Official Complaint Department Discussion Thread

[Darren 272]

1 hour ago, Smash said:

However it should be your job as an SO to decide whether they were leaving due to malicious intent or simply had something come up.

 

You can't exactly ask someone who's already gone, why they left. Like I already mentioned, unless they inform you then there's no way to tell if they left to evade the slay or not. If anything, the onus is on the player with the slay to make their intentions known, not on the admins to somehow divine a person's interior motivations.

 

1 hour ago, Smash said:

If you are going into a discussion with someone with the intent of simply changing their mind, and not even considering their side of the argument then you were indeed wasting your time. As you are the fool, not them. Don't always assume you and your way of thinking is right, especially in a position of power.

 

You make the very point that I was tersely making for @Rune. He shared an opinion - I happened to disagree with it and gave my point of view by providing an example of why disciplining RDM-and-leave is necessary lest we want regular players to RDM-and-leave every time they're about to get off. He restates his opinion (without addressing the aforementioned point) and gives a couple points of his own. I refute his point about giving deference to a player who wants to leave by making the argument you quoted me on. He replies with the frustrating "we have different opinions, and mine won't change" cop-out that immediately turns a decent discussion into a complete waste. What about any of that suggests that I wasn't considering his side? I was responding to his points before he shut the discussion down with his cop-out. Why should I continue to respond to someone who's not open to having their opinion challenged?

Edited January 10, 2017 by Darren

[Dakota 4722]

But they aren't evading a slay, they will still sit out a round regardless..

[Rune 2783]

2 hours ago, Darren said:

He replies with the frustrating "we have different opinions, and mine won't change" cop-out that immediately turns a decent discussion into a complete waste. What about any of that suggests that I wasn't considering his side? I was responding to his points before he shut the discussion down with his cop-out. Why should I continue to respond to someone who's not open to having their opinion challenged?

 

It would be meaningless to continue a discussion that's based on two opinions that differ when I've already said all that I can on the matter. The fact that you find that frustrating at all is kind of disappointing, but I suppose to each their own. I'm really not sure what more I would have wanted to say, thus my reaction. What more did you want to say?

[Darren 272]

40 minutes ago, Beerman said:

But they aren't evading a slay, they will still sit out a round regardless..

 

True, they will not be participating in that round regardless of whether they stay or not, but the point of a slay isn't simply to force a rule-breaking player to miss a round - it's to act as a deterrent to further RDM'ing by that player and by other players. Allowing players to skip-out on their slay would degrade the role that slays play, and I'd wager that the frequency of players RDM'ing right before they leave would increase if it were no longer a bannable offense. And I think that's the core reason why I agree with the rule. You can think of me as someone who nit-picks and uses an unfulfilled punishment as reason to flex my admin muscles by doling-out further punishment, but all I want is to reduce RDM. 

3 minutes ago, Rune said:

 

It would be meaningless to continue a discussion that's based on two opinions that differ when I've already said all that I can on the matter. The fact that you find that frustrating at all is kind of disappointing, but I suppose to each their own. I'm really not sure what more I would have wanted to say, thus my reaction. What more did you want to say?

 

The best discussions start when those involved have different opinions. It's by discovering why someone has an opinion contrary to your own that you can better understand why you have your opinion, or why it might be wrong. If you said all you wanted to say then I don't object to that, what I object to is the idea that you think a difference of opinion is where a discussion ends. Correct me if I misunderstood your post.

[Rune 2783]

27 minutes ago, Darren said:

The best discussions start when those involved have different opinions. It's by discovering why someone has an opinion contrary to your own that you can better understand why you have your opinion, or why it might be wrong. If you said all you wanted to say then I don't object to that, what I object to is the idea that you think a difference of opinion is where a discussion ends. Correct me if I misunderstood your post.

 

I'm actually really tired right now, so coherent thought isn't something I can really manage. None the less, I am apt to agree with you that the best discussions occur between differing opinions. Although, between the several posts that I read about supporting banning people who leave directly following a slay, I can't 100% agree. I can see banning someone for leaving before a slay is even given, because that's quite obviously RDM and leave. Perhaps if they leave the second they get slain I could get behind. Even that's pushing it pretty hard.

