the best he could have used. He could have used, indian scout doesn't use correct grammar. Thats fine, because as you IndianScout have already asked, if anyone has better wording for these then do tell me.  I understand in typing that at times words are left out or just typed wrong. Now, lets all shake hands, and get on with correcting this document. So everyone can be happy and have a clear image and understanding of what the rules are.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard