When the order "Crouch walk to x location" should no jumping already be implied? 24 members have voted

[Four]

Previously this was a discussion so I figured I'd make a poll on this topic to get an overall view on if the community feels this should be implied or specified. There were back and fourth arguments that had valid points on each end.

 

My stance on why "no jumping" should be implied.

When a CT orders to Ts to crouch/shift walk to a location "no jumping" should already be implied.

- Often times I see Ts basically trying to find anyway they can to somehow go against the CTs orders without any consequences. When the CTs give the order "All Ts crouch walk to pool be in water" the no jumping real should be applied so Ts don't complain about being freeshot because they jumped. I understand there are the regulars that like to jump to see if they will get freeshot, then ask to go to medic, etc. Which gets irritating always remembering to say "no jumping" after every single order when typically they shouldn't be jumping in the first place.

TL;DR - No jumping should be implied when giving the order "crouch/shift walk to a location"

 

here is a reason why it shouldn't be added

Order is to crouch to pool. You jump while remaining crouched, you're still crouched. That's my point. The original stance years ago was that when you jumped, you weren't crouching. I begged to differ and changed the stance, which I still stand behind. If they uncrouch while jumping, yeah go ahead and shoot them.

 

I say just tack on "no jumping" because IMO if they remained crouched while jumping, the order is still being fulfilled. Which is what this ultimately boils down to. Whether or not you believe that staying crouched while jumping is fulfilling the "crouch" part of the order. Which I do, and that's currently how the rule still stands.

 

If you take part in the poll please post in the thread giving reasoning for your answer.

[asdfg]

Going to just say the exact same thing as last time. It depends on the wording of the order.

 

If the CT says 'All Ts Crouch to pool", then no jumping wouldn't be implied because you can jump and still be crouched.

 

If the order is "All Ts crouch walk to pool" then it would be implied because if you jump, you are no longer walking.

 

It's quite simple to be honest, no need to over complicate this.

[Dominic]

Voting no because there's no reason to add another rule about this, it's easy to add a few words on to your order.

[WavY]

Although I did think that it should be implied into the rules, I think now there's no reason to even consider adding it at this point because if they uncrouch while jumping shoot them and if they keep jumping and fall behind everyone I'd give them a warning shot for delaying. (correct me if im wrong on the second part)

[Minus]

No. Less rules, less grey areas, less conflict. Not nearly on a level of gameplay importance as compared to no detours or delays. If a CT doesn't say no jumping, at least it's a little more fun than crouch walking everywhere as per PB norm.

 

I mean, there's nothing wrong with T's pushing boundaries, that's what they're supposed to do. Slapping a rule every time something minor shows up just seems tedious.

[slalom]

I think it shouldn't be implied. In my opinion, it's just a small thing, the more rules added, the more grey areas would be created, for new players. I don't mind if it's added anyway.

[Halo]

Why add another rule? All you have to say is no crouching. Why add a whole other rule just to not say two words?

[Poobah]

Wasn't there a thread that was identical to this one in which we all commented on, and now we are all just saying the same thing again but on this thread... hello?

[Four]

Wasn't there a thread that was identical to this one in which we all commented on, and now we are all just saying the same thing again but on this thread... hello?

Not necessarily, some of the members wanted a poll so I decided to make another thread with a poll added but I guess the members that were all for having this rule implemented had a change of thought in the last few days.

[All Ts]

Going to quote some of the posts from last thread because I'm genuinely confused why after the ENTIRE discussion on the last thread why you felt the need to post about it again.

 

The whole arguement about crouching & no jumping being implied is really petty. It's so petty that we literally couldn't know whether it would hurt or help more without implementing it. It literally feels like a fix that has nothing to do with quality of life and much more to do with people bitching. The simple fact is people are going to bitch no matter what, they will find a reason-any reason.

 

Leave it the way it is and they'll constantly bitch that they didn't hear the order.

Change it and people will post 25 threads a month and bitch at eachother on the server.

 

Honestly makes very little difference.

 

 

This really isn't an issue either way. There are technicalities to it that aren't really that important. 'Why should I have to say no jumping?' is just as easily countered by 'why do you need them not to jump?' or 'why can't I jump when I'm still crouching?'. If you do REALLY need them to not jump as you're checking weapons etc, then say no jumping. It's simple to follow and is the way the rules currently stand. Even if the rules do change - which isn't really that necessary or important on this matter either way as long as the rule itself is distinct - the other way would be just as easy to follow.

 

I apologize for the formatting, Tapatalk doesn't like to register forumtags consistently.

 

 

"Do you think when a CT gives the order "All Ts crouch walk to pool" no jumping should be implied? If not, explain."

 

No, tell them not to jump, if they do, warning shot, if they do it again, kill. Easy.

 

"If Ts are AFK longer than thirty seconds into the round should you be able to kill them? if not, explain."

 

If they aren't following orders, you punish them. No rule needed.

 

"Should CTs be able to force Ts to throw their grenades away from all other CTs? if not, explain."

 

CT's have always been able to tell a prisoner to drop a grenade.

 

"Long LRS."

 

Obvious round delay is obvious. Don't be a dick to the dead.

 

"Warning shots"

 

If you warning shoot someone, and they still don't follow the order, you can kill them. Anyone that calls freekill just because of "I only got one warning shot" is wrong. Bare in mind that it does NOT mean you MUST kill after the first warning shot. I usually give a T two warning shots for not obeying, then take them down.

 

Also, if I catch anyone freekilling with the excuse of "I warning shot him 2 minutes ago", stand by for punishment.

 

I'm also aware of the issue with multiple CTs giving a warning shot at once, sometimes resulting in an unintentional kill. Shit happens. If you were the CT, you do have the option to slay and apologize if you wish to do so. However it is not required.

 

 

 

 

Sent from Tapatalk

 

@Bubblez the primary reason why it was decided a few years back that no jumping would be implied was that the people in charge at the time felt that when you jumped, you were no longer fulfilling the order to crouch. That by jumping, you no longer were crouching. I personally disagree with that, and as such made it that CTs needed to specify that you didn't want them to jump.

 

I still think that that is the correct route to go. It's much easier for a CT to add "no jumping" than it is for a T to assume they can't jump. When a new person to our server joins, how are they supposed to know that they can't jump? Far as they're concerned they are still crouching as told.

 

And really it boils down to a simple, who the fuck cares? Really, the fact this is being discussed again is silly. Firstly, I hate the order to crouch somewhere that isn't a short distance (such as crouch from medic to ISO on razor which is a short way), but ultimately why as a CT should you care if a T is jumping while crouching there? It's not like he's full on sprinting there. And if you order them to crouch there so you can check for weapons or whatever, then just say don't jump. But the act of jumping while being told to crouch somewhere is such a small thing that it shouldn't matter. Adding "no jumping" to the end of your order is a matter of speaking 3 more syllables.

 

I've yet to hear a valid reason why no jumping should be implied other than people thinking that jumping is no longer fulfilling the crouch walk order, which I disagree with. As a CT you should be as clear as possible with your orders. Tacking on "no jumping" is easier for everyone to understand rather than just assuming or implying it.

 

2 Previous AO's and one current AO who all ran or run PB currently disagree with the change.

 

It's so unneeded & so small. Make it implied you have another rule people have to learn when they join. Keep the way it is and is you have people bitch that they didn't hear the orders. Our admins can barely follow along with the rules, our players can barely listen.

 

I don't understand after so many people being adamantly against it in reason & numbers last thread why you had to go & make a new thread.

 

Paging @Jake so he can tell you no again- since the first time was clearly not good enough.