Interesting to say that I am trying to "dismiss the problems a lot of people have with the rule" when the majority of what I wrote was addressing the problems and the potential fixes for them. It's also odd that pointing out overly biased or subjective points in other people's arguments is being written off as trying to ignore the issue, when in reality most of the issues that people have with the rule are sprouting from once again their "perfect" version of the server or how they used to like it. People's intentions when discussing the rule are also pretty clear when almost every one of their points either explicitly says something along the lines of "I want it to be how it used to be because I had fun back then in the good old days" or implies something regarding "traditional jailbreak"

Here's a list of what I am referring to (even though some of these bring up good points or truth)


I'm not saying retrospecting about the server is bad (and obviously in many cases it is helpful), but to create a whole argument based off "how good it was back then" is kind of silly. The warning rule isn't the only thing that has changed in the server; other rules have been added or removed, the player base has pretty much completely changed with the constant coming and going of players, the server has been around longer and doesn't seem as fresh to people who have been around a while, new admins, new staff, new changes to gameplay mechanics (infinite stacking, full auto glock, etc). Simply put, the warning rule isn't the only thing that has changed since "the good old days" and there aren't many newer members or players who have any outstanding problems with the rule. It seems to be well liked by the majority of the server's [CURRENT] regular population and wanting to change it simply because it "used to be good" when a lot of other things have changed along with it is pretty silly.


Outside of that though, I think it would be interesting to see who exactly voted what and it would also be nice to somehow get a good sample of the actual population to participate in the vote (unlikely).

you responded only to Lyriati, young lean, and minion. those were not arguments, they are opinions. you did not put out an counter argument, you put out your opinion on their opinions. not saying thats wrong or anything but im saying there is a difference. they said that it was better before the rule (an opinion) but did not give any reasons why it was better (aka an argument) you then said you think they are wrong/nostalgic and that it is better with the rule (opinion) but did not respond to their criticism because there was none.

you did not adress the argument i put forth

or that of P. strawberry

or needy

or pro hop

instead you ignored them just blanket call anyone who thought the rule should change nostalgic. So yes, i do think you have dismissed the arguments in favor of generalizing the other side.


in contrast
you gave your opinion on the rule argument on why you think the rule should stay (opinion) but then provide reasons why you thought that (argument) i.e. you said u think ppl will be assholes/nazis to which i addressed with the suggestion and the criticism you did not respond to either of those however, instead you dismissed them by ignoring them and saying

Long story short im saying instead of talking past each other and generalizing each side of the topic it would be better if we responded to each others arguments as everyone has a different prospective and something else too add. that way we can try to find an acceptable middle ground that no one will be ecstatic about but wont be mad about either (it a compromise ya know). This doesn't just go for cooper but is a good idea for everyone.

Maybe he ignored them cause he was responding to you

I don't think you are understanding my point that just because something was good in the past it isn't necessarily good now, and along with that other things have changed which have also played a part in the "issues" you are concerned with. You also keep failing to address my point that the majority of the current regular player base on the server doesn't use the forums meaning this vote is a pretty innacurate representation of the opinions of the people who actually consistently play on the server.

It also doesn't make sense when you say I am "blanket calling" everyone who disagrees with me when not once did I say anything along the lines of "all" or "every" but used words such as "most" or "the majority". If you look at the posts that you claim I did not "address" you'll notice that they heavily focus on their issues with the rule now, and for the most part don't even mention how things were "back then". If they aren't going to be apart of the demographic I am referring to in my point, there is really no reason to "address" them. If I don't disagree with them (at least in the same way) I'm not going to address their points because it simply wouldn't make sense to. My point isn't that the warning rule is perfect in every single way, it is that a lot of the reason people are wanting to change it is because of nostalgia or idealization of the past. If anything, you would be blanketing me in with everyone else who disagrees by automatically assuming that I disagree with all these people you listed or disagree in the same way as everyone else. It isn't as black and white as "Me think warning rule is good" and "Me think warning rule is bad" (not saying you totally think that because you and others have offered clear concession and compromise) but there is a lot more to argue than you seem to think.

BUT since you want me to address a couple of other things I'll do it for you.

This looks like a good idea on paper, but I think adding more and more specific conditions to the rule is just going to create more problems and people are going to find loopholes anyways. For example, people would wait or find a way to stall for the first minute or two of the round until the rule is no longer in effect and then start doing their tricky orders and use their AFK freeze in order to start killing people without having to warn them. I can already see people typing "All admins have to do is pay attention and enforce progression of the round to prevent this" but is there really anything to enforce when people will just do math trivia or Simon Says for the first minute of the round in order to stall so they can start killing people without warnings. There are simply just going to be too many loopholes around a condition like this to really make it effective and there is no way that admins will be able to prevent every possible loophole that people find. On top of that, adding a change like this is going to be a whole new thing that everyone has to learn and get used to, and people already struggle enough with the 32+ rule.



I did respond to half of this, specifically pointing out the part where you say "I've been playing jb for years and still playing alot and i can say i like it better without the warning rule" because it is a prime example of my argument that most of the reasons for change come from idealization or nostalgia but I will set that aside and focus on the other part now. To say "the warning rule has nothing to do with that" is a pretty big generalization and doesn't really look at the nuance of the subject.
Needy said something similar in a much more reasonable way that really looks at the nuance of the matter, but like she said it would be hard to determine. You can't really say that the 32+ rule has NO effect on the server's population when it quite clearly does to SOME extent.



As for this I really don't know what to say in terms of compromise because from what I've seen I just don't think most ideas would work out very well if actually implemented. I personally don't have any ideas and I think I would personally prefer for it to stay the same, or be completely removed if there was an accurate enough vote (which included the regular population) supporting its removal. It really just depends what type of atmosphere we want to create on the server and if we want to be more focused on playing games and laidback, or trickery and a more strict style of gameplay and it would be hard to find a middle ground between the two which combined both well.

