More In-Depth Rule Clarification on Vents Needed.

[Goku]

okay so what if that assumption actually happened and iwasnt the one who ran into vent to get deag. then what i was freekilled on assumption

 

You're entire argument is based off of what ifs that have a .00001 chance of happening. You were not killed on assumption. You were killed for going through the vent, which Turko figured out by putting two and two together. Like I said, what we have here with you is a case of poor rebelling, and you being upset you were busted.

 

You also don't understand the extreme sarcasm in my post you quoted. The situation I posted is very far fetched and won't happen. There is no physical way that a T had time to run down to the vent (since I don't think you ever spawn on the bottom floor of VIP, it's always the second floor), go through it, grab the deagle, go back through the vent, drop the deagle, then go back through the vent and into pool before a CT had time to leave armory. It was not free kill. It was using common sense and actually thinking.

 

Edit: And just for the sake of playing along with this highly unlikely scenario, admin logs show who picked up a gun. So if you hadn't gone through vent and someone else threw you the deagle, we could have checked the logs and handled it accordingly.

[ExRev]

Edit: And just for the sake of playing along with this highly unlikely scenario, admin logs show who picked up a gun. So if you hadn't gone through vent and someone else threw you the deagle, we could have checked the logs and handled it accordingly.

 

Ok, but non admins don't have those logs. And again, how hard is it to just tell them to drop the pistol and let them actively rebel? You didn't actually see them go into the vent, regardless of whether or not they have the damn gun, so all you have is that they have the gun.

[Goku]

Ok, but non admins don't have those logs.

 

You're missing the main point. Firstly, the situation is too far fetched to ever happen, and the logs are there to solve any problems if needed if it were to actually happen (that's a bigger if than I can even imagine). I mention the logs because they could have been used in his situation since an admin was on. And in an extreme case, they could be accessed by a higher up.

 

And again, how hard is it to just tell them to drop the pistol and let them actively rebel? You didn't actually see them go into the vent, regardless of whether or not they have the damn gun, so all you have is that they have the gun.

 

He could have just asked him to drop the deagle. That's one option. But he didn't have to since simply thinking for longer than 5 seconds would allow you to know he left his cell before they were open.

 

Using critical thinking skills and piecing things together has always been allowed. There is a difference in using your mind, and assuming. Nothing was assumed here. The only way to get that deagle was to have taken the vent.

 

 

This entire discussion is so silly. The entire counter argument against the kill is "yeah but what if". Pardon me for not taking absurd hypotheticals very seriously as a counterpoint. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this same statement but, the only way he gets the deagle is to have left his cell via the vent. It's not assuming, it's using your brain.

[Lupin]

Don't see why we can't kill off assuming/deductive reasoning.

 

If a map has only 1 cell that has a nade/pistol and you see it getting shot/thrown, then you know it's that person that did it.

 

I feel like most of the time deductive reasoning should be used on T position rather than gun. If orders were pool and a random T runs out from soccer, then you know he used a teleporter to get there(Using razer as an example).

 

If you're not sure if the person used a vent/teleporter to get the pistol then just ask them to drop it. If they find a primary then they're dead either way.

[BlackWhite]

This entire discussion is so silly. The entire counter argument against the kill is "yeah but what if". Pardon me for not taking absurd hypotheticals very seriously as a counterpoint. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this same statement but, the only way he gets the deagle is to have left his cell via the vent. It's not assuming, it's using your brain.

 

 

Because this is based on situation, the argument using the "if" is appropriate in my opinion. I would say its ok to kill rabbit in his case but......

 

Lets say, there is 2 terrorist in a cell. Terrorist A decide to rebel, so he go through vent, pick the deagle and pass it to Terrorist B(which he could be afk behind the wall or just there.) after some shooting, then escape through vent. Ct without knowing there is 2 terrorist in that cell so they will use deductive reasoning and decide to kill his ass.

 

This is the situation why I say you need prove before killing a Terrorist in this case.

[Goku]

Because this is based on situation, the argument using the "if" is appropriate in my opinion. I would say its ok to kill rabbit in his case but......

 

Lets say, there is 2 terrorist in a cell. Terrorist A decide to rebel, so he go through vent, pick the deagle and pass it to Terrorist B(which he could be afk behind the wall or just there.) after some shooting, then escape through vent. Ct without knowing there is 2 terrorist in that cell so they will use deductive reasoning and decide to kill his ass.

 

This is the situation why I say you need prove before killing a Terrorist in this case.

 

Talked to both Rabbit and Michelle before this thread was made. The situation was exactly this:

 

The round started. Rabbit took the vent from VIP, went and got the deagle then returned to his cell. Turko left armory and went to get the deagle only to find it already taken. He saw Rabbit was the only T in VIP and that he had the deagle. He killed him for taking the vent to get the deagle.

 

There is no "what if" as there's no physical way that a second T had time to go down to the bottom floor, go through the vent and grab the deagle, return through the vent and drop it, then return through the vent and escape before Turko had time to leave armory and go check for the deagle.

 

Using deductive reasoning is allowed, and should continue to be allowed based on the situations. In this scenario I'm fine with the kill as, and I feel like a broken record at this point, there's no way Rabbit gets the deagle without taking the vent.

[Lupin]

Because this is based on situation, the argument using the "if" is appropriate in my opinion. I would say its ok to kill rabbit in his case but......

 

Lets say, there is 2 terrorist in a cell. Terrorist A decide to rebel, so he go through vent, pick the deagle and pass it to Terrorist B(which he could be afk behind the wall or just there.) after some shooting, then escape through vent. Ct without knowing there is 2 terrorist in that cell so they will use deductive reasoning and decide to kill his ass.

 

This is the situation why I say you need prove before killing a Terrorist in this case.

 

Then you tell them to drop the deagle instead of straight up killing him/her

[BlackWhite]

Using deductive reasoning is allowed, and should continue to be allowed based on the situations. In this scenario I'm fine with the kill as, and I feel like a broken record at this point, there's no way Rabbit gets the deagle without taking the vent.

 

I would say it is allow for rabbit's case if the cell weren't open. However, if the people in Pb know they can use "deductive reasoning" (they will entirely ignore the situation based part), you would just create another shitstorm with they kill people just because they have pistol.

 

"I heard some shooting from this part of area, i see one of them have a pistol so why can't i kill him."

 

Then you tell them to drop the deagle instead of straight up killing him/her

 

This is what i would want the CT to do. i don't want them to kill a terrorist that just happened to have a pistol after someone in his cell shoot, pass it to him and CT doesn't know about it. Having children not knowing what is not freekill and which part is kos area is enough headache already.

[ExRev]

Because this is based on situation, the argument using the "if" is appropriate in my opinion. I would say its ok to kill rabbit in his case but......

 

Lets say, there is 2 terrorist in a cell. Terrorist A decide to rebel, so he go through vent, pick the deagle and pass it to Terrorist B(which he could be afk behind the wall or just there.) after some shooting, then escape through vent. Ct without knowing there is 2 terrorist in that cell so they will use deductive reasoning and decide to kill his ass.

 

This is the situation why I say you need prove before killing a Terrorist in this case.

 

This is EXACTLY what I've been trying to say this entire time. Goku, you seem determined that if Terrorist A gets the gun he has to fully return to the cell to drop it for Terrorist B. He could easily throw it out, and B can easily pick it up from there.

[Lupin]

Holy shit. This really isn't that hard to comprehend. Use your fucking brain to comprehend the situation and decide whether or not it's correct to kill the person.