New Server Rules (Work in Progress)

[Midnightwolf_180]

You just argued against my post again after having argued against it already and me making another post.
Holy fuck.
this'll be the last post though

yes we did post at the same time but you have still yet to make a valid point. I genuinely do want to hear your opinion so that way we can make the server better, but this bickering isn't going to do that.

 

[SNC]

Alright, this is going nowhere. Please stop this pointless one-sided battle.

 

[Beastnode]

All of you, shut the fuck up.
Umbra's rules are better than most of you can do.
Don't shun his work.
Don't be a bitch. Listen to Umbra. He is correct. Fucking shut up, because Umbra knows what he's talking about. You badmins don't know shit. So all of you, fucking shut up, and vote yes, god dammit.

 

[masterplayer]

If their was a maybe vote I'll vote for that I'm still effy on these rules but that my opinion, good effort on these new rules tho :>

 

[Squirt]

I think these rules are necessary. To many people get freekilled because of rules not written down or of players/admins bickering over certain rules. Now with this, there is no leeway for the arguing.

 

[littleirishman]

There are ammo packs inside. They have infinite ammo and health, essentially. Blus run out of ammo. Boom.

The goal of something like this is simple. Get them out. How? Walk away, let them leave, and continue with the round. Just wait for them to come to you. If they don't, they get slayed for not actively rebelling. If they do, the blues should be prepared for it. Unless everyone rebelled, in which case there screwed anyway.

<opinion> Also, I don't think we need a new set of rules. There fine as is. If there's ever a problem, we can vote to get it changed, re-writing the rules is not needed, it causes people to re-memorize it, admins and players alike. I don't really know if anything needs to be changed drastically. They are good rules, but it's silly to add them </opinion>

 

[Umbra Vorago]

If their was a maybe vote I'll vote for that I'm still effy on these rules but that my opinion, good effort on these new rules tho :>

I was going to add a maybe option, but accidentally started the thread before adding the third option.

I think these rules are necessary. To many people get freekilled because of rules not written down or of players/admins bickering over certain rules. Now with this, there is no leeway for the arguing.

This, THIS is the point.

The goal of something like this is simple. Get them out. How? Walk away, let them leave, and continue with the round. Just wait for them to come to you. If they don't, they get slayed for not actively rebelling. If they do, the blues should be prepared for it. Unless everyone rebelled, in which case there screwed anyway.

<opinion> Also, I don't think we need a new set of rules. There fine as is. If there's ever a problem, we can vote to get it changed, re-writing the rules is not needed, it causes people to re-memorize it, admins and players alike. I don't really know if anything needs to be changed drastically. They are good rules, but it's silly to add them </opinion>

And I agree, the rules are fine how they are for the most part; But that's not the point of this. The point of this is writing down all rules that are unwritten and clarifying many major points. This isn't some drastic over-haul, these are the same rules that have always been enforced/played by the majority of people, but now written down so that there can be no more bickering about unclear rules.
I'm betting someone doesn't read this statement properly and goes "OMG U AGREE DEEZ RULEZ ARE NOT NEEDED!!1!!!!!11!" so I'm going to put it in very simple terms for others to understand;

This "new ruleset" is merely clarifying what many already know, with one or two needed additions.

 

[SNC]

The goal of something like this is simple. Get them out. How? Walk away, let them leave, and continue with the round. Just wait for them to come to you. If they don't, they get slayed for not actively rebelling. If they do, the blues should be prepared for it. Unless everyone rebelled, in which case there screwed anyway.

<opinion> Also, I don't think we need a new set of rules. There fine as is. If there's ever a problem, we can vote to get it changed, re-writing the rules is not needed, it causes people to re-memorize it, admins and players alike. I don't really know if anything needs to be changed drastically. They are good rules, but it's silly to add them </opinion>

The rules aren't being rewritten. More scenarios are being added. What's wrong with that? I'd also like to point out that if an admin isn't on and the reds aren't actively rebelling in armory, this can't happen.

 

[JackTheRipper]

Mind if we just start being a little constructive rather than debating? Debating can be constructive, but its a slower process.

