Clarification

[ithinkimabunny]

^^^

Well, Bag loves it.

That settles the debate.

The rule is whatever Bag says it is (obviously) and so what he's really saying is that this rule is ultimately subject to his discretion and can change at any moment (which is his right).

There's your answer. And if you don't like it, kick rocks.

Personally, I would never condone such an approach to rule making, but it's not my server so my opinion means exactly nada.

 

[BigBadBagOfSwag]

(wrong).

 

[ithinkimabunny]

(wrong).

Please, sir, enlighten me as I am apparently confused.

 

[ithinkimabunny]

 

[xBlastFTPastx]

I only assume the rules are there to prevent sucky people from doing sucky things. For the rest of us we have a gentleman's agreement between us not to be dicks to each-other; my personal rule is if you have go ask if something is dick behaviour, you're probably being a dick.

That's where the "common sense" part comes in, it's contextual. If we have you all-capped and are winning/raping but you manage to get a kill just outside of uncap, imma laugh about it. If a team is really struggling and/or the match is really unfair and you are there mining the uncap, I'm going to feel differently about it.

Moral is don't use the "grey area" to kick people who are already down and then complain when they get pissed off about it.

 

[ithinkimabunny]

Oh, I'm sorry, is the rule do not attack uncap or don't be a dick? Now I'm really confused because I'm a total dick.

BTW, everyone knows the first rule of war is don't be a dick; that's just common sense.

luzlualluzlzzzz

 

[PandaExpress293]

I would say the red star area is fine, I'd have issue if they were placed closer to where the red and green lines intersect though.

I distinctly remember Panda telling me, something to the effect of "they can be in their uncap all they want unmolested" and when I pitched the same scenario when I was in the uncap it was "if you do that you'll be banned, you know better" and "baiting" came into play.

It's selective instance to instance rules and it's subjective to players. It's bullshit.

Incorrect, your pitch was "Ok I'll do the same thing tomorrow. I'll just stand at the edge of uncap and bait, record, report, and see how silly it gets. No warnings though, everyone shooting me in uncap gets the 1D then."

Intention is where the difference lies in your case, but you didn't even serve your punishment (you got a free pass in that case if you forgot), so I don't see why you're bringing it up here. This was back in early February I might add, so not only is it old news but it's been long settled, let it go.

The rules aren't subjectively based on player, regulars are dealt out punishments all the time if found to be breaking rules as they're expected to know better and are held to a higher standard than your average blueberry player. Are various reports of attacking uncap handled differently? Absolutely. Why? Because not everyone puts their c4/mines in the exact same place, so using sound reasoning we have to objectively look at each report on a case by case basis.

You're free to feel differently though, as in your own words "That's your perspective."

 

[ithinkimabunny]

I would say the red star area is fine, I'd have issue if they were placed closer to where the red and green lines intersect though.


Incorrect, your pitch was "Ok I'll do the same thing tomorrow. I'll just stand at the edge of uncap and bait, record, report, and see how silly it gets. No warnings though, everyone shooting me in uncap gets the 1D then."

Intention is where the difference lies in your case, but you didn't even serve your punishment (you got a free pass in that case if you forgot), so I don't see why you're bringing it up here. This was back in early February I might add, so not only is it old news but it's been long settled, let it go.

The rules aren't subjectively based on player, regulars are dealt out punishments all the time if found to be breaking rules as they're expected to know better and are held to a higher standard than your average blueberry player. Are various reports of attacking uncap handled differently? Absolutely. Why? Because not everyone puts their c4/mines in the exact same place, so using sound reasoning we have to objectively look at each report on a case by case basis.

You're free to feel differently though, as in your own words "That's your perspective."

Severe right-brain imbalance.

 

[Geauxfish]

This is hilarious. This is why a rule can't be defined as "common sense." Common sense is inherently subjective and overly broad.

The rule might as well be, "Try to Read the Mind of the Admin and Guess What They Consider Common Sense."

It's amazing that time after time issues come up like this only to be resolved as, "yeah, how come you don't understand... this is common sense".

This is unsustainable.

Look, GoFish.

We're not going to say this again, it's COMMON SENSE.

luzulzluzluzz

Bunny, you seem confused...in one post you say the rule is common sense and somehow ole me should know it, haha, then you post again in response to others posting my exact scenarios questioning the rule...then you post something completely opposite of what you earlier posted...quote- "This is why a rule can't be defined as "common sense"! Make up your mind, is it a "common sense" rule or an unsustainable one?

 

[ithinkimabunny]

Bunny, you seem confused...in one post you say the rule is common sense and somehow ole me should know it, haha, then you post again in response to others posting my exact scenarios questioning the rule...then you post something completely opposite of what you earlier posted...quote- "This is why a rule can't be defined as "common sense"! Make up your mind, is it a "common sense" rule or an unsustainable one?

Wow. luzluzlalzzz

Admin claim "common sense" is the governing factor, not me. Just look at Panda's rant above where he ties himself in knots trying to explain his line of "reasoning." (Don't try too hard to understand as he's all over the map. There's no logic, it's all feelings and "intentions" -- like he could ever know your intentions.)

I never said I agreed with that approach and if you go back and read what I have posted I think you will see that is made clear.

I posted that just to demonstrate how such a position is bat shit crazy. Of course, admin double down.

 

[ithinkimabunny]

You want a logical argument? Here it is.

The rules were set when the game was developed. If the INTENTION of the game developers was to not allow firing into uncap then the game would prohibit this action by default.

The only rule is there that there are NO RULES.

But oh no, we've got to let our ego step in and tell us we need to make "rules". Why?

