fantastic

Many people use admin applications not expecting to get admin, but to get a formal reply and list of things to improve for their next time around. This feedback is honest and crucial for people to take and address so there is a clear comparison of their original admin app used for garnering feedback and their next admin app which may be a more honest attempt at getting admin. There's no harm in having people apply and show their interest... if IA+ felt their time was being wasted I'm sure they would increase the requirements, but as it stands the system is fine.

@Gentoo can you clarify what you mean by "individually opening cells"? Do you mean what you said in your example where certain areas have cells that open together, or do you mean each door has its own button for CTs to open/close? Will talk with the team about this and refrain from posting my own comments for now - others can feel free to post

We recognize the frustration this can bring and made a rule change a few days ago to address this: "CTs can only force map made death-games. The map made death-game must give the Ts a reasonable chance to live." Thanks for the great discussion closing this now.

Just to clear up a misconception - the removal of the rule "CTs can only force one death-game per round" was made because the number of Ts alive usually dips below 4 after the first deathgame and CTs wouldn't be able to force a second deathgame anyways. In the event that they did stop the first deathgame with >4 Ts alive and wanted to start a second, we didn't see anything wrong with that so we just removed the rule. If we wanted to limit forcing a second deathgame to only the case where the first deathgame failed/wasn't functioning as intended we would have added that clause in the rule although it certainly had a factor in the rule removal. @TheZZL @Gentoo @Dom @Lokibelowkey @Ray I'll add my own thoughts later so as not to interrupt the good discussion that's going on.

Making a separate post to address the above. The JB ATs discussed this at length and decided that while crouching out of cells is following the order, it is delaying. Thus, it deserves a warning shot. My answer above will be amended accordingly to reflect this change and avoid any confusion.

That's not exactly true. If a T comes out already crouching then they cannot be warning shot since they are frozen. If they come out standing and then crouch, they can be warning shot because moving between being crouched/uncrouched is not remaining frozen. This is undergoing review. ^ This is incorrect, please read the reply below. Answer:

Talked with the team about this and we're in agreement that rules defined before an LR must be followed once a CT and T agree to the LR. If rules are given after the LR was accepted, by all means the CT and T can follow it but if either party reneges on that then that's on you guys... we're not looking to augment the rule for this. CTs need to give enough time to send a request and define rules for that LR. If a T finds themselves in a position where they can't do that in time, the CT should have given more time in the first place.

^ Thanks for the suggestion though!

Yes, you can start a "second" deathgame (if it's the same deathgame) if it isn't functioning as intended to begin with, or if you stop it prematurely with >4 people alive. For example, if deathcrate starts and a shitton of people get killed and I stop it because I don't want to go under 4 people, but I notice that there's 7 people alive, I can start it back up to get to the Good question, thanks!

We didn't like the map considering its disorganized layout, the language isn't in English, and generally it wasn't fun to play. Rejecting this, but thanks for the suggestion

We'll be leaving the map on since it's quite popular and although there's differences in the two versions, this one is still popular and there's no real reason to remove it. Thanks for the suggestion though (:

To avoid this thread being lost I changed the title to "Suggestion to address AFK players avoiding AFK manager" to better represent what's in this thread. This is still be reviewed, thanks .

Going through the JB-related threads and cleaning them up. This discussion was addressed through the addition of the bottom rule a few weeks ago. Thanks [: I also changed the title of this thread to "Ts delaying in LR" to more accurately describe this discussion.

This is your answer here, although if (for example) Ts are ordered to go to big cage on Razor and there's some CTs camping the secret under big cage to deal with Ts who use the secret, that's fine since they're directly helping their team and preventing Ts from successfully rebelling. If CTs are doing secrets that have no correlation or relation to the orders Ts are given, that's probably against the rules. The key is as the rule says: "CTs must be actively enforcing orders or assisting their team". Good question @Kuri . EDIT: Changed thread title to "CTs not actively enforcing orders" to provide more description of the thread contents.

First off, thanks a ton to everyone for the congratulations . It's a huge honor to receive this award and I don't take it lightly. SG has carried me through the worst of times and elevated the best of times, and whenever I had a shit day at work I could always count on this community to raise my spirits. It's with this mindset that I applied for different positions in the community to try and improve/work on things so the place we play in and call home can be the same or better for others who discover this community. There's a saying - we are "standing on the shoulders of giants". We got to where we are in SG today because of those who worked hard before us. Not only this, but SG's gotten bigger and better because of the hard work all of us put in, whether it be regulars, admins, or higher-ups. While the award is "Staff of the Month", we should all pat ourselves on the back for the work we put in and take some time each month to reflect on what's changed and how much progress we've made. This place wouldn't be the same without us, so cheers to everyone .

Thanks for the bump, reviewing...

Can you go into why a CT queue would cause depopulation..?

You probably need to verify your e-mail.

Thank you for the bump; I'm at work so I briefly skimmed over the thread but I'll add this to the JB plate of things to discuss. Sit tight . EDIT: Moving this to rule discussion so this doesn't get lost.

Congratulations everyone! Special thank you to @vinyl and @Mad Dogg - both of you made a huge impact on my time at SG and I'm sad to see you go. Hope both of you can find time to stay in touch with the community .

A CT who gives an order that cannot be understood or heard by the entire server (within reason) is giving an unreasonable order which is against our ruleset. So yes, if the CT gave an order deemed to be unreasonable because it was too quiet/couldn't be understood the CT must repeat it. But if it was said loud and clear and you weren't paying attention/were AFK, they don't have to repeat it.

Moving this to the JB section so this doesn't get lost. I imagine this secret will prompt some discussion as well so it's better that it lives in the JB section.

This topic has been discussed numerous times and each time we've pretty much sat firm on our decision to keep the CT lockout period set to 25 minutes. If someone has insight that hasn't been provided the last 2-3 times this topic was discussed feel free to bring it up in another thread, but at this point we're going around in circles. Going ahead and locking the thread... thanks for the suggestion though. I can definitely see where this is coming from.

Whether the ratio has too many CTs or too few CTs is anecdotal - you can run into both situations. With the semi-recent CT ranks update there are more situations where the ratio is CT-skewed, but this particular suggestion is for when the ratio is T-skewed. Feel free to continue the discussion around CT-skewed ratios over in another thread or perhaps the CT queue thread here. I think my reply still stands in that in situations where the ratio is T-skewed, we need to find ways to encourage people to fill in that ratio automatically. Whether it be this suggestion of buffing CTs in a disadvantage or another suggestion there has to be balance on both sides of the coin.