Think of this more like voting a new admin in. And that Admin's name is "Redone Rules."
These redone rules have their criteria put forward, and instead of looking through it and evaluating each point, most of you are just either +1rep without even reading (like fanboys/girls) or are -1000rep just because you don't want things to change again after all the previous changes.


So lets start breaking this down to be constructive.

Name: Redone Rules
Applying for: Rule Position
Qualifications:

Pros: Cons:
Easier to read Lot more to read
Easier to understand
More Examples (few) New stuff to read and learn
More organization of categories

Overall: +support

Suggestions for changes/alterations:

1) Place numbers and letters to indicate sections for easier referencing. (something to help admins a little)
2) Could use Bold print to separate rules from examples (Helps make it easier to read)

 

[littleirishman]

The rules aren't being rewritten. More scenarios are being added. What's wrong with that? I'd also like to point out that if an admin isn't on and the reds aren't actively rebelling in armory, this can't happen.

Thus the need for active admins, not to play when there called upon, but to play when they can. to PREVENT stuff like this.

And I agree, the rules are fine how they are for the most part; But that's not the point of this. The point of this is writing down all rules that are unwritten and clarifying many major points. This isn't some drastic over-haul, these are the same rules that have always been enforced/played by the majority of people, but now written down so that there can be no more bickering about unclear rules.
I'm betting someone doesn't read this statement properly and goes "OMG U AGREE DEEZ RULEZ ARE NOT NEEDED!!1!!!!!11!" so I'm going to put it in very simple terms for others to understand;

This "new ruleset" is merely clarifying what many already know, with one or two needed additions.

Were talking on steam anyway so why bother answering here?

 

[SNC]

Thus the need for active admins, not to play when there called upon, but to play when they can. to PREVENT stuff like this.



Were talking on steam anyway so why bother answering here?

Unfortunately when duty calls and there aren't admins online, we must have some kind of protocol set in place for the blus to follow. It truly is unfortunate that we don't have all around the clock coverage for admins, so when this stuff approaches us, a proper protocol for non-admins needs to be in place.

 

[littleirishman]

Unfortunately when duty calls and there aren't admins online, we must have some kind of protocol set in place for the blus to follow. It truly is unfortunate that we don't have all around the clock coverage for admins, so when this stuff approaches us, a proper protocol for non-admins needs to be in place.

I understand that, and there is one. It's only as effective if they want to follow it, so why change little stuff and tip the scales in favor of rulesbreaking?

 

[Midnightwolf_180]

I understand that, and there is one. It's only as effective if they want to follow it, so why change little stuff and tip the scales in favor of rulesbreaking?

but these rules would not encourage rule breaking, in fact they are just helping to clarify the rules so that way rules can be easliy more understood and prevent rule breaking. This clarification is needed and greatly appreciated

 

[SNC]

I understand that, and there is one. It's only as effective if they want to follow it, so why change little stuff and tip the scales in favor of rulesbreaking?

Now it wouldn't be rule breaking if we had a rule for it?

 

[Zero1763]

Im gonna point out one thing that has always happens with rules
People will find loopholes and keep trying to get around it. Whether they don't like it or want to be a jerk. The best you can do is just work on the ones we have now, then start to add new ones.

 

[littleirishman]

Now it wouldn't be rule breaking if we had a rule for it?

We already do though...

And, I think the rules are clear. Which ones aren't clear to you guys?

 

[Midnightwolf_180]

Im gonna point out one thing that has always happens with rules
People will find loopholes and keep trying to get around it. Whether they don't like it or want to be a jerk. The best you can do is just work on the ones we have now, then start to add new ones.

Zero that's what this is, just merely a revision of the rules with a few more added .-.

 

[Umbra Vorago]

Im gonna point out one thing that has always happens with rules
People will find loopholes and keep trying to get around it. Whether they don't like it or want to be a jerk. The best you can do is just work on the ones we have now, then start to add new ones.

That's exactly what is being done....................................
We're working with the rules, making them clearer, and if someone wants to find a loophole, we add another rule in.
That is EXACTLY what this is. Yet you're still going to vote no and maintain this is bad and not needed?

I know I'm a smartass but please don't let personal feelings for me influence your decision.

We already do though...

And, I think the rules are clear. Which ones aren't clear to you guys?

