MS6: Timed LR orders and refusing LR

[aelius]

6) "LR in the next 15 seconds. I'm not going to accept your LR, but LR in 15 seconds."

 

My final situation makes my blood boil every time it happens. A CT tells the remaining prisoners to freeze and LR in a very short amount of time, then either the CT or other CTs deny the LRs, and they kill the prisoners after the assigned time passes. This is just a KOS order. That's all it is. A CT is telling a T to complete an action by a certain time when they need the CTs approval to complete the action, the CT prevents the T from doing it, and then kills the T. This is the same as telling prisoners to rush to big cage when cell doors are shut and then killing them for it. I've scoured the Rules page, the changelog, and question posts to see if there is a rule for this, but again there isn't one. This needs to be stopped, because it is never, ever dealt with. Epic Bosses give the excuse of "I set a time to LR by", and the whole freekill is forgot about. The rule I propose is "A CT cannot deny a standard LR if an 'LR by' timed order is given."

 

TL;DR: Denying given LRs when an "LR by" order is given, then killing the T for it. Rule: A CT cannot deny a standard LR if an 'LR by' timed order is given.

[Auto]

6) "LR in the next 15 seconds. I'm not going to accept your LR, but LR in 15 seconds."

 

My final situation makes my blood boil every time it happens. A CT tells the remaining prisoners to freeze and LR in a very short amount of time, then either the CT or other CTs deny the LRs, and they kill the prisoners after the assigned time passes. This is just a KOS order. That's all it is. A CT is telling a T to complete an action by a certain time when they need the CTs approval to complete the action, the CT prevents the T from doing it, and then kills the T. This is the same as telling prisoners to rush to big cage when cell doors are shut and then killing them for it. I've scoured the Rules page, the changelog, and question posts to see if there is a rule for this, but again there isn't one. This needs to be stopped, because it is never, ever dealt with. Epic Bosses give the excuse of "I set a time to LR by", and the whole freekill is forgot about. The rule I propose is "A CT cannot deny a standard LR if an 'LR by' timed order is given."

 

TL;DR: Denying given LRs when an "LR by" order is given, then killing the T for it. Rule: A CT cannot deny a standard LR if an 'LR by' timed order is given.

 

This is not needed so badly since if a t requests an LR and the ct denied the lr the ct(s) can't shoot them because most cts say "SEND an lr by 15 seconds" not "BE in an lr by 15 seconds" so they can't shoot them since they did do the order in a way. This will give the ts time to send a lr to every ct and not get killed while doing so.

[urpalerp]

Cts aren’t allowed to kill a t for actively trying to lr because if they are told to lr and a ct doesn’t accept it, then it is out of the hands of the t and they can do nothing about it. I do also believe there was a post made somewhere stating that a ct can’t kill a t as long as they are trying to lr.

[Trazz]

If a CT gives the order to LR and the T sends it within reasonable time or between the time given, the CT cannot harm the T as they have followed the order to the best of their ability.

 

Even if the player ends up not sending the LR they still need to be warning shot.

[delirium]

Imagine making 6 different threads that are already mostly covered by our existing rules and blowing them out of proportion. It's cool to vent but please don't waste our time making suggestions for things that we already have rules to deal with. I know you know how to record a video so please do us a favor next time and just submit a player complaint for people breaking the rules instead of writing your PhD essay on how to go out of your own way to handle undesirable behaviour when the rules already exist for a large percentage of your issues.

[Dom]

if your LR is declined you cant be warning shot for it. ive seen this enforced all the time. CT's are absolutely allowed to deny LRs. if you send gun toss and the CT doesnt like gun toss (or its broken like rn) then they shouldnt be forced to accept the lr. you should be told to re-LR and either send it to someone else or choose a different LR, if it happens to be past the original time you cant be shot for it as long as it was declined. this is a bad idea in my opinion.