Would much rather have some sort of adjustment to the rule itself, rather than having it not be implied for the rest of the round after a certain amount of time has passed. That's like taking a sandwich, putting jelly on one slice of bread, then peanut butter on the other slice of bread, and keeping them apart for no particular reason. (Splitting so the first half of the round has the warning rule, where the second half doesn't) Basically meaning, we should instead find some sort of middle ground in which all of those who like the warning rule, and those who oppose of the warning rule, in a sense that we resolve the majority of the issues that all resolve around the warning rule while keeping it's benefits.

Number of said issues

a.) Stops the rounds from progressing

᛫ required warning for only minor mistakes (that one little word could easily just get rid of smart-asses that try to loop around the rule).

- that also means how would you define minor? Yes I know that's how it is(?) currently but CT's don't treat it as that. i.e warn T's in which they don't need to be warned

᛫ add the ability to warn groups as a whole

- maybe add a limited number? Can warn _ number of T's as a whole (i.e 5, 10, 10+? You name it)
- mass repeat the order until all the T's are as followed(?)

b.) Increases the amount of rebellers

᛫ include detours and delays are implied with every order possibly with the warning rule(?)

- CT's seem to forget that if a T is detouring around to grab a gun behind the wall rather than going straight towards the main cell stairs is detouring
- combining those two would just make it more aware for CT team / server all around

᛫ possibly change the interpretation of the "secrets KOS" to where if you're out of your cell after orders are given (as, as far as I know the only way you can get out of your cell is through a secret)

- gets rid of those who, technically, already rebelled but are given a warning basically to go back to their cell

- though are there actual other ways of getting out of your cell if it's not through a secret?
- CT team could make an immediate assumption when seeing a T not near a cell, assuming that they came from a secret

c.) T's abusing the warning rule (guess this is more of a clarification)

᛫ We still have the "being a smart-ass will get you banned"

- how cannnnnn you tell if they're being a smart-ass?! idk just gotta wing it i guess
- if there was say, and order given to AFK freeze at the bottom of cell stairs, facing cells. All T's are cooperating, 15 seconds goes by and a T is free-looking though no other ordered was followed, then i would say that's abusing the warning rule
- what other ways could you prevent this?

Things that probably won't work

᛫ Adding a limited number of warning per player each round

- difficult to keep track of
- someone could prob make it up saying they were given a warning beforehand, so on

᛫ Splitting the round timer

- it just ain't gunna work, from said previously
- basically saying warnings are permitted in the beginning of the round, but afterwards CT team can be strict regardless (to an extent of course, if you're going to refrence the rule under the "don't act like an asshole")

Won't say that these are the best adjustments, or even nearly that, just an idea of where I'm getting at when changing the wording of the warning rule, or other rules to cover more gray areas that the warning rule doesn't.

Besides that, the rest of what Xanderian had said covers the rest of how the warning rule should be interpreted.

Just an idea: How about warnings for small mistakes (i.e. Moving by accident during AFK freeze), and killing for bigger things (i.e. jumping during freeze after completing for the order, being frozen during AFK freeze). And if people start asking about, "do I kill for x, y, and z?" For real just use common sense. You know what they're doing on purpose and what they're doing by accident.

This is already how the rule works, and why it is a problem. The fact even admins don't have a general idea of the rule. As the rule currently stands, warnings are only intended for minor mistakes or in places where one can reasonably assume someone slightly misheard/misinterpreted an order, not for blatantly disregarding given orders. So jumping multiple times during a freeze order for example, is cause for getting killed. Jumping once however is seen as a potential mistake, and thus needs to be given a warning for.

asking for a repeat is still a thing btw, although I have noticed a lot of players appear to disregard asking for repeats in favour of simply half-assing orders and waiting for a warning if they do it incorrectly.

We already have a system in place for this, it’s called “abusing the warning system”

The kind of thing you’re proposing is impossible to manage and would only create more problems.. admins will be dealing 24/7 with cases of “judgement calls” for non-warning; a big mistake or little mistake? big/little is subjective and when gameplay and freekilling is concerned, a subjective matter like this has no grounds to be a rule

Also, ask anyone thats frequented more than 5 jailbreak servers, they’ll tell you they like the warning rioe

I was thinking the same thing, maybe reducing it to you must warn for moving mouse during afk freeze only.

the point of warning rule is to avoid having all the T's die before anything has bene played.
do this and we are back to killin g everybody with 1 order

SELF-CROWNED JUKE KING OF 2017
SELF-CROWNED JUKE KING OF 2018

SELF-CROWNED KNIFE KING OF 2017
SELF-CROWNED KNIFE KING OF 2018

SELF-CROWNED REBEL GOD OF 2017
SELF-CROWNED REBEL GOD OF 2018


rebeler since february 2016

we all have different lifes, different problems and different paths to take.....
but what we all wonder is: would they be proud of who i am today?

Princess Strawberry: "HEY, i know everything about Denmark , OK?
Princess Strawberry: "what kind of waffles do they eat in Denmark?"
Princess Strawberry: "OH WAIT SHIT THAT'S BELGIUM"

<16:59:31> "Eclipzx_" was banned for 10 minutes from the server by "GoopSauce" (pussy much?)

*warden*: There's 1 rebeler in garage please get him
*INBREADCATS*: It's only 1 rebeler,what can he do......oh shit it's terminator i'm coming

reboobalar: "term this is your warning because i know you're just gonna rebel"
reboobalar: "fuck this, im not going to be Ct with Term on their team"