No warden hogging.
Being able to restrict scouts double jumping/spies sapping.
Red medics healing count as AFK or not.
Can you pardon a RED who has shown ammo/killed a BLU.
Can you enter the armory as a BLU on Chretein, as it would not be re-entering technically due to not spawning in it.

All above are things people find loopholes around, and now can not due to it being solidly put in the rules.
Let's say YOU find this shit clear, other people do not, infact I would say that more people find it unclear than clear. So, what is the harm, in making it clear? Not changing anything, just clarifying?
Anyone who says they would rather the rules remain unclear to most than clear to the minority, rather than clear to ALL not allowing any more bitching and fighting, is beyond me.

HOW people could find this whole concept of clearing up shit so there's no more arguing a bad idea is baffling, mind boggling, perplexing, and any more number of words that express sheer confusion.

 

[littleirishman]

Zero that's what this is, just merely a revision of the rules with a few more added .-.

I think he means it would be easier just to make a seperate post for rules to be added

 

[Rei]

Some rules have not been "valuated" because they are already in use/being enforced/not in need of a valuation - or even simpler, just count those not added as "accepted" .
@Asu @Umbra Vorago This is a legitimate review/response to the rules and my opinions of it.

Letting everyone who voted NO to know this. The rules are completely fine, there's just some minor errors, and most of them are just the same rules we have now, just explained better with examples included.
If you vote NO because "We will have to re-read the rules" then please piss off.

When a BLU is within melee range of a RED, where the RED is not rebelling, or when a BLU is within a minigame whilst it is also occupied by REDs.
Consequence of baiting;
The baited RED may hit the baiting BLU without consequence provided they are continuing to follow the wardens orders. The baited RED must not chase after the BLU for baiting.
Examples;
If a RED is told to afk freeze in a particular location, and a BLU walks up to the AFK frozen RED, the RED is being baited and so can retaliate by hitting the BLU for as long as they are within melee range.
If a RED is told to go to a location, and a BLU is in the way, when the RED gets within melee range of the BLU he is able to hit the BLU for as long as he is being baited whilst he is still attempting to go to the location specified.

Pretty standard, nice with examples.
Agree

KOS (Kill on Sight)
When the Warden marks a RED as "KoS", the BLU players are to kill the marked RED whenever able.
Examples;
If the Warden tells a RED to AFK freeze and do not do so, that RED is rebelling against the Wardens orders that RED becomes KOS, so all BLU guards must attempt to kill the rebelling RED whenever possible.

Again, fair example - however guards are allowed to kill rebels even though they haven't been marked KOS - I don't feel like this scenario is explained in the example.

Shoulder to Shoulder
This means that the REDs must be close enough together that a BLU can not walk between them. If a BLU can walk between them, they are not counted as shoulder to shoulder.

Good to have a measurement for this, as different wardens tend to kill people for being "too spaced".

AFK Freeze / Freezing
Stop anything you are doing stand still.
Anything that nails you on one spot (partner taunts and regular taunts, excluding the Conga) is allowed aside from using any weapons, jumping or crouching.
You may look around, "freelook", or rotate on the spot.
Healing counts as AFK frozen as long as they don't stop for a moment then heal again.
Example;
If a RED is told to rush to an area, then told to AFK freeze whilst running to that area, they must stop running to their original destination, but may regular/partner taunt and freelook if they so desire.

"Stop anything you are doing stand still." missing a "," or whatever it's called. Easy to fix that.
Would be nice to specify that lethal taunts are not in the same category as regular taunts.

Rebelling/Rebels
A rebel is someone who is KOS. A RED can become a rebel in a number of ways.
Examples;
A RED that is not following Warden's orders or are attacking a non baiting BLU.
Any REDs who cross the security gate or trigger a beep from the security gate on Chretien.
If a RED enters in to armory they are instantly a rebel. (Exception is Hunger Games)
Showing ammunition, regardless of how it was acquired. This however does not apply to the Snipers bow, as he starts with a single arrow. Warden can restrict showing your bow however.
Drawing back the bow is a KOS, whether they fire the arrow or not.
Using secret exits or entrances of any kind, uncovering them however is not considered rebelling.
Sapping or attacking dispensers is equivalent to attacking a BLU, however dispensers also follow the same rules of baiting that BLU Guards do.

