November 08, 2026, 10:52:03 pm

Author Topic: [JB]Rawr's re-edition of rules (suggestion)  (Read 983 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ed

Re: Rawr's re-edition of rules (suggestion)
« Reply #60 on: August 22, 2013, 07:46:17 pm »
You have to see the bigger picture this time. Too many rules just degrade the gameplay. Of course fairness in game is what we seek for, but we shouldn't exceed that.

You sir should receive a reward for what you said. Don't overthink guys, plain and simple is the way to go.
My advice look at how prisons are run in real life and try to get the rules from there, ofc not all of them.

Glad there are more people thinking the same way.

@John, don't think of it too much, you can always as an Officer command starting each day, that if you boost you will die. In some maps it doesn't really affect Officer work at all unless they are still sleeping in the gunroom.
[div class="cat_bar"][div class="catbg" style="font-size: 18px;font-family: Oswald;line-height: 52px;text-shadow: -1px -1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.43);    background: #2b2b2b;background: -moz-linear-gradient(top, #2b2b2b 0%, #191919 100%);background: -webkit-linear-gradient(top, #2b2b2b 0%,#191919 100%);background: linear-gradient(to bottom, #2b2b2b 0%,#191919 100%);box-shadow: 0 2px 0 rgba(255,255,255,0.1) inset;text-align:left;font-weight: 700;"][div class="pt_bar"][div class="ptbg"][span class="pt"][email protected][/span][/div][/div]

Offline MonsteR

Re: Rawr's re-edition of rules (suggestion)
« Reply #61 on: August 23, 2013, 12:31:11 am »
But JB is based on the rules so you cant just say it is obvious. Why it should it be obvious but not writen down. I dont see big differences in reading few lines more. I had read the old rules so many times no matter if they were so long. And when we post the new rules which you made i am sure all the current players will read them and some new players as well. Because there are some special cases when someone is freekilled but actually he isnt then rules just show that for example he had a gun on the FD and the CT killed him. Ye he killed him because the rule is saying that the CT is allowed to do that not because it is just obvious. Rules are readed 1 time. You dont have to read them every time so that you can say omg they are long. You just come waste 5 min and read them. Then you leave the topic and never come back to it. So rules should be not too long and not too short. This arent too short but they are short. If we do this changes then they will become normal. And normal is the best because the current one are long while the old one were too long. So everything should be well explained.

 Also samu there arent any rules which arent written down. At least i cant say any. Can you tell me such a rule. Also if it isnt written then it isnt a rule. It is just like a law of a country and we follow it, breaking the lows gets you punished. So everything should be there.



Regards,
Monster

Offline Ed

Re: Rawr's re-edition of rules (suggestion)
« Reply #62 on: August 23, 2013, 01:32:50 am »
Quote
Because there are some special cases when someone is freekilled but actually he isnt then rules just show that for example he had a gun on the FD and the CT killed him. Ye he killed him because the rule is saying that the CT is allowed to do that not because it is just obvious.

I do believe this is very obvious. Imagine a real prison with guards and prisoners, do you really think that by all means that guards will need to tell anyone who doesn't have the authority that they are not allowed to carry or touch any gun? Specially if a prisoner is handling one, they will not tolerate it. It is so obvious, why we have to explain every bit.

You are supposed to be a prisoner, gun less! There are hundreds of examples why many things are so obvious.

I will show you the list with explanation why the old rules are so obvious:


Quote
1. All rules must be obeyed or you will be slayed/kicked/banned.

Rules are for reason and people who abuse them can be punished in whichever way Admin or High staff see fit. Don't think this rule is even necessary. Everyone in real life knows, you break a law and you will be either fined or you will serve time.

Quote
3. Free killing is killing a prisoner for no reason.
Doing this repeatedly can get you kicked or banned.

In red: again unnecessary. Break rules, you will be punished simple.

Quote
- CTs cannot attack or kill prisoners for no reason,
even if the prisoner has and throws flash or grenade if it doesn't inflict any damage to officers.


- Officers must always give warning shots to prisoners before killing, unless the prisoner attacks and inflicts damage,
a prisoner aims a weapon at an officer, or a prisoner is rebelling. This rule does not also apply while playing games or it is Punishment day.

- If a Prisoner inflicts damage to an Officer he can be killed immediately.
If the prisoner damages with a grenade he can be killed too, this is also a weapon and can inflict damage!


