Chat bans

[NinjaSquirel]

Good job wargaming. keep chat banning people that are pointing out to their team when they are play badly. How about you sort out the constant trolling in random battles. Please let us have better options for reporting the plays poorly because at the moment it means nothing, and you do nothing about it. 

 

sort it out!

[Karasu_Browarszky]

Curious, what did you use to point at them?

[ColonelPete]

14 minutes ago, NinjaSquirel said:

Good job wargaming. keep chat banning people that are pointing out to their team when they are play badly.

I never got a chat ban for doing that...

[mtm78]

4 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

I never got a chat ban for doing that...

 Me 2...

 

I only got chat bans because I got really really really mad and acted like that angry German kid 

 

(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻

 

19 minutes ago, NinjaSquirel said:

sort it out!

They will, tomorrow morning. 

 

Until then, hope your venting helped it did for me. Now suck it up and enjoy the silence in game. 

[Yedwy]

25 minutes ago, NinjaSquirel said:

Good job wargaming. keep chat banning people that are pointing out to their team when they are play badly. How about you sort out the constant trolling in random battles. Please let us have better options for reporting the plays poorly because at the moment it means nothing, and you do nothing about it. 

 

sort it out!

Wg top priorities

 

1. Monetisation of everthing possible

2. Protecting the snowflakes that are the target of #1 from getting but*hurt by the naughty veteran players

 

SO you, me an likes are NOT the priority

[principat121]

How does a player with less (!) than 30k average damage know when someone other is playing bad?

How does he know?

[mtm78]

Just now, principat121 said:

How does a player with less (!) than 30k average damage know when someone other is playing bad?

How does he know?

 

It was his first post, pretty sure we been jebaited

 

That you took the effort to look at his stats though, don't you realize you're being really toxic right now

 

/s 

[principat121]

1 minute ago, mtm78 said:

That you took the effort to look at his stats though, don't you realize you're being really toxic right now 

I never mentioned any specific name.

I'm just asking questions...

 

 

[KillStealBoss]

9 hours ago, NinjaSquirel said:

Good job wargaming. keep chat banning people that are pointing out to their team when they are play badly.

Use better wording next time. And if you got more than 24h means the game support put that ban on you, and it's because someone sent a ticket to them, with the replay and screenshot. People will benefit from every mistake you make to send a ticket, so watch your language. 

[Aethervoxx]

Chat ban system is working as intended. WG allows Weasel Players  (WPs) to cause chat bans thereby doing nothing but allow WPs to cause chat bans. Yes, it's that pernicious. 

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 5 Stunden, principat121 sagte:

How does a player with less (!) than 30k average damage know when someone other is playing bad?

How does he know?

This was pretty much what I was about to ask...

Checking stats to figure out if somebody does actually possess the experience and skill to judge if others are "playing bad" has nothing to do with toxicity, btw. It's just checking the reliability of a source.

 

Oh. His stats are private now, like mine.

 

[chazwozza]

9 hours ago, principat121 said:

How does a player with less (!) than 30k average damage know when someone other is playing bad?

How does he know?

Damage dealt doesnt make you a good player in most cases it makes you a back row damage farmer

Spotting for example is rewarded very poorly lost count how many games ive spotted for folk just sat in clouds or behind islands 

Just so the team can be better off.Not saying youre wrong but in my eyes average damage and stats in this dice rolling mismatch trolling piece of crap of a game can be taken with a pinch of salt

[BrusilovX]

11 hours ago, NinjaSquirel said:

Good job wargaming. keep chat banning people that are pointing out to their team when they are play badly. How about you sort out the constant trolling in random battles. Please let us have better options for reporting the plays poorly because at the moment it means nothing, and you do nothing about it. 

 

sort it out!

It's not advising the team how to play that gets a chat ban it's the way you do it.

[principat121]

4 hours ago, MementoMori_6030 said:

Oh. His stats are private now, like mine.

Like your ~51% WR and ~38k average damage?

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 1 Stunde, principat121 sagte:

Like your ~51% WR and ~38k average damage?

No idea, as I don't check my own stats. All I can say is that I'm reasonably sure of having a >50% WR on all of my accounts.

 

Edit: Your data appears to be from over a year ago. I actually got better since! 

[Shaka_D]

12 hours ago, NinjaSquirel said:

Good job wargaming. keep chat banning people that are pointing out to their team when they are play badly. How about you sort out the constant trolling in random battles. Please let us have better options for reporting the plays poorly because at the moment it means nothing, and you do nothing about it. 

 

sort it out!

Whether someone plays badly or not is rather subjective don't you think? Not always, but subjectivity is definitely a factor. Speaking mostly for myself here, we all have to learn to become far more tolerant of different skill sets. Some people are born to be soldiers, some officers.

 

We all like to see ourselves as great strategists, but are we really? Perhaps we get overly critical when people do something we didn't want them to do and sometimes when people simply make an error of judgement in a game. Does everybody always have to do things our way and is our way always the right way? Just a reflection.

[ColonelPete]

6 hours ago, Aethervoxx said:

Chat ban system is working as intended. WG allows Weasel Players  (WPs) to cause chat bans thereby doing nothing but allow WPs to cause chat bans. Yes, it's that pernicious. 

He is a "NinjaSquirel", not a Weasel...

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 1 Minute, ColonelPete sagte:

He is a "NinjaSquirel", not a Weasel...

He also is "NinjaSquirrel", so he weaseled out of that chatban... 

