Jail Break Rule Discussion/Suggestions/Comments

[Banana Joe]

That kind of contradicts SG PB's whole atmosphere tho (The whole warning shots and no forced deathgames etc etc) dont it ?

I've always played like "If it doesnt dmg you, its fine" maybe warning shoot them once if they were extremely obviously tryin to end your life

 

Idk about you, but it seems kinda dumb to me I can't shoot someone who is obviously trying to possibly kill me, which was the same reason I was given back whenever it was.

[Goku]

Idk about you, but it seems kinda dumb to me I can't shoot someone who is obviously trying to possibly kill me, which was the same reason I was given back whenever it was.

 

How can you know their intent tho? For example I love throwing a nade near a CT where I know it won't hurt them, but will still sometimes scare them.

[Ayjin]

How can you know their intent tho? For example I love throwing a nade near a CT where I know it won't hurt them, but will still sometimes scare them.

 

You're just playing with boundaries at that point, kinda like on a restricted free day like freeday no past first, and you cross it like one step just to play with them, you're directly breaking the order given and technically blatantly rebelling due to breaking the only order given.

[Lupin]

The T should be killable if they throw a nade in your vicinity. It might not do any damage but you know their intention was to try and hit you with it and do damage to you. Same thing withe the knife part. You know they are trying to kill you if they throw a knife swing out even if they missed. That's their fault for being bad and dumb. Imagine if the gun KOS thing wasn't a rule and someone was shooting at a ct but misses every single shot. He shouln't be pardoned for being bad. You know that their intention was to kill you with than gun but they fucked up. Also if the t doesn't want to die for throwing the nade then they should think about where they should throw it or ask " hey I got a nade can I throw it at pool to get rid of it?"

[Goku]

You're just playing with boundaries at that point, kinda like on a restricted free day like freeday no past first, and you cross it like one step just to play with them, you're directly breaking the order given and technically blatantly rebelling due to breaking the only order given.

 

I believe we have different understandings of the term blatantly rebelling. If I'm one step past first cell, then I'm not exactly following orders. To me blatantly rebelling is when I'm actively attempting to kill you. Example being going into a vent or armory. Blatantly rebelling would mean you are able to kill me. There's no reason to kill me for being one step past first cell as I'm not an immediate threat to your life. That's the biggest thing here when it comes to warning shots and killing Ts. If I throw a grenade that doesn't harm you, I am not a threat to your life given that you still have 100 health, and I'm now out of a grenade. I can maybe understand a warning shot, but not a kill.

[Lupin]

I believe we have different understandings of the term blatantly rebelling. If I'm one step past first cell, then I'm not exactly following orders. To me blatantly rebelling is when I'm actively attempting to kill you. Example being going into a vent or armory. Blatantly rebelling would mean you are able to kill me. There's no reason to kill me for being one step past first cell as I'm not an immediate threat to your life. That's the biggest thing here when it comes to warning shots and killing Ts. If I throw a grenade that doesn't harm you, I am not a threat to your life given that you still have 100 health, and I'm now out of a grenade. I can maybe understand a warning shot, but not a kill.

 

Blatantly rebelling should be when a t goes to pool when orders were pool or big cage or if they grab the pistol on top fountain or the glock in sauna when they should be going to cage. If a t is past first cell by a step, yeah, warning shot them, it if they're like in soccer they're going to get killed because of how far they went past first.

 

Your definition of what blatant rebelling is is just what regular rebelling is in general. The word blatant means they are obviously trying to or are rebelling. With the first cell example. One step past it doesn't mean that they are trying to rebel. Maybe they didn't know they were past it or just trying to be a smartass. However if someone runs to like kitchen or soccer or like sauna, it's obvious you know what their intention is. They're trying to not follow the rules and find a gun to rebel with

[Nuclear Onion]

Bump but I'd like to hear a clarification on this, as I remember (a long time ago) a higher up telling me the opposite. Did we change our stance on this, or? IMO it'd be logical that if a T attempts to throw a nade or tries to knife you, that'd make them killable.

 

@Banana Joe

 

Sorry for the very slow response, wrote about three response drafts on my phone only to get rekt with them not getting saved. This is probably very poorly written since I've had to rethink what I said a few times.

 

Anyways, I gotta say that I totally get the logical standpoint behind this. I do understand that getting a grenade thrown at you/someone knifing close to you sounds like you have the right to kill them.

 

My opinion is this rule needs to be simple, or else it's very abusable for loopholes and flat out taking advantage of the rule. You will have CTs killing Ts for knifing mid distance saying they felt "the T had an intention to knife." You will also have Ts screaming every time they get killed this way saying they didn't mean to knife or they 'misclicked.' Pretty much the same situations can be brought up with grenades.

 

Another thing, let's say a CT kills a T for one of these mishaps. An admin decides to slay them for free killing, but the confused CT doesn't like the slay since he felt endangered because the nade was too close in their opinion. There's nothing in logs that proves the player had the right to kill them or not. By how the rule is now, you can check the damage logs easily and see if a CT got hurt by the knife or grenade, then the problem is quickly solved then and there.

 

In the end, I feel like changing the rule will do more bad than good. It's been like this since my time here at the least, I definitely remember it being enforced a lot in my days.

[Ayjin]

@Nuclear Onion, just because it's happened multiple times, I'm going to bring it up. It's been in the case of LR'S and whether or not we can force them. There's been plenty of times where there's been 1 player in the first of the round, when nobody has spawned in, and throughout the game, who's LR is to have, say a freeday for the rest of the round or quote on quote "waste the rest of the round". I think we should be able to kill the T trying to delay seeing as CT'S get punished if they delay. Overall the people do it just try to get everyone mad, so they can get their own share of people raging at them, because they enjoy overall being a troll and an annoyance. I just think if their LR isn't something that will end the round so the next one can begin, we can kill them. Now I understand that this may bring up the question, so what if a CT gives LR'S when there's still 5+ T's left? That's simple, either add a limit or use An admin's discretion by punishing said player for making an excuse just to kill them or if the T doesn't want a LR just to be able to kill him so everyone enjoys the next round.

[Nuclear Onion]

If this is a repeating situation, then I'd slay this guy, seeing as though he's just overall ruining the fun for others and could even make people leave just because they can't play. He clearly seems to know what he's doing is just trolling others.

 

Also me changing the grace time later should fix this problem for the future.

[Ayjin]

It'll change the first round problem, but not the ones where they ask it. There's a specific guy named Hunter who does it every time, there's also many other players.