[JB]Yo, about the new rules.

['PL']

Well since I kind of played jailbreak these days, I wanted to ask something about rules which don't make sense to me as in practical usage? I suppose there should have been a admin meeting when this rule was reviewed or was it just added out of nowhere.

You can kill your teammates in a game once or twice, but constantly doing it when there's no use is not allowed. (located in ct's rules)

-I mean, I'm used to the business of when ct's teamkill, it's pretty much done as intended misconduct, it never exists a reason to do it or to reward you in some way, just to cure your trigger-happiness. And there were rare cases when accidental ct teamkills happened the online administrator could chose to actionize the incident or not. I don't mind being explained the intellectual value of this rule existing in the first place which could completely destroy teamwork when 2 ct's do not share sympathy or willingness to cooperate(a scenario that happens many times nowadays). Please carefully theorycraft in what occurance would this help or give any possitive odd for the ct's if they could just kill his teammates, what game was created that ct's are eligible to kill other ct's ? If the ct lost the game(I mean, I'm not saying I know all of the jailbreak games but so far nothing really new crossed me), and if he is found delaying(not killing himself/ or being killed by a terrorist) I remember any administrator likes to toy with amx_slay and give warnings afterwards.

To repeat myself, I find that a hole can be used which any player in the server can use this exactly two times and the rule framework will not comply to his wrongdoings. And probably a poll or a democratic dialogue can be arranged to compare the older ct teamkill rule and this one.


And lastly, I find misperception on a certain global, generalized rule...

You cannot be biased. Everyone is supposed to have equal chances to win a game(located in ct's rules)

I understand that games should forfeit to all contenders being on equal standing, so why are some people divided into groups(you should state that cheating is not allowed), and (by default you can't cheat). So any player which will cheat intentionally will be disqualified at start because he used a advantage. So yes, I represent the second group. In practice on the other hand, such misunderstandings might cross a line if the payload of that misunderstanding is between a justified freeday and a unfair freeday. And everybody is aware how some personalities are bashful to get what they want if the situation is two-sided and exists equal counterbalances that divide the outcome in both's favor.

And if the advantage was generated by the commander(on purpose) to reward the player who won a game before the main game is played does not fall under this rule's category.

[Jake]

Your English = Alien
           ^ Prototype #2015

['PL']

Well offtopic is a great thing, I like doing it a lot but this is serious

[Ocelvon]

And lastly, I find misperception on a certain global, generalized rule...

You cannot be biased. Everyone is supposed to have equal chances to win a game(located in ct's rules)

I understand that games should forfeit to all contenders being on equal standing, so why are some people divided into groups(you should state that cheating is not allowed), and (by default you can't cheat). So any player which will cheat intentionally will be disqualified at start because he used a advantage. So yes, I represent the second group. In practice on the other hand, such misunderstandings might cross a line if the payload of that misunderstanding is between a justified freeday and a unfair freeday. And everybody is aware how some personalities are bashful to get what they want if the situation is two-sided and exists equal counterbalances that divide the outcome in both's favor.

And if the advantage was generated by the commander(on purpose) to reward the player who won a game before the main game is played does not fall under this rule's category.

Even i'm having troubles (i think and whoa who knew that was possible)

You're basically saying that if a member of your team cheats (he gets killed), you want to avoid being in an unfair status?(Example is being on a 4v5 in soccer since an idiot decided to bugger all)
You gotta understand this in the CT perspective as well. Pausing the game getting them all lined up and get a game to murder someone takes time...it does kinda destroy the flow of the game and consequentially make it boring (and i know how to destroy the flow of the game trust me )

EDIT: also to reply in the first problem you presented. The rule got banished for a reason.I assume (haven't been here to watch) it got removed due to the majority of people agreeing upon the fact that killing your teammate is fun. I doubt it will be changed any time soon

[JustGo]

Well since I kind of played jailbreak these days, I wanted to ask something about rules which don't make sense to me as in practical usage? I suppose there should have been a admin meeting when this rule was reviewed or was it just added out of nowhere.

You can kill your teammates in a game once or twice, but constantly doing it when there's no use is not allowed. (located in ct's rules)

-I mean, I'm used to the business of when ct's teamkill, it's pretty much done as intended misconduct, it never exists a reason to do it or to reward you in some way, just to cure your trigger-happiness. And there were rare cases when accidental ct teamkills happened the online administrator could chose to actionize the incident or not. I don't mind being explained the intellectual value of this rule existing in the first place which could completely destroy teamwork when 2 ct's do not share sympathy or willingness to cooperate(a scenario that happens many times nowadays). Please carefully theorycraft in what occurance would this help or give any possitive odd for the ct's if they could just kill his teammates, what game was created that ct's are eligible to kill other ct's ? If the ct lost the game(I mean, I'm not saying I know all of the jailbreak games but so far nothing really new crossed me), and if he is found delaying(not killing himself/ or being killed by a terrorist) I remember any administrator likes to toy with amx_slay and give warnings afterwards.