 

I understand your reasoning that it's to prevent RDMs from happening further, but I can't really agree with that. I cannot see any real correlation between the ban for leaving after a slay because they didn't stay, and having them RDM less after the fact. 

 

Never the less, I'm only really just restating my reasoning for my opinion and going in circles. I didn't say the discussion needed to end, everyone else is quite free to discuss and argue as they wish. I only meant that I have nothing left to discuss because I've already stated everything I can in the matter. Whether or not it swayed your stance on it, I don't know. All I know is my opinion in the matter and I can't really get behind yours 100%.

 

As an example:

 

Let's say I was playing TTT. I keep getting killed and I get mad tilted and salty, even more so that I accidentally RDM. When I RDM, the first thing I do is slay myself mid round no matter what. Now let's say an SO sees this and chooses to slay me next round. Engage me wanting to leave because maximum salt. I take the slay the next round and leave because I don't feel like playing any longer. I know I'm not going to RDM, and nor did I mean to intentionally, but if I were to get a day ban for that I would find that outrageous.

 

I understand new players for sure, because they're wild cards. However, when you're going to ban a regular because they RDM'd, took a slay, then left because they're salty; that's pushing it. You say the reason to ban is to prevent RDMs in the future, but regulars know they aren't going to RDM. You know regulars aren't going to RDM. Banning them for taking a slay and leaving is a bit counter intuitive in my opinion.

 

Trying to force them to stay on the server to serve a slay after that fact is beyond the scope of the punishment. To me I find that totally power tripping, whether it's meant to be or not. sG should not be telling players they need to stay on a server for an extra 5+ minutes or they'll get banned because they made a mistake. I can't foresee people wanting to play that server very often if that were a frequent thing, even on JB for example.

 

I guess I did have more to say? I dunno, it's late and it was late when I made the previous post. It's likely why I just wanted to end the discussion.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Rune

[Darren 272]

6 minutes ago, Rune said:

 

I understand your reasoning that it's to prevent RDMs from happening further, but I can't really agree with that. I cannot see any real correlation between the ban for leaving after a slay because they didn't stay and having them RDM less after the fact. 

 

I think the 'grand exit' example should provide some correlation. If a person who needs/wants to leave plans on RDM'ing before they go, then a slay will do nothing to deter that behavior. Slay or no slay, they're gone. We could do nothing and just hope they don't come back and do it again.

[Rayne 4478]

43 minutes ago, Darren said:

 

I think the 'grand exit' example should provide some correlation. If a person who needs/wants to leave plans on RDM'ing before they go, then a slay will do nothing to deter that behavior. Slay or no slay, they're gone. We could do nothing and just hope they don't come back and do it again.

 

The point is, you don't know what somebody's intention is when they leave, regardless of who they are. You've slayed them, they've been punished, they know not to do it again or they'll receive a more harsh punishment. Putting myself in their shoes, I'd leave, I'm a salty player and a sore loser. If you then told me I had to 'ask permission' to leave, or I must sit out a further round to 'learn my lesson'. I'd tell you to stick your server up your arse, I'd take myself and anybody I knew playing there, somewhere else.

 

I understand the need to enforce rules, but waving a big stick around to make a point... get off your high horse.

 

As @Avenger mentioned, this rule is not set in stone. I think this needs looking at, as right now and in my opinion, you're not broadcasting a very nice environment to play on.

 

Before you reply and I have to re-read the same nonsense you've spouted over the last two pages of this thread, please don't. Take other opinions on board, as we are having to. Because maybe if TTT was ran a bit more like our CSGO servers, it'd be a lot more popular.

 

 

@Tacky, would you just to fuck off now? You're literally a plague.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Rayne

[Dr Pepper 1491]

couldve sworn this guy was hacking when he was on MG yesterday

[Rock 227]

9 hours ago, Dr Pepper said:

couldve sworn this guy was hacking when he was on MG yesterday

EXACTLYYY i swear he is scripting he either is phoon and hits the nuttiest hops every time perfectly or he scripts :/

[dash 292]

1 hour ago, LVL4ROCK said:

EXACTLYYY i swear he is scripting he either is phoon and hits the nuttiest hops every time perfectly or he scripts :/

hes probably chad on an alt:^)

[Trelvick 51]

14 hours ago, LVL4ROCK said:

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by Trelvick
Need to check my eyes

[Tacky 790]

When someone beats you at strafe jump
"He is hacking"
This kid has been playing sG recently and he just nutty 
@KiD Fearless

[Hei 90]

1 hour ago, Tacky said:

When someone beats you at strafe jump
"He is hacking"
This kid has been playing sG recently and he just nutty 
@KiD Fearless

yeah its fucking obvious kid fearless macros

 

in fact he even admitted it in a comp match last month

[krony the brony 1938]

@shadowblitz293 @Dr. Vojislav Seselj

do you have screenshot or any proof of them being ghosting?

