Rules on provocative uncap engagement?

gamophyte said:
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.'
Click to expand...
99% AI detection. https://app.gptzero.me/
 
Yeah, im not an admin (not even a member), but given the history of @gamophyte's previous reports, I would just recommend the "H" key be used in game, rather than the forums report section.

To summarize the previous talking points:
-BZ admins have clear rules for the server, and those who violate them are punished. Video/ picture proof is required for the violation to have any lasting effect.
-shooting into uncap is punishable when unprovoked. Aiming into uncap is not a punishable offense, but rather a gray area that is enforced on a case by case basis if the shooting into uncap rule was broken.
-As with any rule set, there are gray areas, and the video is what allows for the admin to enforce it as they see fit. To this point, the vast majority of issues can be cleared up with a simple conversation, warning, or a punish point. Those rules that incorporate text limitations, such as political and bad words, are things that can be interpreted on a case by case basis. If i mistakenly type "Nib" instead of "Nub" (nubtank's abbreviated name), which is one keystroke wrong, I can be punished for the incident. Its the admin who can see if this was an attempt at skirting the filter, or was a simple mistype.
Now, it also isnt against the rules for people to discuss kanye's most recent (and bangin) tracks, but it would be against the rules to continually type the name of the 3rd reich's Fuhrer. I can assume that @gamophyte can see the difference. Instead of trying to police the chat on every minor thing, the "H" key is a brilliant way to NOT SHOW the random chats, and can allow for your peace of mind.

most, if not all, people on these fair servers seem to get along enough to play video games with minimal issues. chat police are made fun of (usually called what they are: faggots hehe), and those with actual grievances (with proof) are able to be helped by the admin. @gamophyte happens to be in the vocal minority at this point, and resorts to Ai rants on a little forum at the edge of the internet. its the forums for a almost 13 year old game. lets just get back to playing? lol
 
SrOrgasmus said:
Yeah, im not an admin (not even a member), but given the history of @gamophyte's previous reports, I would just recommend the "H" key be used in game, rather than the forums report section.

To summarize the previous talking points:
-BZ admins have clear rules for the server, and those who violate them are punished. Video/ picture proof is required for the violation to have any lasting effect.
-shooting into uncap is punishable when unprovoked. Aiming into uncap is not a punishable offense, but rather a gray area that is enforced on a case by case basis if the shooting into uncap rule was broken.
-As with any rule set, there are gray areas, and the video is what allows for the admin to enforce it as they see fit. To this point, the vast majority of issues can be cleared up with a simple conversation, warning, or a punish point. Those rules that incorporate text limitations, such as political and bad words, are things that can be interpreted on a case by case basis. If i mistakenly type "Nib" instead of "Nub" (nubtank's abbreviated name), which is one keystroke wrong, I can be punished for the incident. Its the admin who can see if this was an attempt at skirting the filter, or was a simple mistype.
Now, it also isnt against the rules for people to discuss kanye's most recent (and bangin) tracks, but it would be against the rules to continually type the name of the 3rd reich's Fuhrer. I can assume that @gamophyte can see the difference. Instead of trying to police the chat on every minor thing, the "H" key is a brilliant way to NOT SHOW the random chats, and can allow for your peace of mind.

most, if not all, people on these fair servers seem to get along enough to play video games with minimal issues. chat police are made fun of (usually called what they are: faggots hehe), and those with actual grievances (with proof) are able to be helped by the admin. @gamophyte happens to be in the vocal minority at this point, and resorts to Ai rants on a little forum at the edge of the internet. its the forums for a almost 13 year old game. lets just get back to playing? lol
Click to expand...
This is what a human response looks like lmao
 
Homies thought I was trying to pass off a thesis on "tldr" as my own words. This proves the caliber I'm working with for any appeal or criticism. There is no conflict resolution skills, just instant sensitive combative reaction to the slightest push back.

SrOrgasmus can't find a single instance where I'm just policing chat, so chooses to straw man me and change the narrative; oh it must be my sensitivity haha. I already resolved the issue; I said I'm no longer going to report anything. Without explanations to the random application of rules, I can't lean on earlier precedence.

But I bring you this dissertation I 100 percent wrote. It's about how important words are and reading to our founding of this great nation:

As the shadow of the Fourth of July falls upon us, my thoughts drift, as they sometimes do, not to fireworks alone, but to the profound power of carefully chosen words. It's a day, after all, born not from impulsive shouts, but from meticulously crafted arguments, deliberated in countless memos, painstaking drafts, and finally, officially signed documents.

Consider, if you will, the very Declaration of Independence itself (approximately 1,300 words). A document, some might deem "long," but each one weighed, debated, and finally etched into history. But its existence wasn't a sudden burst; it was preceded by foundational texts like Thomas Paine's fiery "Common Sense" (around 12,000 words), urging separation, and countless other appeals and philosophical treatises. Imagine the sheer volume of discourse—the dispatches, proposals, dissenting opinions, and counter-arguments—that built the intellectual foundation for that singular, pivotal text. Millions upon millions of words, penned in earnest, exchanged across oceans and continents, all read, all considered, all contributing to the very foundation of a nation.

These were not moments for abbreviation or dismissive acronyms. These were moments where every syllable mattered, where clarity, precision, and the full exposition of ideas were paramount. The very fabric of a new world was spun from the meticulous arrangement of language, understood and embraced by those who chose to read, to comprehend, to sign.