I like the secret exits or entrances one.

Using Jarate or airblasting as a Pyro also counts as freehitting and is not allowed.

Obviously this depends on the situation, I feel like that should be explained. Using airblast as a pyro to relocate a red that may be slower than anyone else for any reason I feel like also should be situational.
If someone is rebelling or running at you (without you being an obstruction), you are obviously allowed to use airblast and jarate at the spesific target.

Warden can not lie to kill
The Warden is not allowed to lie should that lie result in the death, or attempted death of a RED. Lying by saying "I'm a fairy princess in real life" is perfectly fine, because that would not impact the game in any way.
BLUs however are free to lie even if it results in the death of a RED, or even attempt to trick prisoners with fake orders.

I guess it's nice to actually have it in the rules.

The only exception is "Simon Says" which must be started with the following phrase;
"Simon says we are playing Simon Says, Simon says I am Simon."
Simon Says must also be ended with the phrase;
"Simon says we are no longer playing Simon Says, Simon says I am no longer Simon."

I don't know how I feel about this, it's pretty "obvious" that we're playing simon says if the warden says "We're playing simon says" and such.

This also means you can not enter secret passages that lead directly in to the armory. This includes vents

If you can get out of the vents without entering armory, it is not re-entering.

Dispenser Killfeed
When a RED destroys a BLU dispenser, it shows what weapon is used. If this weapon is a firearm, then that RED is KOS as proof has been given of ammunition.

Fair.

The 2 minute rule
This means that all minigames that do not already end on their own, such as fall game, or minigames that rely on patience to wait for a certain amount of REDs to die, such as Sweeper, REDs are to be given 2 minutes minimum to complete the minigame. This is useful for Obby or various Deathrun minigames for example.

I like this, however, fall game should not be included because on this server, fall game is to be stopped at minimum of 1-2 blocks, can't remember, the mini game does eventually "end" after a specific period of time, which does not go in the same category as sweeper, obby or deathrun. For minigames that actually are time consuming, like jeopardy (depending on how it's done) or theatre should also be excluded.

The three second "rule"
Less of a rule, but more common sense. All REDs have at least 3 seconds to comply with any given order, so you may not kill someone who is not crouch walking to a location immediately after giving the order. This however does not mean that they can do whatever they want during those 3 seconds, they must still be complying with wardens orders, the previous or the new. Use common sense, as this "rule" may not always apply. For example, being told to afk freeze when in melee range of the BLU they were told to follow, they must do it instantly, not after 3 seconds.
This is to allow those who lag a little, or didn't hear the Warden a chance, and stop people for not complying instantly after the orders are given getting killed.
As stated this "rule" is more common sense, so do not complain if you are killed because you "only got 2 seconds" instead.

This is "ok". Please don't kill people for being 1-2 seconds behind everyone else, there's literally no reason to kill someone who is doing the exact same thing everyone else is doing if they're not rebelling - however if this becomes a common thing where someone is constantly actually causing delay in the round then sure why not. This rule seems a bit "too strict" - But it's a nice guideline.

Time limits
The Warden may freely issue time limits to various sections of a minigame. These time limits may not be ridiculously short however.
Example;
"All REDs have 30 seconds to complete this next trap in Deathrun" is fine.
"All REDs have 1 second to complete this next trap in Deathrun" is not allowed.

A KOS RED is in a Minigame
BLUs may not intentionally kill the KOS RED with the minigame itself, such as using traps in Deathrun. BLUs may however allow the minigame itself to kill the RED if it was already active.
Example;
A rebel has run in to Fallgame to hide. You may not use Fallgame to intentionally kill the RED.
A rebel is in Fallgame with all the other REDs who were told to be in Fallgame. In this case you may allow the minigame to kill the RED itself by simply playing the game normally with the other REDs. Should the rebel survive the entire minigame, simply kill him upon exiting.
A rebel is running through Death Run. Do not intentionally activate traps to kill him.

Teamkilling BLU
BLU team may not kill eachother under any circumstance, unless it is for an LR.

Do NOT hold open armory door on purpose for REDs to enter
This is considered baiting and defeats the purpose of being a Guard. Holding the door open to kill a rebel is fine, just do not hold it open with the intention of luring or allowing REDs in.

