4 ms·
>I wasnt talking about user submitted anything The OP you responded to was talking about that. That's the context of the conversation. Of the cheaters not gett
by anonymousab 7y ago
>I wasnt talking about user submitted anything
The OP you responded to was talking about that. That's the context of the conversation. Of the cheaters not getting banned; of those bans not happening in waves.
>The shocking part is that we've compiled a list[1][2] of 380+ cheaters with video proofs and we've transmitted this list to some DICE community managers and employees
- zo1 7y agoThis whole thread is like a bad case of broken telephones and one guy seems to be getting the bad end of the down vote stick. 1. Person A talks about submitting videos of hackers and being ignored. 2. Person B says that "detected hacks" are acted on in waves as part of arms race with hackers, says nothing of "user-submitted", instead generalizes about "detected hacks". 3. Person C gets uppity about companies ignoring hacks, irrespective of the potentially-valid reason as mentioned by person B. 4. Person B insists that the bans happens in waves. Says he wasn't talking about "user-submitted" stuff as he was talking in generalities. 5. Person D jumps in says "thread is absolutely about user-submitted stuff". I paraphrased and generalized too for a bit of dramatic effect, but the thread is definitely broken and if someone stares at it for a bit, they would probably see how it went bad and that probably no one is technically wrong. 6. Person E jumps in with meta-commentary about the discussion that led to this point. Edit: Formatting.