To repeat myself, I find that a hole can be used which any player in the server can use this exactly two times and the rule framework will not comply to his wrongdoings. And probably a poll or a democratic dialogue can be arranged to compare the older ct teamkill rule and this one.


And lastly, I find misperception on a certain global, generalized rule...

You cannot be biased. Everyone is supposed to have equal chances to win a game(located in ct's rules)

I understand that games should forfeit to all contenders being on equal standing, so why are some people divided into groups(you should state that cheating is not allowed), and (by default you can't cheat). So any player which will cheat intentionally will be disqualified at start because he used a advantage. So yes, I represent the second group. In practice on the other hand, such misunderstandings might cross a line if the payload of that misunderstanding is between a justified freeday and a unfair freeday. And everybody is aware how some personalities are bashful to get what they want if the situation is two-sided and exists equal counterbalances that divide the outcome in both's favor.

And if the advantage was generated by the commander(on purpose) to reward the player who won a game before the main game is played does not fall under this rule's category.

i didn't read the first part of team killing but let me clear the thing about cheating because i was ct when you sayed its unfair for the guy who used shotgun i didn't say cheating is not allowed because when a ct make a game he will not say "hey evry buddy cheating is allowed go and...." this will complitly change the game and goes in other ct wanted to... just an Exemple would be  a pool race and ct sayed cheating is allowed it will not be called pool race any more because no one gona go in water they will jsut run to the finish line. so if ct make a game he make the rules if he didn't say cheating not allowed then cheating is allowed(if its possible ofc).cheating is not allowed be default in lr but not if ct make the game.

[GandElf The Gay]

i didn't read the first part of team killing but let me clear the thing about cheating because i was ct when you sayed its unfair for the guy who used shotgun i didn't say cheating is not allowed because when a ct make a game he will not say "hey evry buddy cheating is allowed go and...." this will complitly change the game and goes in other ct wanted to... just an Exemple would be  a pool race and ct sayed cheating is allowed it will not be called pool race any more because no one gona go in water they will jsut run to the finish line. so if ct make a game he make the rules if he didn't say cheating not allowed then cheating is allowed(if its possible ofc).cheating is not allowed be default in lr but not if ct make the game.

betch plss, going through water is faster than running around it bad example

if the advantage was generated by the commander(on purpose) to reward the player who won a game before the main game is played does not fall under this rule's category.

I dont think cts generally do this but it should be dealt with if they do

['PL']

Mcain:
You had a great counterevidence with the soccer, but i was accurately aiming at games which the players are expected to solely complete the game without the backbone of a collective(majority), because in team games, one player can perform significantly better than his teammates in a soccer match for example(or take it as any team associated game).
And if one player died because of his own mistake, then the ct's by no obligatory means has to induce equality because it's not his fault for the teams to be disbalanced with one's individual's risk which costed the team a player. And usually in soccer of all games I haven't seen the last 2 years someone or a buildup of people cheating to spoil their team from winning as it means a lot to newfounded friendships and cycles.

Yet this is psychology, nothing related to jailbreak nor argumentable for the community's sake, but cheating in teamgames in the jailbreak servers usually was sorted swiftly and quickly to allocate a even number for equality. And because one individual cheated, the ct has more then one repetitive ways to eliminate auxiliary contestants.

But take for example any race, if everybody is expected to follow his own track and one just thinks he can be a black sheep from the group because of some mandatory inclusion of "cheating not allowed", you are at first hand "complicating the game", and secondly the point of the game is completely neglected. Are we gonna play a game somebody thoughtfully made but not follow it by his rules which imply how the game is properly played? I mean if creativity is to be topnotch right now, games should be played like they are stated and explained. It's a passive way of disregarding his game just because he did not mention "No cheating", and with that you won't have any improvement on creativity but just play monotone games of first and last reaction, line up for a headshot, and thousands of other repetitive commands that at some point I'll start dreaming about them. Please follow the topic for referral as we talked about the game handling in the past, and it's at all not outdated that those claims still hold ground:

http://www.ambrosia-servers.eu/community/index.php?topic=1900.0
Rule 19th

P.S: Try to skip the arguing with the vent rule, that was the bane of ambrosia for 3.5 years.

Most of the reasons why I would like the equality in games is because of all the replies here.

