does the rule "no hacking, scripting, breaking role-play or anything considered unfair." extend to games the warden can decide to play? before T's could not refuse if teams were uneven (as there was no rule for it) but now i see it being argued that you can. it was my understanding that this was only limited to cheats and such but cooper and dolv make the case that it does not specify that it does not extend to gameplay and i dont really see anything to say they are wrong. cooper insists that its only up to admins discretion but after accepting that it does not exclude gameplay i dont see how you could say that anything at all unfair could be against the rules and therefore refuseable/slayable. (i.e. T's using !lr sVs then using the auto (if not on current map) to rebel, or making CT's drown in pool via Russian roulette, playing soccer 4v5 if one T rebels during the game, playing a game if the other team has better players, ect.)

to my understanding this rule was meant to be a catch all to stop players cheating in anyway but has been worded poorly as to give it a different meaning.

i see 3 solutions here

1. this is how the rule is intended and should be left as is
2. this is not how it was intended and should be reworded to ""no hacking, scripting, exploits, breaking role-play or any mechanic that would give a player an unfair advantage."
3. something else idk 3 seemed like a nice number.

im looking forward to hearing your guys thoughts

If you think about it why would it be placed in a rule in regards to hacking if it extends to the jailbreak roleplay gameplay?

To me, by the meaning of it means anything that isnt considered as hacking, scripting or cheating, but is still considered unfair.

Example: Auto Strafe - i wouldnt personally call this scripting, hacking or cheating, personally I see it as unfair as it allows them to BHOP way more than any bad or good normal bhopper in the server

(This is not my official response but this is really how I'd see it)

*DEAD* EgN|s BEST ADMIN TITTYSPRINKLES: i thought today was rulebreaking day my bad :-(
*DEAD* EgN| Terminator #Fishy Guy: yup, ma dick to long :)

This is my opinion on the matter - I believe the "before T's could not refuse if teams were uneven (as there was no rule for it) but now i see it being argued that you can." derives from things like "No Favoritism" where you could argue if the warden splits teams unevenly he's showing favoritism to the larger team. Not as stemming from the "no hacking, scripting, breaking role-play or anything considered unfair."

That rule is meant to stop things like: outside programs/custom skins/hacks to cause unfair gameplay. Including exploits like a spray on a glass wall making it a 1-way, jumping in a small area to clip through the map and see the enemy, etc. I personally don't think it was meant to extend to gameplay.

Don't just drop a link and say nothing. Explain what you're trying to say.

Regardless of whether the rules applies to the full game play and/or solely cheating (unfair advantages based off game mechanics), a T can/and should refuse being that it only opt's their chances of winning due to their teammate rebelling. A player's probability of winning shouldn't be based off another players dum(b) rebellious urges. Unsure of when it was removed and/or rephrased, but we did (probably not) have a rule that said something similar to "keep things fair" or "balanced / evened", but anyway, couldn't be more vague but the scenario still easily falls between either two rules, 14. No Favortism. Guards (CT) and/or 10. Do not act like an asshole. General, but to say it's fair to keeps this unfair is only contradicting your point.

i mean if you click on the link it takes you straight to a comment that probably says everything he's trying to say



Regarding the topic of this thread, it started because of a game that was deemed stupid and resulted in, what was in dolv's (as well as many of the players) opinion, a bunch of freekilling.
Would I be right in saying that's what you're referring to lunk?

Either way the game could have been argued either way. It was a grey area. Basically the warden had T's face a wall and went through the line one by one and said "should i kill the person I'm aiming at"
If the T says yes, warden shoots whoever he decided to aim at and moves on down the line.
if the T says no, the warden moves on to the next in the line.

This was deemed unfair because it was very easy for a warden to start doing favouritism ish things by constantly looking at a specific T until someone says to shoot or something along that line.
As well as that there's no real way to verify what the warden was aiming at unless spectating the warden directly.

I personally didn't like the game and thought it was a bit stupid. That being said there's nothing inherintly wrong with the game being played, although I was siding with dolv on this one a bit.
The warden in question (can't remember his name) argued that it was some game that used to get played in jailbreak many many years ago likely on a different server which had different rules and whatever.
Likely every admin would have taken that in a different way, although I'm guessing the majority would have voted that the game is allowed

I guess the biggest problem was that the warden was just shooting anyone
typically in situations like this wardens usually write something in CT chat to indicate what's gonna happen. In this case the warden should have stated in CT chat what it was gonna be be either saying the name of the T he was aiming at each time, or implementing some generic rule like "it'll always be the T 3 positions to the right of whoever im asking" or something like that


if i've not read this completely wrong, i'd say lunk that you're trying to quote the wrong rule here. The unfair thing is about any kind of hacking or cheating like situation. The situation here was more akin to the favouritism rule. Like i said many admins would have taken it different ways, but really whether that was unfair or not is anybody's guess until a higher up steps in and makes a decision, whether that be banning the game, saying the game has to be played in a specific way in accordance with the rules, or saying that the game was fine the way it was being played.

Well if you click the link it pretty explicity says CT’s aren’t allowed to use one ways because that would break this rule and would be “unfair”. I think at one point Tricky’s original reponse said he talked to you about and you guys came to this conclusion together but I think he edited it for some reason (I remember this pretty clearly but I could be mistaken).

If I am not mistaken similar logic is applied to the helicopter on summer, it’s considered a secret because it would be “unfair” from a gameplay perspective since T’s can’t really reach CTs or get then down when they are up there.

Another example of clearly unfair gameplay would be the lazer on outer space if it weren’t in armory. To give more context Simplistic was trying to argue CTs could use it if it weren’t in armory, I said no because it was considered a map ability / secret, Link was on the server and responded with something along the lines of “LOL no it’s not allowed because its in arnory not because it’s a secret.” So I furthered my point by saying it would break this rule based on Tricky’s post on the complaint on Tobi. My point was if CT’s can’t use intended oneways because they are unfair an instakill lazer which makes them virtually invincible would fall into the same category. This was a hypothetical but it was spurred on by the fact people were saying CTs couldn’t use it only because it’s in armory which contradicts the reason the helicopter is a secret and the reason why Tricky said one ways were disallowed for CTs.

See, all I wanted you to do was use your words and express your opinion.

It still doesn't matter to what I said - Because that's how I view it in my opinion. Not how it's enforced/the rules define it. Posts like Tricky's define that (official responses saying "Do this." Not posts sharing my opinion to everyone else to spark discussion.

Well something you have to take in account is as Staff+ people hold your opinion to a higher standard, I knew you weren’t saying that’s how it’s enforced but usually most people are going to read your opinion and jump to a conclusion, I was really just trying to offer some balance or point out instances where other Staff+ interpreted it differently just to try to prevent people from drawing conclusions based on what you said if that makes sense.

As for this discussion I’m almost certain it will go down the path of “We need more specific rules that adresss every single issue” like it did on the server, just like the recent talk about the spray rule. I probably should have given my opinion so more people could see it and contribute to the discussion but I’ve already about it pretty extensively if you couldn’t tell from all the sneak dissses.