Yeah, I have no qualm with you either, and as evident in other replies I'm making, it's also for entertainment purposes. I mean, gosh, look at it, 18 pages and counting....
Anyhow, he can make his case like that of course, but the logs will show otherwise. Or rather, they will fail to back up said claim. Of course I could have entered the bossfight and I see how it can be seen as harrasment for not doing so. However by the same logic I could also call it 'harrasment' for purposely trying to force me into a fight while I'm not ready, yet am active (in the way of typing/explaining in this case). I wasn't standing around doing literally nothing for minutes. Again, these two can be crossed away against each other and what's left, regardless of intention, is the actual actions taken by your SCH friend, by which SE would (possibly?) follow through on the judgement they make.
I'm guessing SE would say "first try to communicate with others, this situation could have been solved if you had done so and it's the reason the chat-system is in place". After that: "it is forbidden to use the vote-kick feature for kicking people from party, which could have been prevented by communicating in the first place. On top of that, we only have the logs and in there it shows Valenth was indeed actively participating". Yes, picking the wrong option too, as they have nothing else to go by but the action- and chatlogs with intention unable to be measured from that, is against the code of conduct. I'm sure they'd hardly ban someone over something like this in the first place though, at most giving a (friendly) warning.
Now in hindsight of the run, perhaps I should have literally said "please don't pull before I do" in /p as well to make my intentions clear instead of a sarcastic "if you guys don't want me to tank, just say it :P". If so, that will have been my error in communication and I apologise for that.




Reply With Quote







