106 réponses à ce sujet

[Miriad]

I won't be pulled back in, because arguing about something that is so logically flawed drains me more than gives me schadenfreude to "poke fun of stupid". I learned long ago that a lot of very smart people get used to getting their way by simply bull****ting their way through life.

You are harping for evidence, how about the 1800 or so bans from two weeks ago? You think none of those were rocket glitchers? I'm not saying you should be banned for benefitting from it, I'm saying that you're a bit of a panty waste for stating that your gains should be considered the same as others that are working on their N7 "skills" by not gaining from it.

You're blathering about me requiring evidence of something other than cheaters that abuse the system should and have been banned. I'm not even sure how to respond directly. That there have been bans for it should be self evident enough. That's why this argument is preposterous and a waste of time. I could do a complete scientific method rundown and it wouldn't be enough, because you don't agree with the self evident hypothesis.

[MWaHa]

Ghostknife72 wrote...

Baerdface wrote...

So "the ones I've seen today" = "every high N7 rank".

Very intelligent deduction

Doesn't that fall under the Post hoc ergo propter hoc logic fallacy?

It's actually a fallacy called hasty generalization. Trying to assert a trend based on too little data.

"Post hoc..." is a fallacy about causes and effects. One thing happened before another, therefore the one caused the other. 

[Bladedrummer]

ULM is not working. Try it. Try the Hurricane without it and then try it with it. There is no difference. Anyway, I've given up on trying to tell people not to waste the mod slot on it. There's too many and no one cares.

[Father Superior]

Miriad wrote...

I won't be pulled back in, because arguing about something that is so logically flawed drains me more than gives me schadenfreude to "poke fun of stupid". I learned long ago that a lot of very smart people get used to getting their way by simply bull****ting their way through life.

You are harping for evidence, how about the 1800 or so bans from two weeks ago? You think none of those were rocket glitchers? I'm not saying you should be banned for benefitting from it, I'm saying that you're a bit of a panty waste for stating that your gains should be considered the same as others that are working on their N7 "skills" by not gaining from it.

You're blathering about me requiring evidence of something other than cheaters that abuse the system should and have been banned. I'm not even sure how to respond directly. That there have been bans for it should be self evident enough. That's why this argument is preposterous and a waste of time. I could do a complete scientific method rundown and it wouldn't be enough, because you don't agree with the self evident hypothesis.

First off, you can drop the "this will be my last time posting about this" act because it has become perfectly clear than you are not a man/woman of their word. You have said multiple times now that you aren't going to continue, but then you do. Once again, and I know that you recognize what I want, where exactly did you determine that my argument is "logically flawed"? That part about the "bulls***ing their way through life" part is just delightfully ironic because while I am providing evidence to backup my argument and citing sources that support it, you are the one who has not brought any conclusive evidence to the table. I am looking for specifics, because I am just thrilled to find out what is so illogical about the possibility of every single banned person not necessarily being a malicious glitcher. I NEVER said that none of them are guilty of glitching, I simply said that to assume all of them are guilty of purposefully glitching with knowledge of the consequences is an impossibility and to believe it must make you a very narrow-minded person. Do you think every single criminal in history has been guilty of the crime they were accused of? No, most of them are, but not all. 
The 1800 bans is a pretty shoddy argument. I shouldn't even acknowledge it without a source, but I will anyway because I am determined to show you the error of your premature judgment. Here is a quote from Thomas Abram regarding the ban wave:
If you have been banned and think an error has been made please contact ME3AccountAdmin@BioWare.comand your case will be reviewed.
Source- 
http://social.biowar.../index/12648106