Edited January 16, 2017 by krony

[Dr. Vojislav Seselj 102]

16 minutes ago, krony said:

@shadowblitz293 @Dr. Vojislav Seselj

do you have screenshot or any proof of them being ghosting?

Well, I got a screen cap momentarily of his BS report. He just out of nowhere and most abruptly killed Shadowblitz out of the blue. I even examined and took a more scrupulous investigation into their Steam profiles and found out they were friends playing at the time time. Also, immediately as we banned "eye_ofthe_insane", his friend left shortly thereafter before us having the chance to boot him.

 

When he said "friend said[.....] sorry", that already gives the assumption he WAS ghosting to begin with.

 

http://imgur.com/a/3tfk4

Edited January 16, 2017 by Dr. Vojislav Seselj

[krony the brony 1938]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Vojislav Seselj said:

Well, I got a screen cap momentarily of his BS report. He just out of nowhere and most abruptly killed Shadowblitz out of the blue. I even examined and took a more scrupulous investigation into their Steam profiles and found out they were friends playing at the time time. Also, immediately as we banned "eye_ofthe_insane", his friend left shortly thereafter before us having the chance to boot him.

 

http://imgur.com/a/3tfk4

copy this what you say and paste it in CD. it helps

[Hei 90]

there's something called using your admin powers to i don't know... gag him!@ @Craze4war

[UnknownLegend 5480]

On 1/10/2017 at 1:11 AM, Beerman said:

But they aren't evading a slay, they will still sit out a round regardless..

 

They're missing two rounds if they wait for their slay round, then leave and come back later.  They are missing one round if they leave immediately and come back later.

 

They will sit out one round if they just d/c in both cases, and miss an additional round if they have to sit through a slay.

 

 

Punishing for RDM and leave is as much a proactive punishment as it is reactive.  You punish them for doing something bad, but you're also disincentivizing people from RDMing whenever they plan on disconnecting from the server anyway to be a dick.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Junzou

[tazmanianxdude 360]

2 hours ago, Hei said:

there's something called using your admin powers to i don't know... gag him!@ @Craze4war

Yeah I didn't even know you were admin but I think it's a little silly bringing it to the forums if you could've resolved it on your own by kicking him or gaging him like stated above, and if it really came down to it you could've just banned him yourself for a short while. @Craze4war

[Rune 2783]

suck my front and my back nut

[Hei 90]

@The Forgiven 

[Dakota 4722]

 
They're missing two rounds if they wait for their slay round, then leave and come back later.  They are missing one round if they leave immediately and come back later.
 
They will sit out one round if they just d/c in both cases, and miss an additional round if they have to sit through a slay.
 
 
Punishing for RDM and leave is as much a proactive punishment as it is reactive.  You punish them for doing something bad, but you're also disincentivizing people from RDMing whenever they plan on disconnecting from the server anyway to be a dick.

Oh I didn't even see this until now. I have since stop caring

[xmen 983]

@KiD Fearless on a pretty epic ban rampage

[centran 4457]

13 hours ago, xmen said:

@KiD Fearless on a pretty epic ban rampage

 

@KiD Fearless will travel across the servers

Searching far and wide

Each hacker to understand

The hacks that they use

 

Fucking Hacks, gotta catch them all

It's @KiD Fearless and they

@KiD Fearless 's destiny 

On a server to defend

Fucking Hacks! gotta catch them all

A round so true

Our skill is all we need

 

You teach me and I'll teach you

Fucking Hacks, gotta catch them all

We will play this fair

Yeah!

 

 

[Dr. NarwhalsNumbNuts IV 2291]

"I am banned"

 

Yes, mate, you are, cheers, thank you for noticing

 

lmfao