- Officers that constantly free kill will be slayed/transferred/kicked/banned.

This is just constant repeating. Simply - Inflict damage to any of the officers and you can be killed without a warning! I don't see any need for explanation of what type of gun or nade you use.

Quote
- Officers cannot kill prisoners for opening the cells because it is an unrestricted freeday as the cells were opened by terrorist.
This rule also applies even if an officer stated that Cells cannot be opened.

This rule should be changed. Since we know that prisoners will try to open the cells if they can, why not do this: If a prisoner opens the cell after an Officer has stated not to open them, prisoner can be killed, but it will be an unrestricted freeday.

Quote
6. - If a Prisoner is shooting/aiming with a gun to an Officer from a vent,
the Officer can kill prisoner without a warning.

Again, prisoners shouldn't have guns and inflicting damage already says you can kill offending prisoners without a warning.

Quote
7. Officers can not give prisoners any weapons unless they are doing a game where a weapon is required.

And again, prisoners should not have weapons at all times unless necessary for a certain command from an officer. This can be included in one simple rule.

Quote
8. Officers can always tell prisoners to drop their gun if they think they have one,
if the weapon is not dropped officers must do a gun check before killing the terrorist.

- Officers can Gun Check a prisoner if he thinks that the prisoner has a gun.
If the officers sees that the prisoner has a gun, officers has to warn the prisoner to drop it.
If the gun is not dropped in 5 seconds, an officer has the rights to kill him.
However if the prisoner aims at any officer with it, the officer can kill the prisoner without warnings.

In red: Do you see what I mean? We read 5 same lines all the time.

Quote
10. Officers can go inside the cage however they cannot shoot while being inside of it. Also when inside the cage the Terrorists can kill the Officer/s that are inside without any consequence. Even if the officers say: "If you leave the back of the cage or if you move you die." The prisoners can disobey the command to kill the CT/s which are inside the cage and other officers can't do anything. If the officer/s which was inside the cage leaves it then prisoners are not allowed to follow him and try to kill him or they risk of being killed for rebeling. If an officer is doing that often he can be slayed/transfered back.

Rawrplus made this 4x shorter with the same meaning. We don't have to explain everything in details, we still need that fun factor, it's not the law. Even our official server and forum rules don't go into such small details.

Quote
11. All officers must have a good/understandable microphone and they must use it during game play.
Voice changer is not allowed and if you use one you will be slayed/transfered/kicked/banned.

- Officers need to remember that prisoner microphones are muted.
If an officer asks a prisoner a question, they need to give them time to type an answer.
RED: I don't get it, when this was made as a rule and why? I rather have kids who use voice changer and sound bit older than listen to small womanly voice which gives me headaches, I am sure everyone would agree with me on this.
Yellow: Common sense here, if anyone expects prisoners to answer straight away in a split second then they are daft.

Quote
12. Use of HLDJ is strictly prohibited unless a game requiring music is being played, or it is a free day.
If it is a free day and somebody complains about the music, the officer MUST turn it off or risk being gagged and transferred back to terrorists.

Don't like this: "Strictly prohibited", HLDJ gives some fun factor. Sometimes server seems so quiet between Officer commands that it feels so shallow. Don't get me wrong, there is the right and wrong time, but again, common sense. Don't think this needs to be a rule, if someone interferes with HLDJ constantly and been asked to stop, he can be simply punished. Common sense.

Quote
13. Prisoners cannot give away positions of their team-mates. It is considered ghosting and could result in a kick/ban.

I would really like to change this. I remember having said this long time ago. Prisoners can team up against officers making them a trap or leading them in the wrong way or if they don't like the prisoner who is hiding find him easily which can make the game a lot quicker than Officers trying to find the remaining T who are delaying the gameplay. The thing what I'd like here is that prisoners cannot tell the position of anyone missing, but only show them and the rule for ghosting should be added for dead prisoners as not to ghost.

Quote
15. If an officer started commanding,
other officers must not interfere in his commanding (talking in mic) or this will result in slay or transferring back to prisoner team.

- Officers or prisoners should not use rude words, during game play, it might result in slay/kick.

Again, pretty obvious. About the rude words, why not? It's Jailbreak, not a kindergarten.

Quote
18. Officers are not allowed to kill their team mates or this will result in slay/transfering back to prisoner team.

Such unnecessary rule. I do believe I said this before, if CT can command they can team kill each other. Or team kill the commanding officer and take the command from him. Also a distraction which helps prisoners to rebel. Fun factor again.

