CookiePuss

I percieve you, me, and a bottle of wine in my hot tub tonight.

Well thats all true, but it shows an abuse of power immediately after GMs returned to the game, not to mention Iixil is either lying or being lied to... not sure which would be worse tbh. But its def a problem either way.

Go sit in the shame corner with the flat earthers and think about what youve done

Well fuck... this is disheartening.

... and so it begins If LO hasnt started the process for volunteer GMs, does that mean its an actual employee?

as soon as this doesnt come true is my guess...

I think they posted it like a day or two before it happened.

Hard at work I see.

... thinking anyone but us even knows who Gamersfirst is

Name: C00ky From: Murica Prefered faction: Enforcer Likes : sleep Hates: himself Phrase: oof Ingame:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

its an onomatopoeia, just let it go fam. The closest you gonna get is saying "sniff" while inhaling.

Exactly! Perfect for APB where more than half the playerbase is under the age of 16!

Christ are we still doing this? Look, I don't know how to dumb this down for you even more. If you want to continue this discussion DM me. I think we've hijacked this thread long enough.

Nothing has changed. In order to go directly from T to gold, you need those first matches to be against high rank / threat opp. So if you get bronze opp, you probably wont go straight gold no matter how well you do, buy if you destroy say gold opp, you will. (speaking from experience)

Basically this^ Well said friend, well said.

Yeah, I know what you mean.

Banning all that stuff... weak sauce. Same goss for all rules that only apply in this tournament. Hit me up if you ever do an "anythig goes" tournament. You know, like APB is supposed to be played. weak, weak sauce

Am I reading this wrong? Because it seems to support what I have said. He never said he reviewed every case. Please tell me if I am wrong about this. If he had, LO would be able to unban only the questionable bans while leaving the rightful bans in place. No? And as for what percent Matt Scott would consider "a lot" of false bans... we simply do not know. Correct? Please tell me where I missed his explaination of what "a lot" means in the context in which he used it . Maybe its 1%, maybe its 10%, maybe its 99%, it is simply not stated.

Are you saying LO has already gone through each and every of the 17,000+ bans + silent bans + non FF related bans and decided "conclusively" how many were questionable? Because Matt Scott certainly not said that. Regardless, you do not know what Matt meant when he said a lot. For all we know, even one false ban could be too many for him. You simply do not know. And yes, both 1% and 10% of $17,000 (or 1% or 10% of 17,000 bans) can be a lot. There is a reason that when scientists and mathmeticians work, hey never use the term "a lot" when discussing values. Take Lego as an example... they can make some 3,000,000 or more pieces without any mistakes. so lets say that is 1 : 3,000,000 ratio. If that number suddenly jumped up to 1% or 30,000 : 3,000,000 they could definitely say there are suddenly a "lot" of mistakes being made. Are you getting it yet?