fantastic

Something I'm concerned about is accountability. Having player complaints open provide a transparent way for those accused for breaking the rules to see the evidence against them, and use this evidence in their appeal if necessary. If you're worried about being retaliated against for filing a complaint, those concerns need to go to an IA+ so it can be addressed appropriately. Just a thought to throw into this discussion.

I don't really understand the logic here. The AWP is an expensive but effective weapon reserved for traitors who managed to kill a detective. Wouldn't making it available to everyone devalue its purpose? If people are killing you for simply having an AWP on your back that's against the rules - record and make a player complaint if it happens multiple times and it's the same person, or !calladmin so we can come on. Alternatively, have them read the !rules . I personally haven't experienced this at all, so I'm a little concerned. People shouldn't be shooting you simply for having an AWP, unless no detectives have died or it's literally 5 seconds into the round and they watched you buy the gun. Changing a gameplay mechanic to fit the narrative of a select few individuals who believe the AWP is KOSable seems odd.

Yep. Even if it's not a forcable deathgame, that doesn't mean you can force Ts to go on it because it's an order which will get them killed. @Manny, thoughts to close this out?

Answered your question here already: https://www.steam-gamers.net/forum/showthread.php?t=91022

https://www.steam-gamers.net/forum/showthread.php?t=90950 Just PM someone from above .

Yes, even if it's against the rules, in the heat of the moment if a CT is baiting a T and the T knifes, damages them, or does something which would be a blatant rebel, then yes the T can be killed. However, if an admin sees this, the CT will be punished accordingly. Question answered, thread locked

Previous conversation: https://www.steam-gamers.net/forum/showthread.php?t=89789&highlight=cage Nothing concrete came out of it IMHO... will try to get an answer for you. cc: @Manny @eXtr3m3 @Military_king

I would like to see some statistics around how many people are buying the USP-S before deciding whether to buff/leave/remove it... @Im Sad @Ned @DancingMoonLight thoughts?

This. Choose anyone from the President, Vice President, or Board of Directors rank here, and they can get it done for you.

We're having more discussions on this at a CA+ level because even though it's not invisible, it extends into the secret and per our ruleset ladders are a part of what they connect to. Hang tight while we finalize a conclusion.

Locking this as it's getting off-topic. Pending events team/AT+ finality.

what exactly do you propose happen in admin appreciation week

Congratulations nick, roux, extr3m3, and Dominic - all well-deserved promotions. Thanks for your work as BD Liam; looking forward to seeing you continue your work alongside Nishok .

@Nishok @Gator Although, you should just be able to hit the "Forgot my Password" button. Tagged the above since I assume you had trouble with that and it didn't work.

A big reason why suggestions and rule discussions are locked are to prevent topics that have already been discussed and thoroughly debated from coming up again, and having discussions repeat themselves. These threads are always open for a semi-long period of time to ensure community input is thoroughly received and reviewed, and an official answer comes up and the thread is locked appropriately. We can always talk about rule discussions and suggestions forever, but at some point the discussion gets stale and any point that can be brought up has already been brought up. If threads are being pre-maturely locked and OP needs to open a new thread regarding a "new" discussion point or to steer the thread back towards its original intent, I don't see any problem with this. If the first thread was locked because it went off-topic, making another thread that's on-topic seems like a good idea as opposed to keeping everything in a single thread with multiple people answering their own interpretation of what they think OP is talking about. I think Rules Discussions should have similar "Rejected", "Answered", "Applied", etc. prefixes, but at the same time having the existing "JB", "TTT", and other prefixes are important as well so the appropriate ATs can easily see what threads they need to read. It's an unfortunate limitation that only one prefix can be applied at a time - hopefully the new forums can fix this since I think this suggestion of adding the Suggestions Box prefixes to Rules Discussion threads is really good.

Considering this gamemode can be played without Ts ever saying a single word, I don't really see how this command can be abused, especially if we add a limit as to how many times the command can be used per round as well as a minimum number of Ts online before the command can be used. If it affects all Ts, it seems difficult to harass someone, especially if it's only once per round. When the server is more than halfway full Ts continue talking to the point where it's impossible to give orders. It takes time to find the T in the stack, shoot them once, and then continue on to the next T. !offmic offers a way to cut through the silence for a short period of time so that an order can be given. I really don't find it much more different than !fo so that a CT can give a single order instead of 3 CTs fighting to give an order at the same time.

We're reviewing and discussing this for JB, but this suggestion is applicable to other servers (MG) so feel free to discuss as well for other servers. cc: @Im Sad

As mentioned by @Gentoo, several CT orders rely on you being able to see your other teammates ("line up shoulder to shoulder", "no stacking", "jump and form a tower", etc.). Taking away a key element of CS:GO seems counter-productive for JB and adds to confusion as mentioned above.

Our current ruleset doesn't support this and leaves it to the CT to decide whether or not to kill them. If people had morals, sure, they should always try to give the T a chance to drop the gun. But you also need to realize there's a flip side of the coin to Ts getting gunplanted: some Ts also try to stand near people who have guns so they can pick them up after death. Forcing CTs to give a T a few moments to drop the primary gives the T a window to shoot other CTs. There is no good way around this problem unfortunately.

Yeah, that's what I meant originally - definitely should be optional. +1

I agree with this to an extent. We're always going to have a watch the whole video regardless of whether or not timestamps are included to get an idea of the context leading up to a rule being broken. Timestamps are useful to see what the player wants the admin to know, but I worry that adding another barrier to a player complaint being submitted besides spending 0.5-1 hour editing/uploading a video, filling in the form, etc. will discourage players from reporting a single player. However, it would be useful to have the player say "by the way there's nothing past X time" like you mentioned. That would save me a lot of time instead of watching a 2 minute portion of a video, not noticing the guy disconnected, and watching the rest of the 8 minutes waiting for something to happen . It may be useful to suggest the user to include timestamps by including a "Timestamps" field to gently remind the user that that's something that can be included.

We don't need a rule for everything... if "Player A(1)" joins the server where another player by the name of "Player A" is on the server, it's expected that whoever joined last changes their name. There's no issue here IMHO because it'll be clear when "Player A(1)" joins the server that they need to change their name. They shouldn't wait to change their name until they're KOS.

This has been discussed multiple times over the span of SG's history here, here, here, here, here, and here. Every time it's been rejected because of the potential for players to abuse it, regardless of the minimum number of players or minimum playtime set. I don't think it's a good idea at this time considering this possibility of abuse.

@TheZZL @delirium @Poke @Spooked Thanks for your passionate posts and opinions boys - I'll bring this thread to the team to discuss. My personal opinion would be that an admin would have to step in at that point under our current ruleset. I'll make sure some discussion is made around making a rule, or allowing CTs to warning shot, then kill Ts who are delaying (reasonably).