We were told if there was significantly new material, then it could be forwarded again. In this new report, all sources were new (except 1), but was instantly marked as duplicate and then closed for no-one to see. He followed your instructions and the report was still instantly closed. Based on the speed of closure, it seems that the report was not even read!
Furthermore, it is very clear that his was neither spam nor a rant, yet @FurinaBestArchon got banned again? He followed your instructions, didn’t post a rant-like report, used a significant amount of new sources and still got punished for it?
What message is this supposed to give us?
Don’t follow your rules and get punished, but follow your rules and still get punished? How is this fair?
A report on Strv 122s protection (using primary sources i.e the trials) was forwarded, but our 2A7V bug report using the same + a lot more (to prove it shouldn’t be modelled after the worst configuration possible, but after the “Swedish solution” i.e the TVM max), was closed down… the hell is this treatment?
What the hell!? THIS BEHAVIOUR IS UNPROFESSIONAL AND UNACCEPTABLE!
The report was not reviewed, it was immediately rejected and assumed to be a duplicate without even checking, and the reporter was banned over accusations of “spamming”? WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THIS!?
I don’t normally lose my cool like this, but this is just otherworldly.
Every day the team at gaijin, whether it be on the bug report management side, the development side or the community management side, never cease to amaze me at how proficient they are at getting everyone mad as efficiently as possible.
And TrickZZter told me we cannot use older information as proof that the armour is the same as Strv 122s (when the new information states 2A5s was aside from the lack of the hull add-on armour).
So right now, he’s basically telling us the devs believe Leopard 2A7Vs protection would be worse than a Leopard 2A5s if it got MEXAS armour.
İt feels like we returned to 2015-2016 where Gaijin refused almost every single report about Nato vehicles.
@Smin1080p sorry but this is unaccaptable, if you guys will refuse any kind of report without even checking properly then whats the point of creating them in the first place.
Great!! there a question i think people love to know.
“When it gonna get fix according to source?”
you see Furina keep doing his best to get thing correctly and now it too long now thing still don’t get fix.
Neither report is about the core issue. Overall protection (which includes the hull protection).
My new report was exactly that, but also had more information to it i.e Germany and Sweden using the same armour packages since 1995, to prove that there is no magical “Swedish protection”, but a common standard shared by both countries, hence there should be no difference at worst.
In fact my report also containted information on the Strv 122…
Aside from that, you banned me from the report site for no reason what’so’ever. Instead of adding new information to the pile, you reject it and temp-ban the poster… great.
