BL Rules v1.9 Question...

[Noto]

As stated by Mauti...

"Ghost Recon Changes: 8.     A win is when a team either kills the entire other team, is the team with the most people left alive or is the team that holds the Warzone for 3 minutes if you play Warzone....

Um.. Has Mauti read the discussions concerning Warzone?  According to this new rule, Warzone can be won just like LMS, with the added spice of smoke in the middle.  I know the discussions in other thread have asked for a rule to be added for the Warzone game type.

Here were the two scenarios I had asked to be looked at, and then have one of them added to the BL Rules:

?? A win in Warzone is accomplished by eliminating all opposing forces or controlling the warzone for 3 uninterrupted minutes.? If neither of these objectives is met, the game will result in a tie, regardless of the number of players left alive on either team

?? A win in Warzone is accomplished by eliminating all opposing forces or controlling the warzone for 3 uninterrupted minutes.? If neither of these objectives is met, the team with the most players left alive is declared the winner.

If what you are saying is that the Warzone can be won in three different ways, i.e. Controlling the Warzone for 3, uninterrupted minutes, eliminating all opposing forces, or having more men left alive at the event of timer expiration, then okay.  But please make a rule specifically outlining Warzone.  As you can see, I made two versions, which contained two sentences.  Please just copy and paste one or the other.  The new rule seems confusing, not specific to WZ, and seemingly makes the Warzone game type useless.

.::|N| Noto

I know many of you have an opinion about this, but can all replies be from the Admins only?  Many of the topics lately have taken a turn away from the subject due to the incoherent ramblings of off-topic remarks.  Again, I ask that only Admins reply to this thread.

[*DAMN Mauti]

I meant first one as Voodoo posted it in the other thread. Gonna add it now.

bye,

Mauti

[Civrock]

hey,

like i said in another thread already...

WZ was introduced to reduce camping. cuz of that i think that Noto?s first idea is the right one we should use. in a LMS game you can simply camp it out when u have more people left alive, WZ was made to prevent this.

i agree that WZ needs an own specific ruling cuz it?s a complete other gametype. i vote for the first solution!

[one] Civic.xo

okay... lol... while i was writing this Mauti answered it already.  Civic

[Noto]

Thank you Mauti.  

.::|N| Noto

[.vooDoo.]

Noto, if this topic is all set you can lock it.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I do want to add one thing VooDoo, and this isn't directed only at Noto.

I've noticed a small issue that I have a problem with in the BL, and that's people going to Mauti after BL Admins have already answered something.  

In the past, it was usually just the leader of one clan, bitching because the world, and all who didn't see it from his point of view, had a grudge with him.  But it bothers me that the BL Admins voices don't seem to carry the same authority.

Half the time I see them rule on a problem, the very next thing I see is the people ruled against saying "I want to hear it from Mauti", etc.  

Now, don't get me wrong, I think Mauti is great for putting in the work he does, but where's the love (ok, just RESPECT) for the BL Admins?  

Sorry, this has been eating at me for a while, and Noto just gave a prime example of it.  Don't think that he's the only one at all, it was just timing.

[Saberian 3000]

Very true,

Admins should be considered the voice of Mauti.  I think we can all agree to that being the case.

+MOD+Saberian

[Noto]

In regards to this thread, this topic is closed in my view.  Unfortunately, I do not know how to lock this topic, or if I am even able to do so.

Now on to Buc's statements.  Buc, I agree that Mauti does not need to be bothered about every little thing here on the forum.  I was addressing Mauti in this particular post in regards to the rules because I was under the impression that he was the only one that wrote, or clarified the rules as they were written.  Here's a question that should be answered though.  How many Admins does it take to screw in a light bulb?    Seriously, how many Admins does it take to actually make a ruling?  One, two, three, all of them?  Again, I was under the impression that the Admins did what the could to circumvent all problems, if they were clear enough to do so, but that Mauti was the final voice in any matters that were disagreed upon by the Admins.  If a problem is presented, and two Admins give conflicting responses, then why shouldn't someone ask for Mauti's view?  I enjoy how the Admins will edit a message and add in that they agree or support the decision of a fellow Admin.  But sometimes, an Admin will reply to a problem, and it still doesn't seem to clear anything up, and no other Admin will post as well.

If the Admins could clear up this issue of "how many Admins does it take", I as well as others, would greatly appreciate it.  I don't think anyone was trying to overstep the Admins.  I think it was more of not knowing who actually gets the final word.

.::|N| Noto

VooDoo, how do I lock a thread that I started?

[*DAMN Mauti]

About rules: I'm the only one that makes the final decisions often admins suggest things but I write them down or not.

Bucc was more relating to cb issues and there the admins have the same power as I have if they decide something it is done.

How many admins we need? Few so that they can help each other and make decisions together if they aren't 100percent sure with their ruling.

Thread locked.

Mauti