[FooFaFie]

My chat in game is locked so nobody can bother me with their great advice while I'm playing. 

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

13 minutes ago, FieFaFoo said:

My chat in game is locked so nobody can bother me with their great advice while I'm playing. 

I am sorry that you feel bothered by teammates who are trying to win the game.

 

OP, share some replays and tell us what advice you'd give?

[Karasu_Browarszky]

33 minutes ago, Shaka_D said:

Whether someone plays badly or not is rather subjective don't you think? Not always, but subjectivity is definitely a factor. Speaking mostly for myself here, we all have to learn to become far more tolerant of different skill sets. Some people are born to be soldiers, some officers.

 

We all like to see ourselves as great strategists, but are we really? Perhaps we get overly critical when people do something we didn't want them to do and sometimes when people simply make an error of judgement in a game. Does everybody always have to do things our way and is our way always the right way? Just a reflection.

 

For one, different people may mean different things when they say 'playing badly'. Even I use it differently in different situations... because the game mechanics in this game are so dodgy. I use a grid model, where bad is at the worse end of both the x and y axis. One refers to 'counterrealistic play' (island hugging, angry clouds, mish mash of battle tactics etc.), the other refers to 'losing the game' (no support for push, no support for capping, no focusing of concentrated fire and otherwise team play all around) based on how the meta and maps work. This gets really annoying because those to axises only meet in the cenre of the grid, and I really that aspect a lot.

 

That must have sounded really complicated...

 

Let's try a simpler model... dynamic is 'good', stale is 'bad'.

[One_Eye_Potato]

I'll tell you something, I'm more or less permanently chat banned and I'm genuinely passed caring.  I have absolutely no patience for some some the absolute dregs that play this game and if I'm given the opportunity to tell them why they're complete 'F***ing R*****s' then I'll do so and if I get chat banned in the process then so be it.  As far as I'm concerned, there's very little point in actually talking outside of a division anyway and any advice given to the majority of players will at best it will be ignored or at worst have the opposite effect of what you intended.    What's more, the number of 'holier than thou sycophants' on the forum are enough to drive anyone crazy anyway and ought to get a job at the BBC.  My advice to the OP, I really wouldn't worry about it.  Just talk to your clan mates, the people in your divisions and as for anyone else just use the function keys.

[Shaka_D]

Let's hypothesise here based on a certain naughty boys' experiences:

 

How does someone who is chatbanned receive another chatban while not being able to chat? So, lets say you're serving a week long ban for a sudden plethora of reports against you for vocalising your discontent at one or two teams in ranked on a particular day, and into your 6th day you notice the date of your ban changed to another week. Bear in mind, this is not a error in reading the date the first time round. The system is automated is it not and responds to reports in game - after a certain number of reports a ban might be triggered? Am I right assuming this? If so,  I presume you received another ban somehow during your first week ban during which you have been unable to chat at all? This is based on a true story btw. It is I and this is my confession.

 

I think it's fairly obvious the system can be badly abused, therefore not every ban is potentially deserving and shouldn't be judged as such. Maybe this doesn't happen very often, but assuming every person talking about being chat banned as being deserving of it is flawed thinking and narrow-minded perhaps?

[bobtherterrible]

9 minutes ago, Shaka_D said:

Let's hypothesise here based on a certain naughty boys' experiences:

 

How does someone who is chatbanned receive another chatban while not being able to chat? So, lets say you're serving a week long ban for a sudden plethora of reports against you for vocalising your discontent at one or two teams in ranked on a particular day, and into your 6th day you notice the date of your ban changed to another week. Bear in mind, this is not a error in reading the date the first time round. The system is automated is it not and responds to reports in game - after a certian number of reports a ban might be triggered? Am I right assuming this? If so,  I presume you receive another ban somehow during your week ban during which you have been unable to chat at all? This is a genuine story btw. It is i, Le Clerk! And this is my confession.

I guess they investigated your crimes further and brought additional charges based on the evidence.

That or the first ban was for something else and the second ban is in fact for what you assumed the first was for.

Either way stop being a  Wanchor in chat, noone likes it, ranting at your team will not improve things, only make them cross, distracted and unlikely to succeed.

 

[Shaka_D]

19 minutes ago, bobtherterrible said:

Either way stop being a  Wanchor in chat, noone likes it, ranting at your team will not improve things, only make them cross, distracted and unlikely to succeed.

Wow! Investigated my crimes further? Now that makes zero sense. How would you define being a 'wanchor' in chat then? Saying something someone doesn't like? For example, 'hey mate, we all asked you to come help us, think about your team'....and after the game you notice a few reports. Is this being a chatty 'wanchor'? Hardly. Once sentence. Purely subjective, and again perhaps a narrow-minded view that what's being said is actually harmful or irritating in reality. You're also assuming it's only going to be based on repeated chat, ranting, profanity, etc? But then, I'll just report anyone that irritates me in chat, or a guy that blows his horn because that might irritate me personally?

 

The real truth of the matter is that despite the average older age of the playerbase, from observing chat in game it seems most people I encounter don't know what toxicity really is and generally lash out by using the report mechanism. It's a very very easily abused system and as such must be recognised as flawed. Therefore not everyone punished by it should be seen as deserving. Most likely yes for most cases, but even your assumption I was being a 'wanchor / ranting / causing distractinon / creating a scenario where players will be unlikely to succeed' is incredibly short-sighted don't you think?