Quote
19. When an officer makes a race he does not need to state that cheating is not allowed
Example: In a pool race you must use the pool and must not go around it
In the case of high spray cheating is allowed unless the officer states that you cannot access some parts of the map to do the high spray
Example: Officer says do a high spray on a wall and there is a ladder that makes you go higher and therefore help you on the high spray,
if the officers says do not use the ladder you cannot use it

As Rawrplus made new update on this, cheat factor is good fun unless an officer says not to cheat. Fun factor!

Quote
20. If the CT that is commanding says, when I say run to the cage then you go to the cage.
   Then don't go to the cage until he says run to the cage. Because at the start he said when I say run.

Common sense. If you listen to officer then you would see the difference.

Quote
21. If an officer says "head to head" Terrorists can interpret it as "shoulder to shoulder" and should not be killed

This should be an officers job to explain to people who don't do as what he means. This rule is just out of the line.
Quote
23. CT can do any game they want as long as it completes this requirements:
- It is a fun and enjoyable game for the majority of the players
- It gives to all T an equal opportunity to survive
- The game can't be confusing
- It is properly explained to the T
If the CT is not completing all of these steps then he can be transfered back T

Repeating again.

Quote
25. Any rule not listed here is not a jailbreak rule.

I doubt that this rule is even needed. Officers make rules of the games they create etc.
[div class="cat_bar"][div class="catbg" style="font-size: 18px;font-family: Oswald;line-height: 52px;text-shadow: -1px -1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.43);    background: #2b2b2b;background: -moz-linear-gradient(top, #2b2b2b 0%, #191919 100%);background: -webkit-linear-gradient(top, #2b2b2b 0%,#191919 100%);background: linear-gradient(to bottom, #2b2b2b 0%,#191919 100%);box-shadow: 0 2px 0 rgba(255,255,255,0.1) inset;text-align:left;font-weight: 700;"][div class="pt_bar"][div class="ptbg"][span class="pt"][email protected][/span][/div][/div]

Offline Ed

Re: Rawr's re-edition of rules (suggestion)
« Reply #63 on: August 23, 2013, 01:37:03 am »
Rawr and others, since I know you won't bother reading my previous post, how about adding to rules or think about these changes:

If a prisoner opens the cell after an Officer has stated not to open them, prisoner can be killed, but it will be an unrestricted freeday.

Quote
13. Prisoners cannot give away positions of their team-mates. It is considered ghosting and could result in a kick/ban.

I would really like to change this. I remember having said this long time ago. Prisoners can team up against officers making them a trap or leading them in the wrong way or if they don't like the prisoner who is hiding find him easily which can make the game a lot quicker than Officers trying to find the remaining T who are delaying the gameplay. The thing what I'd like here is that prisoners cannot tell the position of anyone missing, but only show them and the rule for ghosting should be added for dead prisoners as not to ghost.

Quote
25. Any rule not listed here is not a jailbreak rule.

I doubt that this rule is even needed. Officers make rules of the games they create etc.
[div class="cat_bar"][div class="catbg" style="font-size: 18px;font-family: Oswald;line-height: 52px;text-shadow: -1px -1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.43);    background: #2b2b2b;background: -moz-linear-gradient(top, #2b2b2b 0%, #191919 100%);background: -webkit-linear-gradient(top, #2b2b2b 0%,#191919 100%);background: linear-gradient(to bottom, #2b2b2b 0%,#191919 100%);box-shadow: 0 2px 0 rgba(255,255,255,0.1) inset;text-align:left;font-weight: 700;"][div class="pt_bar"][div class="ptbg"][span class="pt"][email protected][/span][/div][/div]

Offline P o p a y

Re: Rawr's re-edition of rules (suggestion)
« Reply #64 on: August 23, 2013, 02:44:20 am »
Sami, Officers can make the rules of their games, but that it is written down that CTs can make their own rules only about the game, where there is fair competition for everyone and equal chance to win. The last rule is complying about the Game play of JB not about the games of JB, so it must be written in my opinion - "Any rule not listed here is not a jailbreak rule".

