As I stated in some thread before, even those beta-testers, who are just so-called exploiters, cheaters and jerks (like pozzo or someone would say), help in developing this game, just by using those exploits/cheats/other stuff. The more they use it, the more important is to fix it.
If they would be helping with developing the game, they would report those exploits and cheats instead of using them till devs are made aware of them.
This thread was about X. People Started talking Y. I said it wasn't constructive. Simple logics. Maybe it works different on ET servers, but hey, it's like that everywhere else, so please adapt.
You haven't been too constructive here either. Even your reply I'm replying too right now shows you have a problem with discussing things.
Arguments like...? Because the only arguments against I've seen up to this point are "you're an asshole" and "GMs are always right".
Most arguments by you fall in the same "you're an asshole" category.
Oh but I will blame them till the end of the world if their job is supposed to entail treating everyone equally.
Except for your word, I haven't seen anything which actually suggest they don't.
StarCraft. And I bet there's more. Basically, every competitive game has a system of complaints and appeal. You're lying. Get out.
A system of complaints and appeal is something different than a system which give players a level of control over GMs.
So it's not me who's lying, it's you.
I refuse to believe you have a functional brain. Actually, saying that is on equal footing with what you've said when it comes to probability.
You seem to be quite slow, so I'll explain. The devs said no to public logs and yes to non-public logs, so we need to choose who is going to read them.
About fucking time you noticed, Sherlock. But we're not talking about that right now.
Nice constructive comments. Keep is going.
As for opening logs to even a few players, enough comments against it have been made.
Please elaborate. Because as far as I remember spawning unbiased people is not possible irl. But hey, you seem to be supporting corruption since the beginning, so why do I even bother asking?
Exactly the reason we shouldn't be picking people from the large factions as they'll most likely be less objective than someone who isn't allied to 1 of them or to GMs.
My whole reason for being against this crap is actually to prevent corruption or if there's any to stop it from spreading.
To put it in words you understand: I have absolutely no faith in giving responsibilities to people who have proven they can't handle them.
If you can't even show some manners in your communications in this thread, how should we expect you to have them if you're given responsibility?
Yes, yes, love and peace and weed and whatnot. Christ. Are you really that naive?
And no, the rules have to be very specific, else there's no point in making them. If an exploit appears that the devs don't want to see used, they can just edit the ruleset.
I think I've shown several times and very clearly I'm not naive enough to think you and the likes of you can handle certain responsibilities.
Specific rules means lots of situations will not be in the rules thus opening the door very wide for exploits.
Editing the ruleset means you're always 1 step behind and it still leaves the door open for exceptions.
Using exploits, cheats and hack should simply be prohibited as it's already.
Something that's normal in competitive games.
No need to explicitely name specific cheats, exploits and hacks.