[aelius]

@idealist imagine not wanting to clutter forums and make 6 threads so you keep everything in 1 thread, but admins tell you to separate it into multiple threads so that people can have discussion, just for another admin to start bitching at you for doing exactly what two admins told you to do. Bonus imagine: the admin that bitches at you illustrates your point like a Picasso painting while continuing to bitch. You said,

writing your PhD essay on how to go out of your own way to handle undesirable behaviour when the rules already exist for a large percentage of your issues.

handle undesirable behaviour when the rules already exist for a large percentage of your issues.

the rules already exist for a large percentage of your issues

 

Well if the rules already exist, for a large percentage of my issues, as I have said, word for word in other posts, why not just put them in the Rules page?

That's pretty much half of my argument right there! Thank you for saying it for me so eloquently! The rules exist. So why don't you do what you should do with rules, and just put them in the rules section?

 

being totally honest here, I want to drop something I hope isn't a reality check. If you're not a regular, you don't give a fuck about the forums. Even if you are a regular on a server, you still might not have a forums account. Now if you don't have a forums account, then why on EARTH would you care to go look at some random year old Rules Discussion forum link another player sends you when they say you're breaking the rules? If it's not on the rules page, they're not going to read it. What's the harm in a few extra lines of text if, whether they're inside the Rules page or not, they're still going to be treated as rules?

 

I promise you, your playerbase isn't dumb. They can read. So give them the rules to read, in the post that is literally titled "Rules and FAQ". If they can find the rules where they expect them to be, they will follow them.

[TheZZL]

I promise you, your playerbase isn't dumb. They can read. So give them the rules to read, in the post that is literally titled "Rules and FAQ". If they can find the rules where they expect them to be, they will follow them.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say when you say "rules page" you mean the in-game !rules. I wouldn't mind adding a mini version !faq for those players who are actually interested.

[Dom]

@idealist imagine not wanting to clutter forums and make 6 threads so you keep everything in 1 thread, but admins tell you to separate it into multiple threads so that people can have discussion, just for another admin to start bitching at you for doing exactly what two admins told you to do. Bonus imagine: the admin that bitches at you illustrates your point like a Picasso painting while continuing to bitch. You said,

Well if the rules already exist, for a large percentage of my issues, as I have said, word for word in other posts, why not just put them in the Rules page?

That's pretty much half of my argument right there! Thank you for saying it for me so eloquently! The rules exist. So why don't you do what you should do with rules, and just put them in the rules section?

 

being totally honest here, I want to drop something I hope isn't a reality check. If you're not a regular, you don't give a fuck about the forums. Even if you are a regular on a server, you still might not have a forums account. Now if you don't have a forums account, then why on EARTH would you care to go look at some random year old Rules Discussion forum link another player sends you when they say you're breaking the rules? If it's not on the rules page, they're not going to read it. What's the harm in a few extra lines of text if, whether they're inside the Rules page or not, they're still going to be treated as rules?

 

I promise you, your playerbase isn't dumb. They can read. So give them the rules to read, in the post that is literally titled "Rules and FAQ". If they can find the rules where they expect them to be, they will follow them.

 

two words. new. forums.

the new forums will revolutionize SG. people will be lining up to make forums accounts and reading all kinds of threads including the brand new rules section. just you wait, its all coming soon!

[GG EZ]

I promise you, your playerbase isn't dumb. They can read. So give them the rules to read, in the post that is literally titled "Rules and FAQ". If they can find the rules where they expect them to be, they will follow them.

 

Most of these rule discussions are covered in a way to where it's mostly up to general admin/player discretion rather than having a straight up rule on what to do. This so that players dont have to be restricted to certain things and have to do things in a certain way and can be creative and make things more fun.

 

 

 

two words. new. forums.

the new forums will revolutionize SG. people will be lining up to make forums accounts and reading all kinds of threads including the brand new rules section. just you wait, its all coming soon!

 

SPOILER ALERT: That's not how that works, some websites have amazing designs but don't have people just constantly flooding in just to see the forum design