Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Foxysocks

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Foxysocks

    alliance griefing

    No proof Henceforth, was fixed in 1.7 before hand was a bug, therefore exploiting a known bug for the intent of griefing, have GM confirmation will continue to report it as bug abuse
  2. Foxysocks

    alliance griefing

    Already got clarification, the players where removed from the area, delayed me for all of like 3minutes - which Is why I am warning all the players that have convinced themselves otherwise TLDR; If a bug existed on the vanilla servers from patch (A) to patch (D). And it exsist's on this server to remain "blizz-like" does not mean that it is not a bug. It is still a bug that is allowed to remain on the server to remain "blizzlike" however abusing said bug for personal gain or griefing is just that... abusing a known bug - the griefing is not specifically against the rules of the server, but abusing a known bug is, regardless of these bugs are allowed to remain intentionally on the server to remain "Blizz-like" or correct within the vanilla timeline. That does not mean it gets a free pass to abuse said bugs from patch (A) up until the end of patch (C) you have knowledge that it was a bug and changed during original vanilla WoW However it is ok for these bugs to exists on the server in order to remain "blizz-like" and true to the timeline , as moving up their fixes several patches prior would not be true to the original patch timeline Your understanding of prior knowledge and the fact that certain bugs can be put on the server inentionally does not mean they are not a bug, and abusing said bug is the rule violation.
  3. Foxysocks

    alliance griefing

    To remain blizz-like in timeline some known bugs or things implemented in later patches should not be included, because they where not fixed until later on the orginal timeline - however that doesnt omit them, they are still considered a bug, and a known bug at that. However to remain timeline specific certain bugs may remain for several patches AQ40 skip was a bug on vanilla , do you think that will be not bug abuse if a guild decides to change their game files to skip directly to C'thun? How about the paladin DI skipping Razorgore Phase 1? These things exsisted on Vanilla WoW do they get a free pass, should guilds get a free pass to exploit these bugs until the patch they where fixed? Prior knowlege of these bugs and the fact that they exsisted does not equate them to not being bugs, And if they are known about and done with intention knowningly, that by definition of abuse of a known bug
  4. Foxysocks

    alliance griefing

    Blizzlike = bug and deemed a bug at later time = PRIOR KNOWLEDGE KNOWN BUG You people flat out do not understand the concept of prior knowledge. If you know something is a bug and was changed and or fixed at a later time, and abuse it it. It is abusing a KNOWN BUG, whether that bug is in the game to be blizzlike / classic / vanilla or however you wish to convince yourself otherwise. Think of it... in Vanilla WoW you could change the game files of Ahn Quiraj 40 to fall thru the ground at after the first boss and skip the entire zone right to C'thun. Say this was made possible on Elysium to be "Blizzlike". However doing it would still be abusing a known bug, you have prior knowledge of things that where fixed or changed and deemed bug's in later patches, thus abusing them is by definition abusing a known bug, just because it was a bug during X patch to Y patch doesnt mean it's ok to abuse during that timeline, nor is it the servers resposibility to fix these known bugs out of timeline sequence (AKA = earlier than the patch they where fixed) But that doesn't mean that's its still not a BUG and being ABUSED I find it funny that you all immediately attack the GM's credibility and simply state again your dry opinion that it is blizzlike and not a bug, when it indeed was a known bug and that's why it was changed.
  5. Foxysocks

    alliance griefing

    Immediately attacking the GM's credibility is a very shallow argument in defense of the griefing. While various forms of griefing may be allowed. Griefing other players may not warrent action in certain situations depending on how its done. But completely disallowing them from using AoE abilities, which sometimes a mage has to use (Frost Nova) on a PVE server is abusing a known vanilla bug that was later fixed. Timeline wise if it existed on vanilla and was later deemed a bug then it is indeed a bug and a KNOWN bug. Just because said bug exsit's on the server and hasn't been fixed "ahead of schedule" in the patch timeline does not mean it is allowed and by definition would be abusing a KNOWN bug
  6. Ok you enjoy rules lawyer'ing with a GM when you are reported then
  7. Foxysocks

    alliance griefing

    Is not Allowed, not clever use of game design - Griefer's beware
  8. http://imgur.com/z7oBLuU Actually it Is not, and here is confirmation. Conversation with GM Quietist.
  9. Jumping into a enemy faction AE intentionally to flag and grief another player while killing PVE mobs. Multiple occurrences of sheeping (even vs single target elites) to intentionally heal mobs I was killing in attempt to grief me out of the area. In an attempt to "Claim" an area as their own, and interfering in another players PVE engagement in order to cause player death