Jump to content
Create New...

Don't Like the Ads? Upgrade your experience to remove the ads for only $20.00 per year.

Don't Like the Ads? Upgrade your experience to remove the ads for only $20.00 per year.


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

About Matty2D

  • Birthday 01/01/1930

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Matty2D's Achievements

Rising Star

Rising Star (9/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges



  1. I got these a couple of months ago, so they are in Like New condition. All the cables, manuals, and the box are included. If you need more information, post here or PM me. Best offer.
  2. UF, I am here to announce a formal resigniation of The Uprising in regards to being a clan in the community. We feel that it is no longer in the best interest of the future of our clan to compete here. We have had so many good memories and good times here at UF. We cannot thank the original creators, present directors, and staff enough for all their work that they put into providing top quality tournaments for our clan to compete in for over 2 years. We have made many friends, and some enemies, but we do not regret being a part of the community. You may see some of us from time to time, but we are saying good bye for now. Good luck UF, -The Uprising Leaders and Members
  3. No, it's you AND me lol. Ass + u + me = assume.
  4. Actually, the way he spelled it means to quit lol. Re-sign would be re-newing a contract.
  5. After reading this post, I definitely learned a lot and it is much better reading about the topic after the dust has setteled. I do, however, want to comment on a couple of aspects that you pointed out. First off, the way the complaint was brought up definitely was a breakdown. I think the biggest reason people like to go "behind closed doors" is because they go to a staff member they can trust. However, it obviously started this situation off on the wrong foot, and I definitely feel the post should have originated in the CR section so the accused clan could have the ability to defend itself. Secondly, where you comment on discussing the final ruling in the clan rep section is something I don't agree on. The post was made by a director stating the "Final Ruling." The situation you alluded to in 2009 was similar to this, as a "final ruling" was handed down. It was against us, so we fought to try to get our point across, but to no avail. The directors came back with something along the lines of, "The ruling is final, nothing more will be spoken of about this topic." So, I don't think you can say that the clan reps could have basically persuaded the directors to change their minds in the clan rep section. That is definitely something I see panning out differently. Another thing you reference on more than one occasion is that the clan reps were demanding a decision. I was recently provided clan rep access towards the end of the tacmap because our secondary rep left our clan, and I saw nothing from any clans demanding an answer as soon as possible. I don't think you can blame clan reps for rushing a decision, because ultimately it is the staff and directors decision to make and it should not be influenced by other clans. Lastly, I will defend our clan and the others that left. When you say you look over past situations, and if you read the rule black and white that a clan (us) would have been removed from UF for one year I think is a little different. In our case, we had put recruits on our clan roster, which was deemed illegal. However, other clans came forward saying they did the same thing, and even past clans I was in within UF did the same thing as well. The difference here is that the members put on this roster were still currently on an active GB roster. And the GB roster was another clan and it was a team, not a squads or doubles roster. I think that is the main difference and that is the reason why the clans left, because the rules were broken very clearly. Overall though, I agree on pretty much everything else you stated in your message. I think all parties from the accused clan, to the clans that dropped out, to the staff, directors, and other community members wish this could have panned out differently. I think everyone learns from their mistake, and we all move on and continue to be a part of this wonderful community.
  6. We are all human beings. What do we have in common? Well, we all make mistakes. And, we also make biased decisions because that is human nature. Unless anyone here is a judge, and I don't think anyone is, we are all subject to bias. To start, I will bring up past rulings that were made since the new directors took over. Some staff and the directors claim they wanted to make a decision without tarnishing the tournament. I can see that way of thinking, because AieL was the leader and favorite to win the tournament. However, a similar situation occured over a year ago in Chosin (SOCOM tacmap). Upon the final meeting before the playoffs, UF staff and directors learned that TNU was behind the development of Chaos Tactics. They learned about this Sunday night. Before the semi-final match between 101 and TNU, which was on Monday night, TNU was removed and banned from Urgent Fury because of a conflict of interest. As many of