help

[iZumo]

Oh well, it's not bad faith: I would be able to rationalize every banning of people saying "raiser" the very same way, given how rule 3i is formulated. But if I actually did that, you'd see through that too, no? Given the fact you know my stance towards most of AS players (which break that), regardless what I would write (say You insulted RACE community by calling them raisers, which is used in a manner that they are piece of crap, by which you broke rule 3i.) would you think I would be there with "enforcing rules"? Or would you say my intention is something very different, and I'm just covering that as I have a possibility to explain my actions rationally by gaming the rules?

I never realised "raiser" was an insult, it just an illiteration of the term racer, since we spoke on race = rais so racer = raiser, I mean even one player has "raiser" in his name. Going to be hard to get that one out of my head, it has sunk pretty deep into it, also will need to call "raiser"s something else... maybe "blarfs"? .-.

Sidenote towards rule 3i: The intention of rule 3i was to prevent people throwing insults all the time between each other (such as Jester / Ultrabloxx saying "omg I was killed by raiser" - well things like that). When I was writing that, I thought of the origin of the "raiser" (lowskill racer), though it's true that it's been oftenly used normally by everybody (the bitching specified above stopped - as intended). I just pulled that now to explain how rules can be gamed from the admin side as well.

[Azarael]

Do I say raiser and rais on AS/Race? I've gone out of my way to avoid breaking 3i on AS/Race and I'm also irritated by the exception to the rule which allows players to spam "noobs FUCK AS ._." every time a vote for an AS map is placed. 3i is there as a rule. Enforce it. Don't ignore people, even me if I should fall afoul of it, simply so that you can come back later and say "Because I did not, so shall you not."

[iZumo]

Oh yes you do. For instance here: http://ut2004.ldg-gaming.eu/logs/showlo ... 2-rc4.html (two instances I looked up, there are more ofc)

Code: Select all

> Markus@mp3: dat aim today xD
> Påß: :D
> Markus@mp3: 0 kils Oo
> }GBD{THEXalez: raiser etc
> team-spec*Azarael: raiser etc

In http://ut2004.ldg-gaming.eu/logs/showlo ... [REV].html

Code: Select all

> team-spec*Azarael: eiforaiser

[Azarael]

*shrug* My bad. I'd feel a lot worse about it if it wasn't someone utterly abrasive, but there you go.

So now that we've established that I have breakages of 3i, can we mention the fact that you send EMP messages in /msg and clan/adminchat on other servers just to irritate people and get back to why we can't ban people for acting as lookouts for their mates?

Edit: Hold on a minute.

Rule 3i is for race community as a whole, right? So if raiser implies "low combat-skilled racer", with the causative agent of that low combat skill being playing the race gametype, how is that a) untrue b) a breakage of 3i?

[iZumo]

My point was that banning for that would be stupidity, overreaction or gaming the rule 3i; not that you break it as well (just showed you when you asked). And yes, you can also mention that I troll with making adminchat pink too. Sure we can back to the topic, but it's your move on that now.

Edit: Hold on a minute.

Rule 3i is for race community as a whole, right? So if raiser implies "low combat-skilled racer", with the causative agent of that low combat skill being playing the race gametype, how is that a) untrue b) a breakage of 3i?

The motivation for rule 3i was explained in previous post. The term "raiser" is breakage of 3i because it's an insult (such as calling Calypso lowskiller, while it's true , it's still an insult).

[Azarael]

Banning people for acting as lookouts has nothing to do with 3i.

I've explained my reasons for the ban: sabotaging an adminstrator to save a glitcher's ass. If the player is exploiting and another player warns him nonspecifically of an admin's presence, thus denying that admin of the opportunity to see the cheat which will most likely be repeated when the admin is no longer present, what would you do with that player? It's neither overreaction nor stupidity - you cannot allow these players to save each other's asses from bans they may rightfully get for something they'll continue to do with mutual approval the minute an admin is gone. The situation is already getting bad - players are already unironically calling each other snitches for talking to administrators. How much worse can it be allowed to get?

Accepted on "insulting term". I shall avoid its use in future.

[iZumo]

As I said, I pulled the 3i as a good example how the rules can be gamed. Only IllegalName was bitching about "snitches" (perhaps ppl around him too) and got his ass pwned rightfully, by being snitched by our logs. And yes Aza, it is stupidity - if it's clear that IllegalName was about to glitch and not derp around, then IllegalName should get banned, not the guy that warned him. And if you actually did that, I don't think there would be any doubts here.

[Azarael]

So you're perfectly happy with the idea that players should be allowed to warn each other when an admin is around, if one is in the process of glitching? Despite the fact that the mere warning implies bad intent on the part of the attempted glitcher?

You will never ban anyone.

That's rank lunacy. I guess in criminal law, conspiracy to commit a crime is "stupidity" too?

[Jate]

This topic seems to be rapidly going downhill. From rightly deserved ban to spawning shit to survive the boredom to interpretations of scripture? Do I smell yet another social justice battle?

[iZumo]

Usually, when I'm speccing someone I know, I'll just hide myself well, because usually the glitching player himself checks for admin presence. There is no difference if it's him or somebody else checking for admins.

And in criminal law, if you do no crime, you don't get jailed, even if police around notices that there was some fishy warning stopping you. Perhaps it's not possible to prove (well that depends on the serioousness of the crime you want to commit)?