Rules on provocative uncap engagement?

[pattynotoes]

Requesting rule clarification from administrator or relevant party:

How is provocative uncap engagement handled? Example: intentionally firing into enemy uncap without damaging enemy players or equipment (such as shooting above their heads, near them, etc- in such a way that the enemy returns fire and becomes free to kill legally). While on the topic, how does laser painting/locking on fit into the picture? Are we allowed to lock-on to enemy vehicles in uncap without firing? What happens if an uncap vehicle is laser painted and a separate individual fires a missile at the painted target, not knowing that the target is in their uncap?

Recently I've been using these highly provocative strategies within the limits of the rules, including uncap staredowns (aiming at enemies in uncap and waiting for them to fire first), uncap lock-ons (missile locking enemy vehicles in uncap and waiting for them to fire first), and intentional missing shots in order to provoke retaliation from enemies in their uncap. So far, several people have expressed anger and disapproval of these strategies. As a result, I am seeking clarification on the various loopholes of uncap firing in order to avoid future reports or complaints.

Maps that exaggerate the effectiveness of these tactics usually feature open spawn areas with little to no cover:
Siege of Shanghai, Rogue Transmission, Hainan Resort, Silk Road, Golmud Railway

 

[BigBadBagOfSwag]

Intentionally firing into uncap in hopes to trigger a response is frowned upon but would fall under a grey area. If you make a mistake and subsequently reported for it, you'd receive a harsher punishment.

Laser painting / locking into uncap is not allowed. Similarly, if someones fires at a lock in uncap, that would be grounds for a rule violation if they had not shot out yet or weren't all capped.
Since most punishments occur once a player is offline, temporary bans are issued in hopes that they'd attempt to appeal to receive clarification on our ingame rules.

If you don't target uncap, you don't run the risk of making a mistake.

 

[ithinkimabunny]

aiming at enemies in uncap and waiting for them to fire first

I am not a lawyer and I haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn since 2001.

This is what we in the real world call brandishing and is an expressive form of hostile intent or intent to do great bodily harm or cause death.

Technically, by aiming at the enemy you have already engaged and broken the rules.

 

[ithinkimabunny]

BTW, Swag, I would have never predicted your lackadaisical response re: "grey area". The rules states... blah blah blah Do not attack the enemy in their uncap except allowed if they fire out. Don't quote me. But the key take-aways are: do not, attack, uncap, unless provoked. Firing into uncap (whether or not you expect to hit something) is attacking. Unless or course we want to debate whether suppressive fire does or does not constitute an "attack".

On the other hand, some chad that simply fires on a locked target with no view to the target (happens all the time), and the target happens to be in uncap, is somehow deserving of punishment?

I simply cannot read your mind. And it's just based on common sense...

Dude here just gave a full public confession to an admin. Book him.

 

[BigBadBagOfSwag]

I am not a lawyer and I haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn since 2001.

This is what we in the real world call brandishing and is an expressive form of hostile intent or intent to do great bodily harm or cause death.

Technically, by aiming at the enemy you have already engaged and broken the rules.

Aiming at someone in uncap wouldn't be a violation.

BTW, Swag, I would have never predicted your lackadaisical response re: "grey area". The rules states... blah blah blah Do not attack the enemy in their uncap except allowed if they fire out. Don't quote me. But the key take-aways are: do not, attack, uncap, unless provoked. Firing into uncap (whether or not you expect to hit something) is attacking. Unless or course we want to debate whether suppressive fire does or does not constitute an "attack".

On the other hand, some chad that simply fires on a locked target with no view to the target (happens all the time), and the target happens to be in uncap, is somehow deserving of punishment?

I simply cannot read your mind. And it's just based on common sense...

Dude here just gave a full public confession to an admin. Book him.

It's been a long day. Put simply, it's situational. If you target uncap and make a mistake, it's punishable.

 

[-bZ-LongTrang1]

Dude here just gave a full public confession to an admin. Book him.

Concur.

 

[MerkelValkyria]

Dude here just gave a full public confession to an admin. Book him.

Concur.

It's a joke, isn't it? The guy comes to ask for clarification on the rules in order to fully respect them. It is clearly in good faith and there is no need to punish him for doing so.

 

[ithinkimabunny]

It's a joke, isn't it? The guy comes to ask for clarification on the rules in order to fully respect them. It is clearly in good faith and there is no need to punish him for doing so.

So ignorance of the rules is an excuse for breaking the rules? Never the case.

Recently I've been using these highly provocative strategies within the limits of the rules...

