IN BREAD CATS wrote:
I use the warning rule and cooper, I even myself stated "I know AFK checks aren't really needed, like you aren't forced to give them." I just find it dumb. I do use warnings (most of the time) but whats the point of even giving them an AFK check for 3 seconds and giving them half a second. If thats the case is that not going against the give warning? Maybe, I'm wrong and you can say "Warning Bread, stay frozen" and then immediately kill them. But as far as I know. You aren't.
Well I think there are a few differences between warning someone for unfreezing and not warning someone who is afk.
They can be unfrozen and still somewhat be following the orders but if they are sitting in their cell not responding then they are showing blatant disregard for the orders which would normally make them a rebel, you could even argue they are delaying.
It also makes sense from a roleplay perspective. The warden is commanding the T’s to leave their cells and do a bunch of orders, if a guy is sitting in his cell irresponsive they probably are going to reprimand him for it, which in this case the consequences would be death.
From a gameplay perspective why would we keep a guy alive if he is just gonna sit there and do nothing the whole round?
I know you aren’t questioning whether afks should be killed or not, but these are just a few reasons why I think its justifiable to kill them without warning.
AFK checks may be a little “pointless” but thats why they aren’t forced. They don’t really hurt anyone, but they allow CT’s to be nice if they want to and give the T the opportunity to live on the slight chance they manage to come back in time. It’s a win win situation all around.