Proxy-queuing is (now) a bannable offense.

Anything, including off-topic posts

Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, Sabindeus, PsiVen

Re: Proxy-queuing is (now) a bannable offense.

Postby PsiVen » Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:39 pm

They announced a while back (just before 4.1 I believe) that GMs would start enforcing rules against being a jackass in LFD. This seems like already-in-place policy to me.
Gladiator Psiven, Retired Tankadin
WoW-sober since March 2014
Longtime addict of Space - Glory Through Conquest
User avatar
PsiVen
Moderator
 
Posts: 4364
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:28 pm
Location: On a Boat

Re: Proxy-queuing is (now) a bannable offense.

Postby valura » Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:37 am

PsiVen wrote:They announced a while back (just before 4.1 I believe) that GMs would start enforcing rules against being a jackass in LFD. This seems like already-in-place policy to me.


I guess you are correct. It appears the GM's have recently kicked it up a notch when it comes to LFD abusers... something I can only cheer :D
In tribute to the original Paladin, Charles the Hammer Martel (° 688 - † 22 oct 741).
Bohica (100) BM
Kul Tiras >>> Valura (92) Prot | Hashishin (90) Combat | Arishem (90) Blood | Maurgane (90) Frost | Bova (90) Bear |
| Zannah (90) Resto | Farmingbull (79) Resto | Shoju (51) WW | Wærloga (90) Destro | Dejiko (50) Prot |
Draenor >>> Kenesha (90) Resto | Qedesha (80) Disc | Lanthlasa (52) BM | Xiaohongquan (80) WW |

Jebus what a soul crushing procession of Failures, Septic Tanks, Oxygen thieves and Utter Utter retards. - masterpooba
User avatar
valura
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:20 am
Location: If the queue allows me, Draenor-EU. Otherwise, my own personnally crafted Hell.

Re: Proxy-queuing is (now) a bannable offense.

Postby Malthrax » Fri Oct 07, 2011 6:35 am

hear·say
   [heer-sey]
noun
1.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.
User avatar
Malthrax
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:23 am

Re: Proxy-queuing is (now) a bannable offense.

Postby valura » Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:17 am

Malthrax wrote:hear·say
   [heer-sey]
noun
1.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.


Thanks for quoting Oxford English Dictionary there. When I stated it wasn't hearsay, I was wrong. I should've mentioned up front that this was a piece of substantiated information that reached my from a RL friend, as well of some longtime in-game friends who have not lied or misled me, thus giving me no reason to doubt their words. My apologies for using the wrong phrasing there
In tribute to the original Paladin, Charles the Hammer Martel (° 688 - † 22 oct 741).
Bohica (100) BM
Kul Tiras >>> Valura (92) Prot | Hashishin (90) Combat | Arishem (90) Blood | Maurgane (90) Frost | Bova (90) Bear |
| Zannah (90) Resto | Farmingbull (79) Resto | Shoju (51) WW | Wærloga (90) Destro | Dejiko (50) Prot |
Draenor >>> Kenesha (90) Resto | Qedesha (80) Disc | Lanthlasa (52) BM | Xiaohongquan (80) WW |

Jebus what a soul crushing procession of Failures, Septic Tanks, Oxygen thieves and Utter Utter retards. - masterpooba
User avatar
valura
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:20 am
Location: If the queue allows me, Draenor-EU. Otherwise, my own personnally crafted Hell.

Re: Proxy-queuing is (now) a bannable offense.

Postby KysenMurrin » Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:08 am

I think the main problem is that half of this thread is people debating on the PvP gear issue because the first post was worded as if it was stated policy, when in fact it's just your conception of what they're doing based on what you've heard and experienced. The details of it that caused debate were pure conjecture.
Temporarily playing WoW again.
Donnan - Nangun - Kysen - Kysen - Mardun - Timkins

Mostly-Book Blog.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 7101
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Proxy-queuing is (now) a bannable offense.

Postby lythac » Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:35 am

You can argue that someone who signs as a tank and waits for someone to leave then resigns as DPS is causing harassment under the Zone/Area Disruption category.

It does not extensivly list all of the actions covered - http://us.blizzard.com/support/article. ... 6#zonearea
Zone/Area Disruption
This category includes language and/or actions intended to disturb groups of players or areas of the world, such as:

Disruption of player sponsored events or gatherings
Excessive use of in-game sounds or visuals
Excessively casting spells with noticeable effects in crowded areas
Impeding or blocking access to an NPC, doodad, doorway, or any other area of the world that a player would normally be able to access


The above example should be counted as an action intended to disturb a group of players by impeding their dungeon progression through wilful inaction.

Whilst there is no physical blocking, not having a tank prevents you from killing internet dragons.
Ryshad / Lythac of <Heretic> Nagrand-EU
User avatar
lythac
Moderator
 
Posts: 2695
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:10 am

Re: Proxy-queuing is (now) a bannable offense.

Postby Shyrtandros » Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:45 am

Hmmm.. interesting..

When I do Q for a random it's on my full Ruthless Disc Priest, never have problems at all.. even when some of the people are "baddies"..

I can imagine being targetted though if we get 1 horrible tank in crap gear and tries to blame and report me for being in my PVP gear..

Sometimes I Q on my Ruthless lock and I rarely get outdps'd by even raid geared players..

interesting indeed..
Last edited by Shyrtandros on Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Warning: AA posts may cause severe urges to buy or rent games you may not have been interested in, known about or would normally consider playing. If you experience sudden urges to purchase said games please consult your wallet, bank account or significant other to see if these games are right for you and your budget."
User avatar
Shyrtandros
 
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:54 am

Re: Proxy-queuing is (now) a bannable offense.

