No freeday in !fo

[Phoenix_]

So I thought this was pretty much a common sense thing, but I suppose this needs to be discussed after me seeing this several times. This isn't a major issue, but it still should be discussed I guess.

 

Would it be considered still giving a freeday in !fo if the CT says "All Ts freeze, once !fo ends have a freeday" wouldn't it just be skirting around the rule? I feel like this kind of cheeses the rule and shouldn't be allowed.

[TheZZL]

This is really just the CT letting the server know what their intentions are with the next order. They’re still giving an order, so it still follows the rules. However I understand the frustration to have to wait out a shitty order so that the cts freeday giving fetish can be satisfied, uuuuntil it gets revoked.

[Lokibelowkey]

I think a better change to the rule is that cts cant call a freeday until 3:00, there is no really good reason why a freeday should be given until late in the round.

[Phoenix_]

I think a better change to the rule is that cts cant call a freeday until 3:00, there is no really good reason why a freeday should be given until late in the round.

 

I could actually agree with this. I think this would be a solid change, maybe make an exception of the first day and for when ratio is worse than 2:3?

[Dominic]

Just gonna throw my thoughts out on the rule change portion. I think the situation explained in the OP is fine because the change was made because CTs didn't have the ability to revoke the freedays, but at that point they would. In terms of changing it to a round time though:

 

I think we should avoid / move away from utilizing round times or number of Ts in the wordings of our rules. We used it where it was needed, mostly for death-games. Besides that though, using those two things in rules will become such a headache when someone is trying to learn the rules. Multiple different times for different rules or different numbers of Ts for different things would make our already large list of rules even more difficult to learn, in my opinion.

[Gentoo]

Just gonna throw my thoughts out on the rule change portion. I think the situation explained in the OP is fine because the change was made because CTs didn't have the ability to revoke the freedays, but at that point they would. In terms of changing it to a round time though:

 

I think we should avoid / move away from utilizing round times or number of Ts in the wordings of our rules. We used it where it was needed, mostly for death-games. Besides that though, using those two things in rules will become such a headache when someone is trying to learn the rules. Multiple different times for different rules or different numbers of Ts for different things would make our already large list of rules even more difficult to learn, in my opinion.

 

Not to derail, but I'm glad you guys have this in mind. Every time someone started a deathgame after the rule change people would whine and cite different versions of the rule (which was not updated in !rules at the time) and I would have to dig up the changelog and explain when it was changed and whether what they were doing was allowed.

 

I guess you can't expect a bunch of 8 year olds on summer break to be too good with numbers

[Phoenix_]

Just gonna throw my thoughts out on the rule change portion. I think the situation explained in the OP is fine because the change was made because CTs didn't have the ability to revoke the freedays, but at that point they would. In terms of changing it to a round time though:

 

I think we should avoid / move away from utilizing round times or number of Ts in the wordings of our rules. We used it where it was needed, mostly for death-games. Besides that though, using those two things in rules will become such a headache when someone is trying to learn the rules. Multiple different times for different rules or different numbers of Ts for different things would make our already large list of rules even more difficult to learn, in my opinion.

 

I really didn't take this into consideration when adding onto Loki's suggestion. My mindset was that if that small change was made, it would possibly help force CTs to give actual orders more. Personally, when I rebel from actual orders it feels much more rewarding than just running into a secret scott-free on a freeday and I'm sure most players can share this sentiment.

 

Just quickly skimming through the rules and info of our servers, it's apparent to anyone that JB has the highest learning curve as far as rules go, and nitpicky rules like this would just add more confusion, so good point. Besides the mental reward factor, I just notice when orders such as the one I mentioned in the OP, as soon as !fo ends, generally multiple CTs will all revoke the freeday and try to give their own orders, and just cause more confusion, so I thought this could be a small quality of life sort of thing.

[GG EZ]

It is still against the rules due to the fact that you are still giving a freeday order while first order is active. As it says in the rules "CTs cannot give freedays while !fo is active"

 

 

But maybe the rules can be reworded from:

• CTs cannot give freedays while !fo is active, this includes the person who takes First Order.

 

to something like:

 

• CTs cannot give orders for freeday(s) when !fo is active, this includes the person who takes First Order.

 

This way it's more clear to players that you can't give any orders for a freeday even when a player says "All Ts freeze, once !fo ends have a freeday"

[Manny]

Like Dom mentioned earlier, the reason we implemented the "no freeday while !fo", is due to it's conflicting nature with our rule that "freedays can be revoked at any time."

 

There's really no need for any sort of re-wording or rule change. Just reading through some of the responses, and it seems like you guys want to change something for practically nothing. It seems like you all even want to make it way harder for the CTs to maintain control, because the way I see it, if a CT gives an order like "after fo i'll give a freeday" this only helps the CTs because they can have time to prepare to revoke the order. While, if we were to push out a rule change to fix the problem stated in the OP, then what'll most likely happen is, someone takes !fo and gives their order, then immediately one 4:30 hits, they give a freeday and the CTs aren't prepared nor ready or capable to revoke it and maintain order. I'd rather have the CTs be foward with each other and their intent on the next orders they intend to give, as opposed pushing out orders at random, which often lead to mass confusion and conflicting.

 

The way this thread is going, I can't see any need for any rule amending, because the current rule fulfills it's purpose to the best of it's nature along with the reasons mentioned above. I'll let the discussion to continue, if there is more to be said, but right now you'd have to bring up some good points with actual examples to sway my opinion in a different direction.

[GG EZ]

It’s not like that though. When someone is taking !fo and planning to give a freeday they just say, “(random incell or near incell order) and then after fo I’ll give a freeday.” The example you gave Is still the person giving the freeday as an order and isn’t allowed. They’ll be told to check the rules and eventually find out, but I guess your change can still help to clarify some things.

 

what phoenix wrote and what you wrote are two different things, his is an actual order for a freeday while yours is just that they are GOING to give a order to have a freeday and have not actually given the order to have a freeday yet.