Regards,
Popay

Offline MonsteR

Re: Rawr's re-edition of rules (suggestion)
« Reply #65 on: August 23, 2013, 09:25:59 am »
Sami why did you make this post. Did i ever said that the current rules are better and if they were better why do you think i would like them to be changed with this one. I said that some things are better explaned and we never worked with common sence because some ppl just dont have it and they will start asking stupid questions like the rules dont say that when i aim a gun at a CT i will die ye it is common sence but it isnt in the rules which means that he can complain about it and it will be a valid complain. As i said rules are read 1 time so it doesnt matter if they are just a bit longer. Because if you can read this which rawr made for 4 min if you add some more changes which I want you will be able to read it for 5 min so does it really matter. You are acting like you have to read the rules 5 times every day. They wont happen so long that no one will read them.

Rules should exmplain everything. It is the same with the other ambrosia rules. Like for the Admins abusing rule see what we have in it:
http://www.ambrosia-servers.com/community/index.php?topic=8.0

2. Do not use the administration commands for your own benefit or use them on other admins.
Administration rights have been given to you by server leaders in order to keep the server clean and protect it from cheaters and rulebreakers. It is strictly forbidden to use the administration powers and commands given to you for your own purposes, such actions would result in punishments issued by the development team. Also using admin rights on other admins is strictly forbidden even if it's a joke, it won't be tolerated by the High Administration.
Please, do not abuse your administration rights, else you shall be punished or the rights could be revoked.



Couldnt Raven leave just the first line. Well maybe he could but he explained everything. Arent the rules long, well they are but still they are needed. Because it was going to be much easyer if he did the rules just in 5 lines but he spended  6 lines just for 1 rule.


I am not saying that we need rules as much explaned as our current one but that we need a bit more explaned then the one which rawr posted.



Regards,
Monster

Offline Ed

Re: Rawr's re-edition of rules (suggestion)
« Reply #66 on: August 23, 2013, 10:15:21 am »
I don't know why, but I find the rules in JB and rules for admins completely 2 different subjects. Admin job isn't supposed to be fun, Players in JB need to have fun.

When people say a lot of them haven't even read the rules, you think about it.
The only reason I did the big list is to show you what this "explanation" for you seems to be, when every line repeats it self, there are many rules which are just common sense. I am sorry, I will never agree with this. You can write down the rules, as I said, make smaller version of rules as in front, like I did some time ago and have the full list of rules at the back .

Also, the more rules there are, the more complaining, whining, hating kids there are. Haven't you noticed?
No one used to complain about FD, now for almost 2 years straight - there is crying for it constantly.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 03:23:30 pm by sami<3 »
[div class="cat_bar"][div class="catbg" style="font-size: 18px;font-family: Oswald;line-height: 52px;text-shadow: -1px -1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.43);    background: #2b2b2b;background: -moz-linear-gradient(top, #2b2b2b 0%, #191919 100%);background: -webkit-linear-gradient(top, #2b2b2b 0%,#191919 100%);background: linear-gradient(to bottom, #2b2b2b 0%,#191919 100%);box-shadow: 0 2px 0 rgba(255,255,255,0.1) inset;text-align:left;font-weight: 700;"][div class="pt_bar"][div class="ptbg"][span class="pt"][email protected][/span][/div][/div]

Offline Rawrplus

Re: Rawr's re-edition of rules (suggestion)
« Reply #67 on: August 23, 2013, 03:01:29 pm »

Quote from: Monster
But JB is based on the rules so you cant just say it is obvious. Why it should it be obvious but not writen down. I dont see big differences in reading few lines more. I had read the old rules so many times no matter if they were so long. And when we post the new rules which you made i am sure all the current players will read them and some new players as well. Because there are some special cases when someone is freekilled but actually he isnt then rules just show that for example he had a gun on the FD and the CT killed him.

Every server is based on rules, isn't it? Also, why can't I say something is obvious and unnecessary to be listed on the rules? There are things which should be listed in the server rules - which I agree on and keep on adding them, but some are straight out over the top and unnecessary. I mean, CT is allowed to kill T when he attacks them? Why do we need rule for that? What do you expect Terrorists complaining that CT counter-attacked instead of starring in air like mental? I'm not saying my rules cover every aspect of jailbreak, but just enough for everybody to understand.

Quote
Rules are readed 1 time. You dont have to read them every time so that you can say omg they are long. You just come waste 5 min and read them. Then you leave the topic and never come back to it. So rules should be not too long and not too short. This arent too short but they are short. If we do this changes then they will become normal. And normal is the best because the current one are long while the old one were too long. So everything should be well explained.

I'm pretty sure they aren't. I don't think anybody on the earth, who's new to jailbreak would read rules only once. Either people are active enough to learn rules properly, or they're too lazy to learn them at all. There's no such middle way.

I'm sorry, but when you have kids reporting others for everything, you can't make rules such complicated as you seem to wish. The entire purpose of me re-writing the rules was to get rid of the old complicated rules and I refuse to make them as complicated as they were.
Don't get me wrong, I'm completely up for adding rules and updating them but let's no go overboard with them when it comes to updating them. They should cover important things of jailbreak, but they are supposed to be a bulletin, not a bible.



Also, you seem to mix up two things into one not so tasty cocktail. Guidelines for admins and players. For players, they should be easy enough for them to enjoy, but sophisticated enough to keep gameplay under control. Admin rules are something completely different and is not supposed to be fun, as sami stated.

You could see, how much sami could point out from your old rules and you still could see how many I even was from your suggested rules.
The rules you want to add are unnecessary, confusing and will only make unnecessary issues which sort of defeats the purpose of why I even posted this topic in the first place.


[ 15% ] Finally update Billing Section once and for all
[ 50% ] Ambrosia Garry's Mod Re-Invented
[ 10% ] My web-coding online series
[ 20% ] Brand new forums
[ 30% ] Ambrosia FAQ
[ 10% ] Ambrosia TV
      
           
              [ ► ] Ambrosia History (2009-2014)
              [ ► ] Ambrosia Official Twitter
              [ ► ] Ambrosia Steam Group
              [ ► ] Ambrosia Facebook
              [ ► ] Support Section
              [ ► ] Site RSS
       
             
               [ ► ] Contact me through Steam
               [ ► ] Portfolio (Unfinished)
               [ ► ] Ambrosia Teamspeak
               [ ► ] Send me a PM






[info]I am currently inactive, please contact other highstaff if you need anything[/info]

Offline Jonathan

Re: Rawr's re-edition of rules (suggestion)
« Reply #68 on: August 23, 2013, 06:11:27 pm »
Disable this silly rule :

- Using Voice changer isnt allowed.

http://www.ambrosia-servers.com/community/index.php?topic=15831.msg208207#msg208207
« Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 06:13:11 pm by DonJohn »
Graphic Designer | Ambrosian User | Mixwars Manager

Offline Ed

Re: Rawr's re-edition of rules (suggestion)
« Reply #69 on: August 23, 2013, 08:31:17 pm »
I think I mentioned this in my list too. Who's idea was it?! Voice changer -.-
[div class="cat_bar"][div class="catbg" style="font-size: 18px;font-family: Oswald;line-height: 52px;text-shadow: -1px -1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.43);    background: #2b2b2b;background: -moz-linear-gradient(top, #2b2b2b 0%, #191919 100%);background: -webkit-linear-gradient(top, #2b2b2b 0%,#191919 100%);background: linear-gradient(to bottom, #2b2b2b 0%,#191919 100%);box-shadow: 0 2px 0 rgba(255,255,255,0.1) inset;text-align:left;font-weight: 700;"][div class="pt_bar"][div class="ptbg"][span class="pt"][email protected][/span][/div][/div]

Offline MonsteR

Re: Rawr's re-edition of rules (suggestion)
« Reply #70 on: August 24, 2013, 12:28:03 pm »
This rule appeared when we got few reports of ppl talking like robots with voice changes and annoying everything but admins cant put them back because this is allowed as voicechanger is allowed. So after the reports we added the rule that voice changes isnt allowed because ppl are abusing it and talking like monsters or talking like a new born kid or like robots or like anything you can imagine.


And about the rules i never said we should make them complicated. Just add few more lines not that much. Also can you tell me which rules form that i suggested did you add. Or you didnt add anything yet?



Regards,
Monster
« Last Edit: August 24, 2013, 12:33:42 pm by MonsteR »

Offline NexT

Re: Rawr's re-edition of rules (suggestion)
« Reply #71 on: August 24, 2013, 02:04:07 pm »
My opinion is do not remove the voice changer rule ..
server will get spammed by voice changers ... why do you need it removed ? you don't need voice changer to have fun or to be CT ..

keep the voice changer rule in my opinion


Loves,
NexT

Offline Ray

  • Just a normal
  • Unstoppable
  • *****
  • Posts: 9604
  • Total likes: 1510
  • Never underestimate the impossible!
Re: Rawr's re-edition of rules (suggestion)
« Reply #72 on: August 24, 2013, 02:17:13 pm »
Yes, keep voice changer rule because some of the admins including me know the voices of the banevaders. Like emx for example.
Voice changer will hide him.
New IP ? Steam_ID_LAN ? + voice changer impo to catch.

Also it's annoying. So keep it
76561198265032072

Offline Pim

  • Sooner or later everyone will reveal who they truly are.
  • Legend
  • ****
  • Posts: 4288
  • Total likes: 574
  • #happy
Re: Rawr's re-edition of rules (suggestion)
« Reply #73 on: August 24, 2013, 02:27:40 pm »
Yes, keep voice changer rule because some of the admins including me know the voices of the banevaders. Like emx for example.
Voice changer will hide him.
New IP ? Steam_ID_LAN ? + voice changer impo to catch.

Also it's annoying. So keep it

new ip + steamid lan + someone who doesn't care about rules and uses voice changer anyways? gl finding that out :D


Offline NexT

Re: Rawr's re-edition of rules (suggestion)
« Reply #74 on: August 24, 2013, 02:36:33 pm »
Yes, keep voice changer rule because some of the admins including me know the voices of the banevaders. Like emx for example.
Voice changer will hide him.
New IP ? Steam_ID_LAN ? + voice changer impo to catch.

Also it's annoying. So keep it

Thats one bad thing you said over there :D ban evader won't even care about rules :D

Offline Ed

Re: Rawr's re-edition of rules (suggestion)
« Reply #75 on: August 24, 2013, 06:00:18 pm »
You are missing the point. Voice changer has nothing to do with proof of a banevader, people can make higher or lower tones with their own voice and taking voice as a proof of someone's voice isn't enough to tell it is that person. It is not enough proof to know someone's voice. Also let them use voice changer, more suspicious that way. Besides if someone is having a horrible voice we can simply put them back. I struggle with people who are still young and their voices just give me headache, I much rather prefer that they use voice changer so we don't have to suffer.

Voice changer was never in rules and it should stay that way. Unnecessary rule once more.
[div class="cat_bar"][div class="catbg" style="font-size: 18px;font-family: Oswald;line-height: 52px;text-shadow: -1px -1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.43);    background: #2b2b2b;background: -moz-linear-gradient(top, #2b2b2b 0%, #191919 100%);background: -webkit-linear-gradient(top, #2b2b2b 0%,#191919 100%);background: linear-gradient(to bottom, #2b2b2b 0%,#191919 100%);box-shadow: 0 2px 0 rgba(255,255,255,0.1) inset;text-align:left;font-weight: 700;"][div class="pt_bar"][div class="ptbg"][span class="pt"][email protected][/span][/div][/div]

Offline TeeKaaY

Re: Rawr's re-edition of rules (suggestion)
« Reply #76 on: August 24, 2013, 08:56:42 pm »
Sami I am gonna give you a kiss (K)

The point that most of you guys don't get, is that Guards have weapons and they command the Prisoners. Your rules are restricting any Prisoner movement. The rules should facilitate to some sort the life of the Prisoners. Give them some slack. But again don't go to far with this.

Daniel

  • Guest
Re: Rawr's re-edition of rules (suggestion)
« Reply #77 on: August 25, 2013, 04:18:23 am »
4 pages with long replies, i couldnt read it all. But I can suggest something, think about the basics, think about those basic rules which are needed for a good/non-strict gameplay. After that, see the reports and complaints and see what is needed to add and what it is not.

Offline 'PL'

Re: Rawr's re-edition of rules (suggestion)
« Reply #78 on: August 25, 2013, 07:26:59 pm »
Well that silly voicechanger rule came when tasha and sammi joined jb. At points they accused kitty,girly and tommy for using voice changer. So the current administrators of that time invented a rule for voice changing. Any new person having a female contralto voice type, since voice changers cannot produce natural female level is suspected of voice changer. There was not logical thought on why it was needed
If somebody is wondering how it got in jb.

Offline MonsteR

Re: Rawr's re-edition of rules (suggestion)
« Reply #79 on: August 26, 2013, 08:28:44 am »
Guys we had many ppl with robot voices and stuff like this which are more annoying then anything. If we remove the rule that voice changer isnt allowed then when someone comes and starts talking in a strange way which is annoying what can we do about it. You will tell him this voice is annoying everyone remove it. And he will say why should I remove it? Rules are saying that voice changer is allowed so i am using it at the moment. And nothing can be done.


Regards,
Monster