you all remember, this created a schism between the community for a little bit. Clans argued that the decision tainted the tournament, while others supported it. However, in this case there was no written rule at the time. It was sort of an implied rule based upon what happened previously between UF and CT. After the ruling, rules were created and publically posted for all to be aware of. If the staff and directors didn't want to kick AieL out because they did not want to tarnish the tournament, what was the reasoning behind booting out TNU within 24 hours of learning of the information? I have a hunch, and it's because Chaos Tactics is in direct competition with Urgent Fury and directly effects the directors's business. Now, if you look at the people arguing against the ruling today, aren't these pretty much clans that are in the heat of the tacmap race? That kind of sounds like bias, doesn't it? Another ruling was in the final BLACK championship match on SOCOM: Confrontation. We were playing ScK for all the marbles, and after the match, their leader confirmed they had a ringer playing under his name. He openly admitted it, kudos to him and their clan. As a result, they were banned for I believe 3 months. He claims he did give out his password, but it was not for the intent to war. Even still, they were banned for 3 months of play. The thing that bothers me the most here, is that there was a specific ruling created over a year ago that fits this situaton to a T. Bandit and staff created this rule and posted it in pretty much every single board on UF. They have a zero tolerance policy with rent a players. When the staff is presented with material that clearly demonstrates rules were broken, they failed to follow through with their own rules that they have created. To step aside for a moment, Shane I really don't understand your reasoning behind, "...throwing the tide." Are you really serious about this statement? As someone mentioned earlier, did they have to be MVP of the match for it to be considered game altering? It's like saying, "He only tested positive for steroids once, so only a few home runs were tainted." Come on now, that is an illogical thought. Anyway, I will end with enforcing the theme of this response. We are subject to bias. However, as staff members and directors of a tournament site, it is their responsibility to act in an unbiased mindset, as stated in their code of conduct. However, in my honest and humble opinion, I clearly believe they did not uphold their responsibility.
  7. Even if clan wars still have the same feel, the game won't. I probably spend 10% of gaming playing in clan wars. If the other 90% are filled with garbage, such as seeing the enemy tags in the last 2 minutes of a round, then I don't know how long I will spend with this game.
  8. They should rename SOCOM 4 to something else, because the details they released about it tarnish the SOCOM name. This game will not be anything like SOCOM and I am so dissapointed unless they make drastic changes in their "final tunings."
  9. Yeah my PS3 died for the second time about 3 weeks ago and was shocked at the prices. I was able to get a slim for just $99.99. I wasn't going to get a 60 gig and have it die yet another time.
  10. I have a small lab due today and I am stuck on a few methods. If someone has some knowledge I would appreciate it. My AIM is The U Matty2D
  11. I believe I remember a clan [WsW], WuShu Warriors.
  12. Sounds cool. I'll pass it along to our members. And I have an iPhone
  13. I don't know if this applies to you but if you think you have the right password you may be logged in. I kept trying to log in and it wasn't saying I was when I really was.
  14. We are no longer competing on COD at this point in time, which is why we have not signed up.
  15. In my opinion, everyone has kind of touched on the reason why COD is lacking clan support. The 2+ month layoff from competitive play may have lost a few clans; but, only having 4 clans sign up for a tournament that had 15 sign up 4 months ago isn't just because there was a layoff. This community was built on SOCOM and probably will always be a SOCOM first community for years to come. SOCOM can't even compare to what kind of game COD is, but there were 14+ clans that signed up for BLACK a few months ago and there was an equal layoff. COD just doesn't have the longevity that SOCOM has, at least in this community. So while UF may have lost a couple clans due to a break in tournaments, overall the COD clan support just isn't there. On a side note, I have participated in two UF COD tournaments here. 141, and Riot Act a few years ago. I will say that Riot Act was so much better because of the game modes. I know COD is a respawn shooter, but I like to think of wars as being tactical. In Riot Act, there was Search and Destory, and Team Deathmatch with a limit of 5 deaths. That added a SOCOM touch and a tactical element that I believed lacked in 141. Again, that's just my opinion and it doesn't make it right.

Military including Active, Reserve, Veteran and Dependents get 50% off of our Spec Ops Premium Experience

  • Create New...

Important Information

By visiting this site you agree to our Privacy Policy and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search