You havenât disagreed on anything. All youâve been doing is spamming (which is against the rules) âYou agreed to Blizz Policyâ which isnât disagreeing on anything. Let me quote you my post because youâre going off topic, again:
Now, what in this quote, do you âdisagreeâ with?
How about we do a compromise, mostly because Iâm absolutely sick of this topic and trying to pummel logic and reality through the thick skulls of those who keep trying to defend this obviously broken systemâŚ
REMOVE PLAYER SQUELCH
BUT
DOUBLE GM PENALTIES
Now the report still goes to a GM, and a GM still has to actually review the âcaseâ to determine whether a violation actually occurred, but with a doubled penalty baseline, the punishment handed down SHOULD be more severe automatically.
That should appease all of us that want a fair and impartial system without player driven squelchâŚ
and be a satisfactory compromise for all those people who think itâs somehow being âsoft of crimeâ to remove player squelches and demand actual justice. Unless of course you people donât actually care at all about justice, as much as you care about revenge and a power trip, in which case you are living breathing proof of why players shouldnât have squelch power to begin withâŚ
I agree. The solution is not to come down on everyone, allowing innocent players to be punished because others abuse the system. Instead, punish actual offenders SEVERELY. No slap on the wrist.
When the system first came out i wished to test it, got my guild to report my messege got squelched. my silence got removed 3 hours later, why i use that example. For others could be more or less.
Well yea once the alt brigade got called out and when the people who bought into this load of tauren droppings realized they looked like uninformed fanatics when the logic bomb went off. They realized this doesnât affect grouping in classic the way some were claiming with no evidence.
So now we are left with exactly what it was. An argument about being able to say what you want in chat with no repercussions.
At least we cleared that up and shut down the attempt at subversion. Lol
No, love, I brought up some valid points, such as the contradictions, in my post with all the proofs. Iâm asking Questions, but nobody is interested in answering them. So, hereâs my Quote, again, and Iâm hoping somebody can answer them:
No one has âprovedâ anything. Just saying that they have instead of answering my Questions
Well this has been going on for days. If it was anything other than âwe want to say what we want in chatâ why hasnât anyone on that side done a lick of research on this besides you and a couple other posters?
Canât find anything on it huh?
Well Iâm done researching this. No one bothered researching before this even began. Instead they took the word of fear mongering streamers seeking views.
We know it can be exploited. Blizz knows. They drew attention to this in the CoC(that few have read let alone comprehend) and told you if you abuse it you will be punished.
That sounds like blizz trusts that we have a decent community filled with people who would not abuse this over petty reasons.
Blizz further reinforces this by allowing player reports to dictate what is acceptable to the community by the community.
Yet ofc we have those who will abuse it. Just like anything they can find in game to abuse. Goes without saying.
This is blizz allowing the overall community to develope and grow into what it wants.
Guess what guys.
If everyone who wants to say whatever they want rolls the same server you guys can dictate what is accepted in that community for the most part.
So. The logical solution to me is for all of you âthick skinnedâ internet tough guys to organize and pick a âthick skinnedâ server.
You guys can do this right now through bnet communities and even have a safe space there.
That way you can keep out all the thin skinned people you donât want to play with and youâre insulated from the hall monitors. Win. Win. GG. Youâre welcome.
[quote=âMellga-area-52, post:1306, topic:89166â]
Are we all caught up, now?
[/quote] 1 question.
Didnât fall behind. Maybe direct that to those still arguing from an uninformed POV?
I donât know where ya got the second one but the first one is from blizz, on blizzâs site, and has even been updated to say âinvited playersâ instead of friends in the Can do category.
2 questions.
Iâm no expert but Iâd say the updated one from the official blizz site makes the most sense. Sounds like an easy default to me. You donât even have a date on the image of the contradiction. How do you know when that was even posted? So. We default to the last known thing blizz said on their official site.
Iâm not entertaining this because itâs irrelevant.
From the link you provided, talking about the penalties, when silenced. I re-linked it. I shall link it, again: https://www.wowhead.com/news=254115.2/new-silence-penalty-coming-to-world-of-warcraft. This ScreenShot is from that same link: https://i.imgur.com/kugvXnO.png
And this Quote:
Is from the Source!
Basically, how can my Silenced self create a Party, but I canât send out Party Invites? Isnât that how a party is formed?
You are defending the system like it is working as intended in a perfect world. If the world was perfect as you dreaming of there would be no crime and offenders. Many people including me is trying to point out how the system will be abused, will be exploited by mass group of people.
ActiBlizzâs system will really back fire. They are implementing this auto squelch system to be able to cut off GMs but everyone who is unfairly (and there will be tones trust me) will open a ticket to justify their unfair squelch will result more men power needs to reply all these tickets.
Just donât implement a tool which can be or being used as an abusive system where literally children are playing.
Look again this one has also been posted from blizzâs site.
Now. As you can see from an official blizz source your contradiction has clarity.
You caught up now and all clear? Can we crack on now or you gonna hang your hat on conflicting info from a 3rd party source?
Because it seems you missed the updated info and are hanging onto a âdiscrepancyâ from a 3rd party source.
That while yes was linked first. A more recent link to a an official blizz source has been provided in this discussion.
I thought this was all quite clear in the course of this âdiscussionâ. Across what 4 threads?
Ofc you say my stance on what this is really about is irrelevant. It flies in the face of the claim âthis will destroy classicââŚuh huh. That official blizz statement debunked that claimâŚ
Next.
Edit to add:Maybe some here could do some alt brigading over on wowhead to encourage them to update their out of date info on this topic.
the article is 2 years old Wowhead is fine, it is referencing a blue post on the subject and both link the exact same list that Blizzard seems to have condensed since then from the support article I linked.