TkPart:Again, every jailbreak rule as sami and monster constantly stated have to carry a purpose not because of a preference, if that is the case in the near future a preference might be to talk arabic only x amount of times and other outrageous illogical constempations.

NoReg:
I see what you are going at, that you prefer to reward the people who "intelligently" hadn't heard that mandatory command, however if you are to play games which are supposed to be played without cheating and want a fair winner it's expected that everybody has to stand on the same footing without any difference. And yes if cheating is not allowed in lr by default, that means it existed always a default for games. But since the rules transitioned forwards and backwards a couple of times we have divided in groups on how to interpret this rule and support the side of the rule. And in the server, it wasn't just me who supported the default mechanism for the game.

[Andrew`]

The first rule about CTs killing teammates means if there's a game that could let's say enable free for all or a chance to teamkill in a game(like deathrun) the CTs could "play" as well with each other instead of waiting for a whole round for the Ts to finish. However, you cannot do this randomly and constantly without any reason in a regular day. I never said killing your fellow CT anytime you want is allowed. Just that sometimes the CTs kill each other in a SD let's say and then there are complaints, and the funny thing is they do this themselves as well as they end up waiting a whole round for the Ts to finish.

About the "you cannot be biased", the rule was already here before my arrival, but I personally could easily understand this. This means doing/asking smth on a game one has less chances to know/achieve, not gaming experience stuff like long jump but things like asking an admin and a new guy how to do a certain command in amxmodmenu(admins are ofc supposed to know better) or like you said, a guy playing vs 2 others in soccer, or asking 3 vs 2 Ts to make the longest tower, logic says that without cheating it is not so possible.

I do not fully understand what is not very clear to get. I mean, almost all rules were here before I arrived and I never felt smth doesn't really make sense. Could be just me, though

Let me know if this made it clear for ya.

['PL']

The first rule about CTs killing teammates means if there's a game that could let's say enable free for all or a chance to teamkill in a game(like deathrun) the CTs could "play" as well with each other instead of waiting for a whole round for the Ts to finish. However, you cannot do this randomly and constantly without any reason in a regular day. I never said killing your fellow CT anytime you want is allowed. Just that sometimes the CTs kill each other in a SD let's say and then there are complaints, and the funny thing is they do this themselves as well as they end up waiting a whole round for the Ts to finish.

About the "you cannot be biased", the rule was already here before my arrival, but I personally could easily understand this. This means doing/asking smth on a game one has less chances to know/achieve, not gaming experience stuff like long jump but things like asking an admin and a new guy how to do a certain command in amxmodmenu(admins are ofc supposed to know better) or like you said, a guy playing vs 2 others in soccer, or asking 3 vs 2 Ts to make the longest tower, logic says that without cheating it is not so possible.

I do not fully understand what is not very clear to get. I mean, almost all rules were here before I arrived and I never felt smth doesn't really make sense. Could be just me, though

Let me know if this made it clear for ya.

So let's say it's a game that enables friendly fire or in your circumstance of deathrun, wouldn't you be annoyed if you got killed by your teammate because he was trigger happy? And the silly thing about this is there is no positive application for ct's to teamkill each other. It's just ridicule and I didn't actually see it being that necessary as you described it means to be a preference. You could do many things as a ct when a game is played that doesn't concern ct's participation in it(for example thinking of different games and ideas to test out, not just adgitize for a kill because you are not the commander). Any game that is dependant on terrorists battling it out should not let you to bug the ct's friendlyfire. Friendly Fire wasn't even supposed to be meant for ct's but I suppose with the current limitation of amxx you couldn't code a exception for it. And to top it all, the ct's will be put in a number disadvantage if one ct chose to teamkill another. I only see this being eligible if 2 or more ct's agree into partaking a duel but if only they agree in public. So my question after yours undercloacked is, do you see any other occasion where ct teamkill is preferable?

I do know biased rule existed before, it was mostly aimed at people who created new games so the game would feature equal opportunity from the starting position/state for people to win. And yes, you couldn't cheated in those games because they were freshly created at the start, and finding a exploit that would help you gain a advantage over people took some time.

It also had a substructure for ct's to not help the t's into a advantage.

However playing these days, I noticed that commanders are actually letting t's to bias the other contestants with advantages unless they restrict the advantage with the command: "No cheating". Unfortunately not all mappers made it so that games would not be realistically exploitable, take for example some maps having contestants only to follow one track to reach the finish. And because you can't cheat in those games, you wouldn't have to mention cheating is not allowed because the game has a built in mechanism to block out those who will try to get around. (for example, let's the pool area to have walls around the finish to restrict people who tried getting there outside of the pool track. Try imagining a racing track that walls out the finish line or elevates it so only you could reach it from the track position. The current commanding pattern should always default the game to be won by following the ruleset not cheating.