 

[PandaExpress293]

Bunny, you seem confused...in one post you say the rule is common sense and somehow ole me should know it, haha, then you post again in response to others posting my exact scenarios questioning the rule...then you post something completely opposite of what you earlier posted...quote- "This is why a rule can't be defined as "common sense"! Make up your mind, is it a "common sense" rule or an unsustainable one?

It's common sense because logically it should be pretty easy to see why putting mines/explosives etc right in front of the uncap is not allowed. Swag says to put them at A, not because you can't put them near that red star but as a protection for you so you can't make the mistake of attacking uncap. You can safely ignore bunny and the rest of the nonsense squad who like to add nothing beneficial to the discussions.

Thank you for asking for clarification though we've also wanted an update to the main rules post to cover other topics but Neo is the only one who can edit it and he's been away with other life obligations so it's on the back burner. I won't respond here further but if you have further questions, feel free to reach out to me by DM or just ask in admin-help on our discord. Cheers.

 

[ithinkimabunny]

It's common sense because logically it should be pretty easy to see why putting mines/explosives etc right in front of the uncap is not allowed. Swag says to put them at A, not because you can't put them near that red star but as a protection for you so you can't make the mistake of attacking uncap. You can safely ignore bunny and the rest of the nonsense squad who like to add nothing beneficial to the discussions.

Thank you for asking for clarification though we've also wanted an update to the main rules post to cover other topics but Neo is the only one who can edit it and he's been away with other life obligations so it's on the back burner. I won't respond here further but if you have further questions, feel free to reach out to me by DM or just ask in admin-help on our discord. Cheers.

And now, death by a thousand cuts.

How do you define "A"? Do I have to be inside the capture perimeter of A to be on A? Does A extend out some distance from the capture ring in your mind? Should I pace my steps from the capture ring (since I don't have a tape measure in the game as a selectable option) or should I just "wing it"? Would that mean I can't place any mines, for example, in any area that's NOT on a flag, like A? What about that space between A and B that's both "not on A" and also "not on B" or does this just apply to the flag nearest each uncap?

What's "near" mean? How near is near? Is there some "common sense" connotation for near that I don't know?

What does "protection for me" mean? Is there some action I can take in the game that you wouldn't consider protection for me?

I know you said you wouldn't respond here anymore but these questions are specifically in regard to your post above and I would appreciate a response.

 

[ithinkimabunny]

Oh, goodie, more rules incoming.

I hope it doesn't take me too long on a case-by-case basis to process each potential action in the mind of Panda based on what I believe would be his interpretation of "common sense" before I execute. That definitely won't affect my game play at all. Sounds cool.

 

[The0bamessiah]

I'm not reading all this bullshit but the problem is that people report for the most mundane, tiny minutiae they can find. "Oh no, he shot me in uncap .2423546 seconds before I was going to shoot him! I guess that means it's time to report him." "WHAT!? I WAS HALF A STEP OUT OF BOUNDS! THAT MEANS I HAVE TO REPORT HIM!" "Is that mine 12.3123 feet too close to the uncap? TIME TO CRY TO SWAG!" Instead of reporting actual important shit like hackers, teamkillers, or people who make a habit out of consistently griefing or camping the uncap we get this obsequious tattletaling by grown adults. It's like you're all a bunch of hall monitors trying to see who can be more insufferable. Frankly I thought we were going to be beyond this after Fluff went AWOL but apparently not.

 

[ithinkimabunny]

I'm not reading all this bullshit but the problem is that people report for the most mundane, tiny minutiae they can find. "Oh no, he shot me in uncap .2423546 seconds before I was going to shoot him! I guess that means it's time to report him." "WHAT!? I WAS HALF A STEP OUT OF BOUNDS! THAT MEANS I HAVE TO REPORT HIM!" "Is that mine 12.3123 feet too close to the uncap? TIME TO CRY TO SWAG!" Instead of reporting actual important shit like hackers, teamkillers, or people who make a habit out of consistently griefing or camping the uncap we get this obsequious tattletaling by grown adults. It's like you're all a bunch of hall monitors trying to see who can be more insufferable. Frankly I thought we were going to be beyond this after Fluff went AWOL but apparently not.

Sir, please, hall monitor is demeaning. They're the Feelings Police, Department of Ouchie Feel-Feels, Division of Intentions, Ruling Board.

 

[ithinkimabunny]

 

[PandaExpress293]

If it was up to me there would be no uncap protection and we’d have !p and !f for TKs. So every time it happens we don’t get a report. Griefers who do it consistently can be reported but otherwise !p would allow for you to serve street justice.

 

[ithinkimabunny]

If it was up to me there would be no uncap protection and we’d have !p and !f for TKs. So every time it happens we don’t get a report. Griefers who do it consistently can be reported but otherwise !p would allow for you to serve street justice.

Panda, you're back! I thought you said you were not going to reply here anymore.

So, could you go ahead and answer my questions then? I want to be sure I remain in full compliance with the rules.

 

[PandaExpress293]

And now, death by a thousand cuts.

How do you define "A"? Do I have to be inside the capture perimeter of A to be on A? Does A extend out some distance from the capture ring in your mind? Should I pace my steps from the capture ring (since I don't have a tape measure in the game as a selectable option) or should I just "wing it"? Would that mean I can't place any mines, for example, in any area that's NOT on a flag, like A? What about that space between A and B that's both "not on A" and also "not on B" or does this just apply to the flag nearest each uncap?

What's "near" mean? How near is near? Is there some "common sense" connotation for near that I don't know?

What does "protection for me" mean? Is there some action I can take in the game that you wouldn't consider protection for me?

I know you said you wouldn't respond here anymore but these questions are specifically in regard to your post above and I would appreciate a response.

Here if you require a blue line, have a blue line. If you place things on the A side of this line, you'll be safe. Past the blue doesn't immediately count as mining uncap depending on where you put mines but you're approaching the boundary and risking going too far.