If google is right with this translation, then this whole argument is stupid (will add to it).
High Flyer wrote:Google translated English:
Whoever has made himself unpopular, is traced earlier by the field, than someone who is popular with everyone. Whoever is known to stop work in escape groups or to try to follow as many riders as possible to his advantage must expect that no one will work with him.
Obviously, as you now know.
High Flyer wrote:Google translated English:
The fairness rules are less about evaluating hard or nice driving, but rather about avoiding the advantages that teams are able to achieve through technical possibilities that are outside of a normal, realistic race. Unfair behavior, which exploits the gaps of the system, is punished by the management. Players who work with unrealistic behaviors, e.g. (If the classic team attack) in the initial phase, must expect to be penalized by point deduction, cash withdrawals, locks. This can not be summed up in a formulated set of rules and much is still under discussion.
Even multiple accounts or unrealistic arrangements between friendly teams are not tolerated benefits that are to be punished.
High Flyer wrote:Google translated English:
You can go with each driver of another team, if the attacker and the driver is strong enough to follow the attack. The expenditure of force for the journey depends on the ratio of the strength of the attacking and the driving driver. It is between 80 and 140 force. However, if the driver is too weak to take the attack at all, he remains in the field. If the driver is involved, he does not automatically pace after the attack.
What a waste of website storage.He's written a good essay, but a worthless one given person, history, and mainly whats happening now. Matter of the fact for this topic is:
A: He team attacked
B: He kept riding when asked to stop
C: He has 300+ races, so I won't bother with any "I didnt know"
These 3 facts alone means that a fine/ ban or whatever punishment that is due is due.
Regarding fairplay argument in general, this may have been a useful argument for someone like Liquigas or someone who is hated for doing quite "annoying things" e.g talking too much. He can't use any sort of "unfair cause im popular" argument because:
A: He 100% used a bug
B: He knew he was it
C: He constantly lied about him using it
If it was the case that the he was only no tempoing in breaks, alright argument, but he didn't. He is a proven cheat. As I said before, once someone is capable of finding a bug that the thousands of other players can't find, then an argument of " I ddn't see/ know a rule against team attack" is rendered pointless.
I've had enough of his crap. It's getting pathetic.