I did mention soccer would be complicated if we plug in the defaulting mechanism for games, but it's a team game and in those kind of games it exists a skill advantage(be it by a really good goal keeper or soccer player) which is gained by experience and training. And you can't restrict that nor combat it because some people invested time and focus for it. Which means he is cheating by a advantage from skill, but right now if you don't mention :No cheating. Everybody would just cheat and the player who rightfully won the game without cheating will be disregarded, therefore promoting cheating.

TL:DR: You command for a game, you play the game by the rules, not if you say: No cheating.

[Andrew`]

I already explained what being biased is, it's not about skills, you cannot do anything to change the "skilled vs unskilled player", it's mostly the amount and chances of each team/player looking at them objectively without knowing how long he has played or so, so I still don't understand why you continue arguing for a rule that is essential for a fair gaming experience.

About CTs teammkilling, you explained it yourself, if they decide to play a game and kill each other they can, but I won't make a whole set of rules to explain how and when you're supposed to do this and that just so that you stop arguing, I think we're all grown ups here and we understand what "everyone must have equal chances to win a game" and "you can kill your teammate once or twice in a GAME but not constantly" mean. And no, nothing will fuss the balance if a CT kills a teammate once, as you know in most games/special days only 1 T survives and then there's last request.

['PL']

I'm arguing on the fact that if I want to win a game by playing by it's rules, I have won the game. Not the one who cheated and reached the finish line/completed the objective by not following the ruleset. Since it existed that in games you default the no cheating because why is the game carried out if you intentionally want the players to cheat. Me or anyone could just point out ingame and inforum that he is unawarely breaking the bias rule, and the worst part of that happening is the commander won't understand what he did. So I'm not asking for too much here, simple try to rework the bias rule so that any game, contest, race, teamgame to feature a component of "No cheating" by default when the announcement came from the ct. When we played under that defaulting structure, we know every winner was rightfully a winner in that game and in that time. That's fairness... 

Wouldn't be better if we bring back the no ct teamkill rule? Wouldn't that make things less complicated ?
Pardon, I actually forgot about that ... when a teamkill command is initiated there should never be more than 1 t and 1 ct alive? Therefore meaning no games should be played if we choose to activate the friendly fire as commander's game? Well that explains the number disadvantage so you got a point there.

[Andrew`]

I'm arguing on the fact that if I want to win a game by playing by it's rules, I have won the game. Not the one who cheated and reached the finish line/completed the objective by not following the ruleset. Since it existed that in games you default the no cheating because why is the game carried out if you intentionally want the players to cheat. Me or anyone could just point out ingame and inforum that he is unawarely breaking the bias rule, and the worst part of that happening is the commander won't understand what he did. So I'm not asking for too much here, simple try to rework the bias rule so that any game, contest, race, teamgame to feature a component of "No cheating" by default when the announcement came from the ct. When we played under that defaulting structure, we know every winner was rightfully a winner in that game and in that time. That's fairness... 

Wouldn't be better if we bring back the no ct teamkill rule? Wouldn't that make things less complicated ?
Pardon, I actually forgot about that ... when a teamkill command is initiated there should never be more than 1 t and 1 ct alive? Therefore meaning no games should be played if we choose to activate the friendly fire as commander's game? Well that explains the number disadvantage so you got a point there.

It's not only about how complicated things are, it's also about seeing both sides of a coin, this is not complicated at all, you're a CT, you wanna play a game while Ts are playing a Special Day? You can do it, there's nothing complicated in that and I haven't seen anyone else complaining about it and let's admit many others have played for much more time lately, so I suppose everything is alright and you cannot expect me to change/remove a rule for one person, because this means I'll have to change every single rule to fit with people's taste. I do appreciate your efforts to improve some things(according to you) in JB but if you're going to constantly argue you will need support and to make sure your suggestion will be welcome from the other JB players, which in this case did not happen. I do try to be democratic but can't do changes for one opinion, I hope you understand that.

However, I will change the CTs teamkill rule to "CT teamkill in not allowed" for now because I kind of understand your opinion and want to let you know I do listen and I do try to understand your arguements. The bias rule will stay, though. It is not the same with cheating and it's about the amount of possibilities a player/team has to win against others not when it comes to skill but common sense and amount(in teams). Cheating is something else and there's also the rule for no cheating in LR and CTs almost always disallow cheating and nowadays it's kind of a default that cheating is not welcome in any game, just like a CT being biased which can be similar to cheating but it's not totally the same. Last but not least, there has never been any complaint about it, or even a comment, as far as I'm concerned, therefore there's nothing really wrong about it just yet.

Regards.

Topic Locked.