There is no basis to claim ignorance as he knows the rules and admitted to intentionally pushing the boundaries of the rules. Mens rea has been established.

There is no respect in purposefully challenging the limits of the rules. Flouting the rules does not constitute acting in "full respect" of the rules.

Testing the limits of the rules does not constitute action done "in good faith." A good faith effort would have been to seek clarification before engaging in such potential rule-breaking.

So far, several people have expressed anger and disapproval of these strategies.

He admitted locking the enemy in uncap. That's not allowed. Never has been. This is common knowledge.

People complained (ostensibly told him he was wrong and breaking the rules) and asked/told him stop and he continued anyway.

The player (well-known at that) has self-reported his rule-breaking and is now asking to be absolved after-the-fact.

 

[BigBadBagOfSwag]

No one reported him for doing so, the context around the incidents that occurred are unknown except to him and those he targeted. Had the enemy been fully captured, he would've coincidentally been in the clear regarding uncap targeting.

While ignorance of the rules won't result in a pardoning, we do give several chances for most violations.
I can respect that he chose to ask for clarification instead of continuing on while assuming that he was in the right all along. It can be difficult for someone to admit they were wrong.

Most initial bans are issued in hopes that the players in question will come to the forums to appeal. This gives a chance for any potential misunderstandings to be cleared up.
Hopefully he will see the delayed response above and take the appropriate measures to not violate our ingame rules. If he doesn't, an appropriate punishment will be dealt.

 

[ithinkimabunny]

2: ATTACKING UNCAP IS NOT ALLOWED (Conquest Only)
Don't attack the enemy's uncappable base (main base). If they fire out you can return fire.

Intentionally firing into uncap in hopes to trigger a response is frowned upon but would fall under a grey area. If you make a mistake and subsequently reported for it, you'd receive a harsher punishment.

What I find fascinating, Swag, is that according to your determination above, it is not a violation to fire into enemy uncap as long as you don't cause damage to any enemy.

This is different than what I (and probably most others) believed was the case.

To illustrate my point, the rule is "Don't attack the enemy's uncappable base (main base)." This doesn't say don't attack the enemy in their uncap, it says DON'T ATTACK THE ENEMY'S UNCAPPABLE BASE. Perhaps this wording needs to be adjusted as a plain reading strongly implies that firing into enemy uncap is not allowed. (This is the very definition of 'attacking the enemy's uncappable base'.)

I see we just glossed right over this issue:

Unless or course we want to debate whether suppressive fire does or does not constitute an "attack".

So, by your ruling, suppressive fire into an enemy's uncap does not constitute an attack and is indeed allowed.

Exception: If you damage the enemy, or an enemy vehicle, or enemy equipment, in any way, a violation is deemed to have occurred.

Side bar: not sure why firing into an uncap would be allowed but using lasers to lock an enemy in uncap is not allowed. I would have never differentiated these two acts in my mind. They're fundamentally the same. Of course, I never do either as it's just "common sense."

Good to know.

 

[neonardo1]

What I find fascinating, Swag, is that according to your determination above, it is not a violation to fire into enemy uncap as long as you don't cause damage to any enemy.

This is different than what I (and probably most others) believed was the case.

To illustrate my point, the rule is "Don't attack the enemy's uncappable base (main base)." This doesn't say don't attack the enemy in their uncap, it says DON'T ATTACK THE ENEMY'S UNCAPPABLE BASE. Perhaps this wording needs to be adjusted as a plain reading strongly implies that firing into enemy uncap is not allowed. (This is the very definition of 'attacking the enemy's uncappable base'.)

I see we just glossed right over this issue:



So, by your ruling, suppressive fire into an enemy's uncap does not constitute an attack and is indeed allowed.

Exception: If you damage the enemy, or an enemy vehicle, or enemy equipment, in any way, a violation is deemed to have occurred.

Side bar: not sure why firing into an uncap would be allowed but using lasers to lock an enemy in uncap is not allowed. I would have never differentiated these two acts in my mind. They're fundamentally the same. Of course, I never do either as it's just "common sense."

Good to know.

Or we can let common sense prevail and leave the wording as-is.

 

[Silent_Killa613]

I mean it's pretty fuckin' simple people.. Don't fire into uncap unless they fire out... It's not rocket science here. If all flags are capped, giver.. Stop trying to find ways to be a douche bag..

 

[Helloface]

What I'm reading here is since my aim sucks, I can attack uncap to my leisure since I probably won't hit anyone anyways. Neat!