Postby Malthrax » Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:53 am

valura wrote:Thanks for quoting Oxford English Dictionary there.

You're welcome




valura wrote:My apologies for using the wrong phrasing there

Apology accepted, Captain Valura *darth vader noises*


You should probably change the topic heading to "Proxy-queueing is (potentially) a bannable offense (depending on the mood/whim of the GM involved, should someone in the LFD pug decide to put in a ticket to complain)", but that's kinda long-winded.
User avatar
Malthrax
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:23 am

Re: Proxy-queuing is (now) a bannable offense.

Postby fafhrd » Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:26 pm

halabar wrote:
Skye1013 wrote:
fafhrd wrote:...while a BM hunter's pet healed the 3 of us...

There's a pet that heals?!?


But they don't heal the whole party... unless the hunter was doing something manually, which I didn't know was possible.


You can tell the pet who to heal AFAIK. The heal has a cooldown and is single-target, but for a normal 5 man being 3 manned, there wasn't enough damage going around for this to be restrictive.

I've also been kept alive by someone's pet on my lvl ~74 mage when 5 manning SSC without a healer (the level 85s didn't need healing, but I'd die every now and then until the hunter noticed and started telling the pet to heal me).
ImageImage
1/1 Lore pre-nerf.
User avatar
fafhrd
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:31 pm

Re: Proxy-queuing is (now) a bannable offense.

Postby Rhiannon » Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:30 pm

Shyrtandros wrote:Hmmm.. interesting..

When I do Q for a random it's on my full Brutal Disc Priest, never have problems at all.. even when some of the people are "baddies"..

I can imagine being targetted though if we get 1 horrible tank in crap gear and tries to blame and report me for being in my PVP gear..

Sometimes I Q on my Brutal lock and I rarely get outdps'd by even raid geared players..

interesting indeed..



Brutal as in season 4, last season of TBC? Unless you're trying to do Cataclysm instances in that I can't imagine anyone caring.
Rhiannon
 
Posts: 1061
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:17 am

Re: Proxy-queuing is (now) a bannable offense.

Postby JoeBravo » Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:37 am

fafhrd wrote:
halabar wrote: There's a pet that heals?!?


But they don't heal the whole party... unless the hunter was doing something manually, which I didn't know was possible.


You can tell the pet who to heal AFAIK. The heal has a cooldown and is single-target, but for a normal 5 man being 3 manned, there wasn't enough damage going around for this to be restrictive.

I've also been kept alive by someone's pet on my lvl ~74 mage when 5 manning SSC without a healer (the level 85s didn't need healing, but I'd die every now and then until the hunter noticed and started telling the pet to heal me).[/quote]

the heal is indeed very easily macro'd /clique-bound. I have both on my bar as a self heal and bound to my middle mouse button if I want to target anyone else.
If i remember correctly, it's a 30 sec, 20 to 40k-ish heal.
JoeBravo / Joerojin / Ekibiogami / Cloverleaf / Yodin / Flidhais / Kuanti@ The Khalasar - Dragonblight EU
JoeBravo
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:19 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Proxy-queuing is (now) a bannable offense.

Postby djlar » Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:40 am

Rhiannon wrote:Brutal as in season 4, last season of TBC? Unless you're trying to do Cataclysm instances in that I can't imagine anyone caring.


I think he means Bloodthirsty, the crafted 4.2 gear, it' 358 so you can Q heroics easily.

There's also Vicious, 371 gear that's bought with Honor another ilevel inflator.
Image
djlar
 
Posts: 1900
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:30 am

Re: Proxy-queuing is (now) a bannable offense.

Postby Worldie » Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:48 am

Well 371 vicious is definitively worth using rather than 333/346 blues.

Besides, a person in full 371 vicious and the minimum IQ requirement would have no problem healing Zandalaris or even T11 raids, considering a 371 pvp epic roughtly equals to a 353 pve epic stat wise.

I myself often run with a friend who almost only PvPs, he has full Ruthless, can easily heal zandalari bear runs with my 350 DK tanking without a sweat.
theckhd wrote:Fuck no, we've seen what you do to guilds. Just imagine what you could do to an entire country. Just visiting the US might be enough to make the southern states try to secede again.

halabar wrote:Noo.. you don't realize the problem. Worldie was to negative guild breaking energy like Bolvar is to the Scourge. If Worldie is removed, than someone must pick up that mantle, otherwise that negative guild breaking energy will run rampant, destroying all the servers.
User avatar
Worldie
Global Mod
 
Posts: 13656
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:49 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Proxy-queuing is (now) a bannable offense.

Postby Shyrtandros » Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:48 am

djlar wrote:
Rhiannon wrote:Brutal as in season 4, last season of TBC? Unless you're trying to do Cataclysm instances in that I can't imagine anyone caring.


I think he means Bloodthirsty, the crafted 4.2 gear, it' 358 so you can Q heroics easily.

There's also Vicious, 371 gear that's bought with Honor another ilevel inflator.



LOL - EPIC.. My apologies, It was supposed to be RUTHLESS not Brutal..

I had spent at least an hour that morning talking with a friend about TBC and reminiscing back when the 2 of us first started doing arenas and how we both still have Brutal peices still in our banks.
"Warning: AA posts may cause severe urges to buy or rent games you may not have been interested in, known about or would normally consider playing. If you experience sudden urges to purchase said games please consult your wallet, bank account or significant other to see if these games are right for you and your budget."
User avatar
Shyrtandros
 
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:54 am

Previous

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Paxen and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there are 3 users online :: 2 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Paxen and 1 guest