what're the names of the players accused of being multis? it would be easier if we could look
Fedded Archives
Started by CRLF [2095076] on in General Discussion.
Posts archived: 39,778 / 39,778 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch
Apology from whom? I’ve seen bogie / PJ in here doubling down since the warning was issued - I don’t see them apologising for jack s**t.
Bring back Clansy / Hyd / weebl..
Tbf, Rainbow Six Seige is implementing a rule to combat boosting, and that rule is effectively “if you play(queued/partied, not solo queuing) X amount of games with a cheater, you are banned.”
So you are incentivized to separate yourself from cheaters, and its vindicating to report them and see them banned anyways.
is there precedent for this bookie shit being a bug? My biggest gripe with the proxima warning is that I dont know that there is precedent for a one off odds issue being treated as a bug or cheating. If there is significant precedent, I can kind of understand it when you add in the whole “Committee higher standard” bit but if there isnt much precedent, how can we be expected to predict that staff will see it as an issue?
Okay so look they're saying there is multis i want to make it 100% clear there is NO multis at all, everyone that they spoke about is a legitimate person which is being proven to staff, i keep seeing multi this multi that it isn't even correct. we would never ever use multis we know the rules.
We expect people to report people who have admitted to breaking serious rules to them.
This doesn’t mean you need to report every person that breaks minor rules like finding a way to say f**k uncensored, or if you have a vague feeling that someone may have multis (although these can be helpful and are appreciated) but if someone is making you aware that they are breaking serious rules then you should report it and that’s exactly what the warning that was sent says.
I expected no less but the Neanderthal thought process of trying to being an alpha to a newbie is hilarious
I think the craziest part of all this is the precedent it sets. Essentially, someone could start a bunch of multis, message 100s or 1000s of players about it, and anyone that doesn't take it seriously enough to report it could have a negative mark or even fedded.
It seems to me that this rule is now something that can be taken advantage of and abused.
Best response ever. 5 stars.
I BELIEVE THE ANSWER HERE IS CLEAR!!
LD DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATION...
wait...
THERE ARE NO NUCLEAR WEAPO....
wait...
THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SAE....
nm I'm lost. Nurse forgot my meds
So you want us to do your job for you?
I remember 2 sayings from my childhood
#nunyabizniz and #snitchesgetstitches
Fedding people for having 0 interest in helping you police the game is absurd. The community already thinks paid admins are lunatics and corrupt, ya'll should really lay off
What concerns me more is you and bogie coluding to turn a temporary ban into something much more than what it is, you say they had multis no they didn't nobody in our faction has multis if they did we would have reported them ourselves, the other things with the bookies okay fair enough they admited to it but do not put false charges and try to silence people.
Problem is nobody knows how serious the rule breaking was except Admins and LD. Also it was 1 potential rule, not 'rules'.
Again I will reiterate, if you want players to start policing each other you should really be providing rewards for such things, not punishing those who in all likely innocently ignored it.
It's a skill you develop while around here
I’m sorry but staff would never add false charges and try to stifle community discussion on major feddings.
Did I think this moron actually had an auto banking script? After I had successfully mugged him for hundreds of millions absolutely not. Was I going to ignore this idiots claim to abusing the rules, and risk my account getting banned for a degenerate gambler? Absolutely not. Did staff waste a shit ton of time looking into it, and get nothing from it? YES! But hey that's what they wanted. It is not my place to decide if they are saying something in jest, trolling, etm.
Screenshot for the hilarious crash out. Another RR player with a "fool proof" strategy LMFAO
Is there any truth in reports that players reached out to you regarding the odds and they were told there wasn’t an issue?
Beerson does have a point here. From what has been said in the past this isn't the first time a punishment has been so controversial. To me it seems that these controversial decisions are becoming more frequent.
We also expected the odds you guys implemented on the bookies to be right as well but here we are lmao
If were expected to find cheaters for you guys and verify our own odds for the bookie among the countless other things the community does, then where's our paychecks?
You guys do understand this is all from your mess up in the first place right... if the odds were right (on your guys end) we wouldn't be here
Green v Betfred [2021] EWHC 842 (QB): Player won ~£1.7m due to a game “glitch.” Betfred tried to rely on broad “malfunction voids all pays” terms. The High Court said those exclusion clauses were not incorporated and/or unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, so Betfred had to pay. Takeaway: operators can’t hide behind vague small-print if a fault advantages or disadvantages a player.
This is bogies torn, he just lets you play in it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't situations with the bookie displaying incorrect odds usually remedied by reversing the wins? Which wide-scale is something staff clearly finds out about pretty quickly. (Not defending Lusty here, just to be clear—100% support the permafed as the multi thing is pretty f**king damning. Glad a cheater's gone.)
I wouldn't blame Prox for being tired and perhaps not fully processing what was being said to him (especially as he did ask if it was okay; sure, Lusty could have lied, but had he, that'd get resolved pretty quickly—and it seems he did and it was), or taking a fairly reputable player's word for it being okay given if something really was up, as mentioned, staff would easily notice on their own and remedy it.
If every player reported every instance of anyone talking about the bookie thing, wouldn't that have significantly wasted staff time? Again, you'd probably argue it's worth it, and I totally get that; but try to see someone else's perspective and why they might not have—especially a player reputable enough to be on your own Committee.