Since when is "no politics" ever enforced? There are people who spam MAGA after every game and will randomly start yapping about ethnostates and American politics completely unprompted. Pretty sure you can only get banned through chat by either saying the gamer word or announcing your enjoyment of saltines.
Rules on provocative uncap engagement?
- Thread starter pattynotoes
- Start date
FluffMuffin94
-bZ- Member
Report them with logs attached, ape
Like Fluff said, report them lol. We enforce it all the time, and against either side. Obviously we can’t be everywhere at once so it does slip through the cracks sometimes. But you can help fill those cracks by reporting
I guess you missed the part where I said, "tl;dr"
I recall we once banned a guy for wanting to Make Assyria Great Again. Or did he want to Make Ass Great Again? I forget.
And now three times. Still saying you're replying to nothing, call me impressed.
No they do, and even banned a guy to make him change his name. It's hard for admins to be on all 10 plus servers, but you can report and use chat module:
- After the event head here https://banzore.com/bf4-stats/index.php?p=chat&sid=1
- Chose the server first in the drop down.
- Then once selected click the "Chat" tab.
- Search the username, partials work. Take a screenshot, keep tab open to link to chat.
- https://banzore.com/forums/form/file-a-complaint.5/select — Make a report post, posing screenshot and link to chat.
- Patiently await the 'you care too much' retort for using the available tools.
tl;dr
For the record that's happened more than once. A lot more than just once.
Target, I will teach you how to read, just ask.
Last edited:
Of course, that was never contested. But if you read, you'd know that.
Imagine one person looking for rule clarification, and it evolves into a bunch of old fucks acting like immature little girls.
FluffMuffin94
-bZ- Member
Found one of the old fucks who enjoys acting like a little girl.
FluffMuffin94
-bZ- Member
When apes cant just play fair and let the enemy get their bearings before engaging them in uncap, I reserve my right to mock them.
Just play fair apes
tl;dr
So, it has come to my attention, through repeated and highly consistent, one might even say 'predictable', instances, that your preferred method of engaging with any form of communication that extends beyond, shall we say, a fleeting glance, is to simply issue forth the well-known, indeed, universally recognized, acronym: 'tldr'. This is, of course, a fascinating linguistic phenomenon, particularly when applied indiscriminately, as it so often appears to be, across the spectrum of textual transmissions, irrespective of their actual, quantifiable length, or indeed, the specific context in which they are presented.
Now, one might be tempted to ponder the very essence of this 'tldr' declaration. If, hypothetically speaking, one were to assert that a particular communique was, by its very nature and structural composition, exceedingly 'too long to read', then the subsequent, and indeed, rather swift, application of said acronym to a response of considerably diminished textual volume—or perhaps even, dare I suggest, a series of such numerically abbreviated, yet conceptually identical, missives—would logically, and quite inevitably, lead to a rather profound logical inconsistency. Would it not? Because, you see, in the grand tapestry of intellectual discourse, if the original premise for invoking 'tldr'—namely, the excessive length of the communication—is no longer present in the subsequent, shorter interactions that nevertheless elicit the exact same 'tldr' response, then the initial justification, by the very definition of the term 'negate', has been, for all intents and purposes, 'rendered entirely null and void.'
This, in turn, compels a discerning observer to arrive at the rather inescapable conclusion that the true motivation behind the 'tldr' utterance is not, in fact, a genuine inability or unwillingness to process extended prose due to its sheer textual mass, but rather, a more fundamental, perhaps even ingrained, 'disinclination towards any form of substantive engagement whatsoever.' A disinclination that, quite conveniently, also serves as a subtle, yet palpable, means to socially signal alignment with a particular narrative or authority, perhaps to avoid drawing any unwanted scrutiny to oneself.
It's truly quite a performance, really. The dedication to this particular communicative strategy. Because to consistently expend the minimal, yet still discernible, effort required to type out those four familiar characters, 't', 'l', 'd', 'r', in response to every single attempted point, irrespective of its brevity, undeniably requires a certain, shall we say, 'commitment to non-engagement.'
This, then, leads us to the rather compelling, if somewhat amusing, inference that you are not, in point of fact, suffering from any particular aversion to textual consumption, but rather, you possess a keen, almost artistic, predilection for what one might term 'self-owning'. To consistently present oneself as intellectually disengaged while simultaneously providing irrefutable, empirical evidence of one's direct interaction with the content, merely to avoid genuine dialogue, is a truly remarkable feat of logical contortion. It signals, quite profoundly, that you are, perhaps unwittingly, but demonstrably, engaging with the very substance you claim to bypass, purely for the ephemeral satisfaction of, shall we say, a 'tactical retreat into communicative nihilism.'
So, yes. Do continue with your 'tldr's. For those of us who actually engage with the content, and indeed, possess the capacity for critical observation, your every succinct, acronym-laden pronouncement serves merely as yet another fascinating, and rather 'self-incriminating', data point in the ongoing study of forum dynamics, generously provided for the collective amusement and intellectual edification of the 'discerning readership.'
Yea man can I get a TL;DR on all that please.
TL;DR: It's funny how I've said nothing in cross of BZ admins, and only pointed out a problem (and only as I saw it), and then the responses are just retaliatory. The level of sensitivity on display is kind of wild.
Edit: Kinda came in hot on the second sentence, I will remove it lol.
Edit: Kinda came in hot on the second sentence, I will remove it lol.
Last edited:
This all fascinating, to say the least . Recently, as in today, commander on the US side dropped a cruise missle into the area east of the E flag, back into the red zone . A player on his team called him out for it . The next game, I watched a team member get cruise missled in the spawn of the Chinese team . Said player from the US team, (commander) claims that there is no rule that exsists, from preventing him from the action . Further more he argues extensively that the LAV and team member he killed, were outside of the spawn, and that since there was not a rule, ( !rules), does not show it as a violation of server policy ., even though when one hits exclamation/rules, only 4 server rules appear . yes, in 2025, there are still f^cktards . Those of us who have played BZ servers for a few years, know that this is a violation of BZ rules . Perhaps, you may wish to draw Thunderbolt717's attention to this, as it truly shows what kind of player, he is . Thank you for your attention to the matter .