Replay Link: http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 782263.w3g
Game Name: [ENT] Legion TD Mega 1200+ #3
Your Warcraft III Username: Noble.Plebeian
Violator's Warcraft III Username: ELD3R
Violated Rule(s): afk
Time of Violation (in-game or replay): (24:41 / Allied) ELD3R: i go for dinner brb
Any further thoughts: He was mad and toxic all game long, on wave 11 he said "brb i go for dinner" and he leaked 12
[LTD] ELD3R
Moderator: ENT Staff
Re: [LTD] ELD3R
And lets just NOT talk about your teamkill Manners.
Ur such a shame, that u got No manners even to even report.
Ur such a shame, that u got No manners even to even report.
-
- Treant Protector
- Posts: 511
- Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:38 pm
- Has thanked: 52 times
- Been thanked: 42 times
Re: [LTD] ELD3R
eld3r wrote:For the Admins. because this guy not understand it.
I was the leaker lel.
Ur were obv just mad of the result of the game and since! FF didn't work u decided to end the game by ur own.
Not like it made a difference if ur leaker or not.
Re: [LTD] ELD3R
if i say i go for dinner doesnt mean i really go for dinner, it was a sentence i wrote because i was bored.
If i say i fly to Timbugdu for a moment u prolly believe it too? lel
If i say i fly to Timbugdu for a moment u prolly believe it too? lel
- AmnoN
- ENT Staff
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:50 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 34 times
Re: [LTD] ELD3R
eld3r@ENTConnect banned 3 days for AFK (would normally just be a warning at most, but history is rationale for the duration, albeit, it is a light one - 3rd offense).
The "intentional" leak on 12 does not make much sense due to full holds on subsequent rounds - there was simply no build on 12 which appeared to be tantamount to giving up, considering attitude. Further, there was no communication that there was an intent to leak (would have changed things considerably with regards to how this request was assessed).
The "intentional" leak on 12 does not make much sense due to full holds on subsequent rounds - there was simply no build on 12 which appeared to be tantamount to giving up, considering attitude. Further, there was no communication that there was an intent to leak (would have changed things considerably with regards to how this request was assessed).
Return to “Processed Requests”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests