Duelingbook Forum

d1234 wrote:

Genexwrecker wrote:You tainted the competitive pool by joining and leaving repeatedly. Even most online games and fps ban you if you join and quit the games repeatedly such as halo cod and overwatch.

If you want that then reword your rules

I think you should indeed read the rules ( https://www.duelingbook.com/rules ), especially the part that clearly states: “Offenses are not limited to examples given in italics.”

The only issue one could find here is that their stats haven’t been reset yet, I’ll assume no head had time to deal with that or simply forgot. Regardless that is but a minor issue.

Other than that, them being set to beginner doesn’t limit their ability to play the game in this site since they can still play the game in unrated and from what we’ve seen they aren’t interested in playing rated ( that can be deducted from the fact that they don’t care about rating and it will be faster for them to find a suitable opponent, according to their needs, in unrated ).

ntakonta wrote:

d1234 wrote:

Genexwrecker wrote:You tainted the competitive pool by joining and leaving repeatedly. Even most online games and fps ban you if you join and quit the games repeatedly such as halo cod and overwatch.

If you want that then reword your rules

I think you should indeed read the rules ( https://www.duelingbook.com/rules ), especially the part that clearly states: “Offenses are not limited to examples given in italics.”

The only issue one could find here is that their stats haven’t been reset yet, I’ll assume no head had time to deal with that or simply forgot. Regardless that is but a minor issue.

Other than that, them being set to beginner doesn’t limit their ability to play the game in this site since they can still play the game in unrated and from what we’ve seen they aren’t interested in playing rated ( that can be deducted from the fact that they don’t care about rating and it will be faster for them to find a suitable opponent, according to their needs, in unrated ).

They may not be limited by the examples in italics, but they are by the stuff in green. Also, I have read the rules around 35 time.

https://imgur.com/kLtnCqa
The important part of the rules screenshot

d1234 wrote:https://imgur.com/kLtnCqa
The important part of the rules screenshot

It should only take a minute to quickly clarify this (for the idiot sharks that think that negative boosting doesn't exist)

greg503 wrote:

d1234 wrote:https://imgur.com/kLtnCqa
The important part of the rules screenshot

It should only take a minute to quickly clarify this (for the idiot sharks that think that negative boosting doesn't exist)

The problem is even though it is called boosting/negative boosting, the defintion is the same which is the part that matters

d1234 wrote:

greg503 wrote:

d1234 wrote:https://imgur.com/kLtnCqa
The important part of the rules screenshot

It should only take a minute to quickly clarify this (for the idiot sharks that think that negative boosting doesn't exist)

The problem is even though it is called boosting/negative boosting, the defintion is the same which is the part that matters

Imagine not reading what I added, some DB rules expert you are

greg503 wrote:

d1234 wrote:

greg503 wrote:
It should only take a minute to quickly clarify this (for the idiot sharks that think that negative boosting doesn't exist)

The problem is even though it is called boosting/negative boosting, the defintion is the same which is the part that matters

Imagine not reading what I added, some DB rules expert you are

So there is the title (that means nothing)
There is the Green Sub-Title (This is what matters)
There are the examples (Which in this case are irrelevant)

I read the new title

d1234 wrote:I read the new title

As you can see, it now says "or intentionally losing continuously to manipulate rating or experience" which covers all reasons someone might want to do rated shenanigins

greg503 wrote:

d1234 wrote:https://imgur.com/kLtnCqa
The important part of the rules screenshot

It should only take a minute to quickly clarify this (for the idiot sharks that think that negative boosting doesn't exist)

I like this we will look into making it look closer to this

greg503 wrote:

d1234 wrote:I read the new title

As you can see, it now says "or intentionally losing continuously to manipulate rating or experience" which covers all reasons someone might want to do rated shenanigins

to manipulate rating or experience

that does not apply in this case

d1234 wrote:

greg503 wrote:

d1234 wrote:I read the new title

As you can see, it now says "or intentionally losing continuously to manipulate rating or experience" which covers all reasons someone might want to do rated shenanigins

to manipulate rating or experience

that does not apply in this case

It does apply, as you are still manipulating your rating or experience by constantly admitting defeat.

d1234 wrote:

greg503 wrote:

d1234 wrote:I read the new title

As you can see, it now says "or intentionally losing continuously to manipulate rating or experience" which covers all reasons someone might want to do rated shenanigins

to manipulate rating or experience

that does not apply in this case

I recall Dark Cyborg's "friend" wanting to get their rating to 69, which is why the admitted defeat, which is in line with what this mock-up says