All of this is already "being enforced" so I have no opinion on this other than that it's nice to have it specified in the rules.

MOD
No teleporting of REDs
You are not to teleport REDs unless they are stuck in an area they are unable to get out of without they themselves dying for certain, such as the "sacrifice door"

Respawning REDs
A RED can be respawned if he was freekilled in the current round or if it is a First day freeday and the cell doors have not been opened.
The RED must be immediately respawned and the BLUs must be informed prior to the respawn. BLUs do not need to be informed for First day Freeday respawns.

If the red group is far away from spawn, admins should be allowed to teleport the RED to the group.
Also, the "sacrifice door" rule only counts when it's one RED left and his only option for survival is being teleported, I feel like this needs more transparency even if it is being explained in another section of the rules.

A RED leaves an active minigame
Unless the Warden stated when the minigame shall be played until, or told the REDs specifically not to leave the Minigame, a RED is free to leave if he desires. It is up to the Warden to state when they will play until, or when they can leave.
Example:
If all REDs are playing 9 square, but they were not told to stay in the minigame or when they shall be playing until, such as "until 3 REDs" then should the opportunity arise, they may leave if they desire.

If the warden tells the REDs to play a minigame it's obvious that he means he wants them to play it until it's "finished" - completing the game, such as in obby.
I mean, it doesn't take much effort to do this - but still.

A RED is told to go to a location, but not told to stay there
If no order was given for the RED to remain in that area, he is free to leave upon reaching his destination.

No detours or delays has not been stated
On this server, this is NOT implied without the warden saying otherwise, so if it is not said, then REDs are free to move around as they wish. Therefore it is advised to always say at the start "no detours or delays applys to all of my orders."

Sending an already injured RED to start a minigame in which they may take damage
This is not allowed, and would be favoritism. The RED is allowed to refuse to play the minigame until he is healed back to full health.

All these rules are fine, however, if no detours or delays should be said to all of the wardens orders, you might as well make a rule that states that no detours or delays applies to all commands given.

Door Glitching
There are three different types of door glitching, two are an instant KOS offence, the other is not. The instantly KOS offence kind of door glitching include when a door closes with you stuck inside it on purpose, so you are completely unable to move, and to an extent avoid dying in the minigame. This is considered glitching the map, and you may be slain if a staff member sees you doing this.
The second type of KOS "door glitching" is by standing on a sliver of a ledge next to a door inside the minigame, once again avoiding death inside the minigame. This is an instant KOS/slayable offence.
However, door glitching by simply standing in the doorway not allowing the door to close, is NOT an instant KOS, unless the warden states otherwise.

I like the ledge one. Rest are obviously fine as well.

Cheating in minigames
Cheating in minigames is not allowed unless the Warden states otherwise. Examples of this are standing on top of dispensers, jumping on to the middle of the sweeper pole or hitting your opponents button in Jeapordy.

Or backtracking out of obby instantly and claim it's allowed because the warden never said when the game was over ? Just saying, that also counts as "cheating".
Play the game as how it's meant to be played is a very simple way to explain "no cheating in minigames".

Banned Minigames
The minigame is banned on all maps unless specified.
Crush Game (Hop) - Broken
Russian Roulette - Broken
Shock, Drop, and Roll (Map: Casuarina) Extremely difficult, very hard to leave once started.
All “hunter” games - Any games where the BLUs actively seek out to kill RED. Toxic on Chretien is allowed.
These restrictions are lifted for LR. The RED may choose to play any minigame.

"Race" on jhop is broken. I don't know why it's not banned.
Minigames on albany is incredibly hard and time consuming (f.ex. floor maze), and some you just have to be lucky or superhuman, AWP dodge's time limit form when the sniper pops up and til he shoots you is almost instant, and hard for people to react to. Almost all times this game is played, everyone just dies without even having the chance to move to the side, even if it's possible, it's the hardest minigame on the map in my opinion.

Final answer: Yes, why the fuck would you vote no?
The rules are fine and even includes some nice stuff we "enforce" but haven't put in the rules yet.
If you voted no, please consider to actually change your mind.
The rules literally an improved version of the ones we currently have.