Page 1 of 1

[LTD] empefem@europe.battle.net

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 3:24 pm
by DrChemba
Replay Link: https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=9479662
Game Name: [ENT] Legion TD Mega #20
Your Warcraft III Username: June2017
Violator's Warcraft III Username: empefem
Violated Rule(s): tk ,solo send 13 , minor flame
Time of Violation (in-game or replay): level 13
Any further thoughts:
started trolling from start
Spoiler!
(00:25 / Allied) empefem: chemba pls help me
(00:30 / Allied) June2017: sure
(05:31 / Allied) empefem: does it look like
(05:34 / Allied) empefem: i need ur help
(05:34 / Allied) empefem: lol




never made any calls , never answered to any calls . kept crying later
Spoiler!
(12:35 / Allied) empefem: such shit game
(12:48 / Allied) empefem: stupid shit team
(20:30 / Allied) empefem: idc i lost like 250 inc
(20:42 / Allied) empefem: due to ur fucking fucktard calls
(21:20 / Allied) empefem: u suck dick


needed leaks to send 13 so asked him
(22:39 / Allied) June2017: green can u leak 11 12 ?
(22:51 / Allied) empefem: !ignore jun
he ignored me, didn't leak, didn't say a word and solo sent 13 ( we were planning to go other levels and he could read that from oj )
(23:17 / Allied) hooligans: 14?
(23:42 / Allied) hooligans: no anti 14
(24:20 / Allied) hooligans: plan?
(24:23 / Allied) hooligans: 15?

even after he saw no-one was sending he continued to send gargs , lots of wood wasted so we had to follow and it cost us the game

Re: [LTD] empefem@europe.battle.net

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:40 pm
by ahols91
Spoiler!
(16:54 / Allied) June2017: wanna skip 10 for 13 maybe ?
(16:57 / Allied) GeeQone: i go 7/5?
(17:04 / Allied) June2017: stay 7/4
(17:05 / Allied) hooligans: plan
(17:07 / Allied) GeeQone: k
(17:07 / Allied) hooligans: 13?
(17:11 / Allied) hooligans: k
(17:20 / Allied) hooligans: 7/4
(17:22 / Allied) hooligans: we 13


Invalid br.

Re: [LTD] empefem@europe.battle.net

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:11 pm
by KiwiLeKiller
ahols91 wrote:
Spoiler!
(16:54 / Allied) June2017: wanna skip 10 for 13 maybe ?
(16:57 / Allied) GeeQone: i go 7/5?
(17:04 / Allied) June2017: stay 7/4
(17:05 / Allied) hooligans: plan
(17:07 / Allied) GeeQone: k
(17:07 / Allied) hooligans: 13?
(17:11 / Allied) hooligans: k
(17:20 / Allied) hooligans: 7/4
(17:22 / Allied) hooligans: we 13


Invalid br.

Not because they discussed 13 once that this ban request is invalid lol

Re: [LTD] empefem@europe.battle.net

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:24 pm
by DrChemba
poor input @ahols91 imo
was expecting more considering your number of posts


edit
also do notice green not saying anything about the call in your posted chat and says this at the end of the game
(36:52 / Allied) empefem: !unignore june
(36:55 / Allied) empefem: nice 13 call
we actually didn't want to 13 since there were no leaks 11

Re: [LTD] empefem@europe.battle.net

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 11:44 am
by DrChemba
Been like 4 days , strange .
should i repost or something ?

Re: [LTD] empefem@europe.battle.net

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:59 pm
by ahols91
You report for solosend although he sent on a called lvl (13). Other possebilities were discussed slightly seconds prior to 13. He already sent lock + 2 gargs so guess it already was to late to call off the send. You would die 14 first anyway so guess it was the best option. I wouldn't call this solosending. The communocation was to poor imo. The trolling part woesn't rly excessive.. he wrote you something lvl 1... maybe it was insultimg for you personally i dunno.. he saved wood and "teamplayed" after all. Not nearly enough to issue a ban, tops a warning for a childish behaviour imo.

Re: [LTD] empefem@europe.battle.net

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:34 pm
by DrChemba
Regarding the call if it was bad or not , is not relevant at all . he forced the send clearly

also you are wrong
He already sent lock + 2 gargs

he continued to send much more than that , even after he saw no-one was sending = forced us into 13

i appreciate your point of view , but this was a pure case of solo send in my opinion
lets see what the mods think about it

Re: [LTD] empefem@europe.battle.net

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 11:41 pm
by ahols91
Relatively speaking whether he looked down where the sends spawns or not has no relevance. It could aswell been his teammates who were available in chat being just slow on sending. It is not solosending as long as it was called for in chat - which it clearly was as stated above. Neither orange or yellow reacted negatively against the send. Why should they? Orange called it himself. Dont try to trix and fix the chat (sentences out of context put together to try make another impression).

Re: [LTD] empefem@europe.battle.net

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:51 am
by DrChemba
what are you even saying ?

Neither orange or yellow reacted negatively against the send.

(26:16 / Allied) hooligans: wtf


nothing to trix and fix , green didn't chat at all before the send !
while me and oj were thinking on when to send , even if he ignored me ( for no reason ) he could talk to oj or yellow on when to send rather than force it

Re: [LTD] empefem@europe.battle.net

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:50 pm
by ahols91
So, a "wtf" from orange indicates what? 13 was the call whether you like it or not. Nothing else idicates otherwise other than orange getting unsure whether to 13 or 14 seconds prior på 13 countdown. This is just poor communication. He had you on ignore aswell so he couldn't see what you wrote anyway. I dunno your agenda with green since ur reporting for minor things like this, but it woesn't his fault you lost. Whole game was poorly played by the whole team imo. This should be denied.

Re: [LTD] empefem@europe.battle.net

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:19 pm
by FalenGa
Locked. Thanks for the input.

Re: [LTD] empefem@europe.battle.net

Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:16 pm
by bezdak
No TK, flame was far from being excessive. Solo send was based on a previous call, however he could've seen the undecisiveness of the team after oj's message and the fact he didn't see Chemba's answer was caused only by his ignore for no reason.

User empefem banned for 12 hours for refusal to cooperate as a warning ban.

Processing.