AFK checks

Geeza · **Posted:** Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:03 am

Also it's an admin's responsibility to sort out the AFK's, moving them to spectator (or kicking them if server is above 29 population).

Sugoni · **Posted:** Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:08 am

My problem with the whole AFK check thingis that, yes while

Cooper wrote:

AFK checks are a courtesy, not a requirement.

The problem is it makes no fucking sense why anyone gives people this "courtesy" when they don't even give them enough time to react to it.
There's been plenty of times where i've seen someone say afkcheck321 *shoot* and the person piped up on mic like half a second after they died.
Occasionally I even see people who literally type
"Afkcheck 3/2/1" in one line in chat as if that countdown even makes any fucking sense in the first place.
If people are gonna do this shit they were already gonna shoot the people so whats they point in saying the bullshit.
I'm fine with people not doing AFK checks but when they pretend they're doing an afk check by saying words it pisses me off to high hell.
I mean I usually give anywhere between 5-10 seconds when doing an AFK check just to be sure cause i'd hate people missing out on rounds if they JUST got back after i'd killed them.
People can do what they want but it seems more dickish to do an afk check that has no real meaning than to just shoot AFK people. I'd rather they actually did something legit than be a dick about it.

(I feel like i went in circles there i probably did)

Mr.Geeza wrote:

Also it's an admin's responsibility to sort out the AFK's, moving them to spectator (or kicking them if server is above 29 population).

Also while that's true, admins could be playing the game or not realise the person is afk. And they usually only move to afk if it's been a few rounds dont they?

Central · **Posted:** Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:26 am

Sugoni wrote:

Mr.Geeza wrote:

Also it's an admin's responsibility to sort out the AFK's, moving them to spectator (or kicking them if server is above 29 population).

Also while that's true, admins could be playing the game or not realise the person is afk. And they usually only move to afk if it's been a few rounds dont they?

That's where people message us admins so we know that they're AFK and sort it out

The Artless Sheep · **Posted:** Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:17 pm

Sugoni I agree with you so much, for real what is the point of giving them if you aren't giving them enough time? I know I stated it 3 times now. But its bullshit and you wouldnt be able to do "warningsugoni321" and kill them in half a second.

The Artless Sheep · **Posted:** Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:19 pm

Cooper wrote:

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.

Cooper I understand this I just used freeze as an example, my overall statement was regarding you cant give someone a warning and immediately kill them afterwards. But it seems you can do it if you are giving them an AFK check (even though its not necessary) (It's very fucking scumbaggish?, that a word?)

Cooper · **Posted:** Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:02 pm

IN BREAD CATS wrote:

Cooper wrote:

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.

Cooper I understand this I just used freeze as an example, my overall statement was regarding you cant give someone a warning and immediately kill them afterwards. But it seems you can do it if you are giving them an AFK check (even though its not necessary) (It's very fucking scumbaggish?, that a word?)

Because they don't even need to give the AFK check in the first place... The time doesn't matter because it doesn't matter if they give one at all. Why have a rule saying you have to give a certain amount of time for an AFK check when the rules don't even say you have to give an AFK check in the first place?

Central · **Posted:** Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:15 pm

Cooper wrote:

IN BREAD CATS wrote:

Cooper wrote:

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.

Cooper I understand this I just used freeze as an example, my overall statement was regarding you cant give someone a warning and immediately kill them afterwards. But it seems you can do it if you are giving them an AFK check (even though its not necessary) (It's very fucking scumbaggish?, that a word?)

Because they don't even need to give the AFK check in the first place... The time doesn't matter because it doesn't matter if they give one at all. Why have a rule saying you have to give a certain amount of time for an AFK check when the rules don't even say you have to give an AFK check in the first place?

As you first said, they're a courtesy. That's why some admins slap before swapping to spectator, to give them the few seconds to either realise they're AFK if they are at screen, or just general courtesy, and because if we jump to swapping to spectator, you might have that odd few which aren't actually AFK, but are hiding and rebelling but looked as if they were AFK.

Sugoni · **Posted:** Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:50 am

Central wrote:

you might have that odd few which aren't actually AFK, but are hiding and rebelling but looked as if they were AFK.

*cough cough*

Terminator · **Posted:** Sun Aug 19, 2018 12:15 pm

I honestly don't get the problem here....
Afk check isn't needed.....but some people still do it
Does it matter if they say "afk123" or afk check....1....2...3?
As said. They could just be shot on the spot. Only time I would give them time is when u want to move then to spectator.
Msg them,slap them....Could just be hhhiddinnng and u need to be sure.

But if they standing afk what does it matter? Like yes it can be annoying if they pretend to give them time but it isn't needed in first place and this way they have like 2 or 3 seconds to come back. Just my view

The Artless Sheep · **Posted:** Sun Aug 19, 2018 1:44 pm

Ok im going to narrow it down. If thats the case, IS IT OR IS IT NOT, IN A WAY, ABUSING THE WARING RULE. Thats all I want to know. If its not, then does that mean if someone is afk (or at least I think) I can say 'waring Term, take a step out' and then gun them down as soon as I said that, but you weren't afk. You would slay me, because I didn't give you enough time. So what makes afk checks different? AND DONT SAY "ohh its a courtesy" I fucking know that.

Register

Login

AFK checks

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Who is online