It serves as a gentle reminder, perhaps, that some communications, by their very nature and profound importance, demand more than a fleeting glance or a casual dismissal. They demand consideration, engagement, and the recognition that words, when wielded with purpose, can indeed be the very bedrock upon which nations, and even communities, are built. A thought, perhaps, for those who value the weight of every character.
 
gamophyte said:
Homies thought I was trying to pass off a thesis on "tldr" as my own words. This proves the caliber I'm working with for any appeal or criticism. There is no conflict resolution skills, just instant sensitive combative reaction to the slightest push back.

SrOrgasmus can't find a single instance where I'm just policing chat, so chooses to straw man me and change the narrative; oh it must be my sensitivity haha. I already resolved the issue; I said I'm no longer going to report anything. Without explanations to the random application of rules, I can't lean on earlier precedence.

But I bring you this dissertation I 100 percent wrote. It's about how important words are and reading to our founding of this great nation:

As the shadow of the Fourth of July falls upon us, my thoughts drift, as they sometimes do, not to fireworks alone, but to the profound power of carefully chosen words. It's a day, after all, born not from impulsive shouts, but from meticulously crafted arguments, deliberated in countless memos, painstaking drafts, and finally, officially signed documents.

Consider, if you will, the very Declaration of Independence itself (approximately 1,300 words). A document, some might deem "long," but each one weighed, debated, and finally etched into history. But its existence wasn't a sudden burst; it was preceded by foundational texts like Thomas Paine's fiery "Common Sense" (around 12,000 words), urging separation, and countless other appeals and philosophical treatises. Imagine the sheer volume of discourse—the dispatches, proposals, dissenting opinions, and counter-arguments—that built the intellectual foundation for that singular, pivotal text. Millions upon millions of words, penned in earnest, exchanged across oceans and continents, all read, all considered, all contributing to the very foundation of a nation.

These were not moments for abbreviation or dismissive acronyms. These were moments where every syllable mattered, where clarity, precision, and the full exposition of ideas were paramount. The very fabric of a new world was spun from the meticulous arrangement of language, understood and embraced by those who chose to read, to comprehend, to sign.

It serves as a gentle reminder, perhaps, that some communications, by their very nature and profound importance, demand more than a fleeting glance or a casual dismissal. They demand consideration, engagement, and the recognition that words, when wielded with purpose, can indeed be the very bedrock upon which nations, and even communities, are built. A thought, perhaps, for those who value the weight of every character.
Click to expand...
You are a fool and thank God no one listens to you.
 
xSaSfBD.png
 
gamophyte said:
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.'
Click to expand...

tl;dr
 
Litl-Precious said:
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 .
Click to expand...
Common sense implies that commanders are immune to all uncap/teamkilling rules because they don't have enough visual information to identify targets. enemies on their map could either be firing or have been spotted, and cruise missiles by nature result in collateral damage. I'd even go so far to say that accidental teamkilling via supply drops isn't punishable either.

Commanders already have such a limited combat role in the game that it seems extraneous to punish them for the rules that apply to regular players on the server. They don't have enough agency or information in the battlefield to maliciously break the rules.
 
pattynotoes said:
Common sense implies that commanders are immune to all uncap/teamkilling rules because they don't have enough visual information to identify targets. enemies on their map could either be firing or have been spotted, and cruise missiles by nature result in collateral damage. I'd even go so far to say that accidental teamkilling via supply drops isn't punishable either.

Commanders already have such a limited combat role in the game that it seems extraneous to punish them for the rules that apply to regular players on the server. They don't have enough agency or information in the battlefield to maliciously break the rules.
Click to expand...
You have clearly never used the commander app on an iPad and teamkilled half your team with a cruise missile while giggling your ass off on the toilet.
 
pattynotoes said:
Common sense implies that commanders are immune to all uncap/teamkilling rules because they don't have enough visual information to identify targets. enemies on their map could either be firing or have been spotted, and cruise missiles by nature result in collateral damage. I'd even go so far to say that accidental teamkilling via supply drops isn't punishable either.

Commanders already have such a limited combat role in the game that it seems extraneous to punish them for the rules that apply to regular players on the server. They don't have enough agency or information in the battlefield to maliciously break the rules.
Click to expand...

This guy is a literal retard.

Commander has access to UAV you absolute clown. There is NO GREATER VISUAL INFORMATION to ever get in this game
 
FluffMuffin94 said:
This guy is a literal retard.

Commander has access to UAV you absolute clown. There is NO GREATER VISUAL INFORMATION to ever get in this game
Click to expand...
The visual information is limited. You see enemies and their position and direction. Their elevation, class, whether they're firing or not are all unknown to the commander. A lot of the 'hidden information' that commander doesn't have access to is critical to differentiate viable targets in uncap. Players in the game have much more detailed information on the combat situation- they can visually identify targets in real-time and 3 dimensions and assess their threat. They can also open up their minimap and gain access to the same information the commander has.

It's like blaming an artillery crew for blowing up a school full of civilians. The only information the artillerymen/women receive is a set of coordinates. They don't know they're shooting at a school full of toddlers. Only the forward observers are privy to that information, and in BF4 the forward observers typically communicate to the commander through Q-spotting, laser spotting or MAV/UAV usage. The commander is always lacking the critical information to willfully break uncap rules.

Same situation applies to mortar/artillery users. They cannot differentiate between rule-protected uncap soldiers and fair-game soldiers firing out of their uncap. Commander/mortar/artillery and engineers firing on locked targets deserve some amount of grace considering the lack of information inherent to their role in the game.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top