If every single person banned was guilty, why would a method of appeal be offered? Because they are not certain. There is no way to be sure that every guilty person is punished and every innocent person is left alone, it simply can't be done. But that doesn't mean we can't at least try to minimize the cases. If you want a real life analogy look at it like this:
You just moved to a new state or part of your country. There was a natural disaster recently (flood, earthquake, take your pick) and there are no speed limit signs in sight, they have all fallen down/floated away, etc. You have literally just begun to drive into the town moving at 30 MPH/KPH/etc. All of the cars on the road are passing at a much faster rate than you, some even reaching speeds over 100 MPH/KPH/etc., so you decide to speed up to 35 MPH/KPH/etc. You are pulled over by a police officer, who tells you that you are going 10 MPH/KPH/etc. over the speed limit. Do you deserve the same punishment/fine as someone who was going 90 MPH/KPH/etc. over the speed limit? You didn't know the area yet, you did not know how seriously traffic laws are taken here seeing as so many others have been witnessed not being enforced (other bugs not being fixed), and you were not even being the biggest danger to the road. Why would it make sense to have a single punishment based on the worst possible action rather than a regressive punishment that fits the degree of your crime?
Once again, you are pulling accusations out of thin air. I did not say that N7 earned by glitching rather than through normal means is equal and I am baffled by you coming to that conclusion. Besides, I can hardly believe that one could get anywhere substantial with their N7 rating by rocket-glitching, seeing as it has only recently begun to rise as a problem. If anything, I said that credits are credits, whether they be from a glticher or a normal team, and people should at least be grateful for them instead of just whining and being pessimistic about the issue.
I have addressed this too many times, but I guess reiteration is the only way to get through to you: I DID NOT SAY THAT GLITCHERS ARE NOT ABUSING THE SYSTEM, I SAID THAT NOT ALL GLITCHERS ARE NECESSARILY ABUSING THE SYSTEM. Is it any easier for you to understand in caps? God I hope so. This argument isn't proposterous because I am defending the possibility of some people being wrongfully banned, it is proposterous because you refuse to see the world in anything in black and white and automatically assume that everything you are told is 100% true and there is no room for the error that exists in EVERYTHING. Face it; some glitchers are malicious, some are new to the glitch, and others just aren't aware of the consequences. And even with those three categorization, I have only begun to scratch the surface of this matter, as there are thousands of other scenarios that could play out here.
The reason I don't agree with your "self-evident hypothesis" is because it is far too strict. Without any wiggle room, there is little-to-no chance of it being accurate. If your hypothesis were to be adapted to a different scenario, it would prove to be incorrect and inaccurate, like all statistics are. For example:
If I were to walking down the street and ask 5 people if they like Obama or Romney, and all 5 say Obama, then my hypothesis would become "5 out of 5 (or 100% of) Americans prefer Obama over Romney." Would this be true? No, because it does not account for all possible factors. If I were to go up to 5 other people, my results would likely become wildly different. Why? Because no real issues are as black and white as statistics say they are. If I were to ask 5 glitchers if they did the glitch with full knowledge of the consequences and they all said yes, would that make all glitchers guilty? No, it wouldn't. The key point that I'm trying to make is that not every banned person was glitching maliciously. If I had to estimate, it would probably end up being somewhere from 80-90%.

PS: I ran into two more today. One left after the warning, warranting a report from me, and the other said they would stop and continued to play without glitches for 4-5 consecutive matches. With a warning, you can prevent people from being burned by the fire they didn't know they were playing with. (I still added the second person in, but told them that it was just to keep watch and that he/she cooperated when confronted.)

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

   I've been playing the game since the day it was released and I never noticed the ULM mod didn't work. Honestly, that doesn't make me either dumb or unobservant. It doesn't make me a selfish player, either, I try pretty hard to work as a team with everyone I play with. If you assume ULM works, and you only ever use SMGs with that Mod attached, there is no way to compare what you are seeing.
   Until I logged in here yesterday for the first time, I had no idea there was an issue.
   I was pretty sure the info given here was correct, but I tested it for myself, anyway, and I had a 4-count recharge that was the same for my AJ's Reave both with, and without the ULM mod. Then I removed the SMG entirely and it knocked between a third and a half-second off the recharge time, so I've adjusted all of my class' loadouts accordingly.
   So, thanks for the continuing effort to make the gaming community aware. Now if we can get them to patch it, that would be even better. Then my Justicar will be a half-second deadlier.