Forest

:poop: shit SHIT Shit Aegeany deal..

Is there any ETA for hub @autumn? Or is it still just one of those "whenever I have the time" things.

@@nutellasoswag Were there no staff members on during the time this happened?

This is a classic example of 'loopholing' the MoTD Rules. Last I checked, just because it says that Warden can put "Restrictions" on Freedays, does not mean they can restrict any type of movement (only exception being a Special Day that restricts it, IE. Zombie Freeday restricts to Walking only, Panda Freeday restricts to Crouching only). The "Restrictions" that the MoTD is defining are restrictions to an Area (Freeday in Disco), however it seems people are already trying to abuse the whole "Warden may put restrictions on Freedays". - Dat guy, Forest

Not every single little detail needs to be put into the MoTD Rules, a lot of the rules we abide by are implied and have been passed down generation by generation by the Wise Ones. Free shooting being one of them. If a CT is intentionally and blatantly free shooting any Terrorist for no reason at all, then yes, I would say it warrants a slay (something like this isn't needed in the MoTD as it is implied). Unless, of course, you're like me, and you enjoy the pain of being free shot by certain people :woot:

For anyone interested in seeing other Member's opinions on this, check out Gawd's thread; Ban suggestion (Just hear me out)

GOD DAMIT WARRIOR.

Regardless if it was funny or that others have done it, it's still abuse as a Staff Member. The most you'll be able to get out of this would be a shortened ban length, but that's completely up to @@serbiansnaga or @autumn. Other ex-members have done this (IE. Sinly, Mythic) and both were treated differently, one was given a ban length of a couple of months, while the other used the "get-out-of-ban-free card". Again, completely up to the Higher-Ups to decide. -1 for an immediate unban

Honestly, I am 100% in agreeance for changing the terms of certain actions leading to certain punishments. As many have stated already, most of the bans that are dealt are for Mass Freekilling, a very small crime when compared to something like hacking, DDoS'ing, etc. Why should it be in the same ballpark when (like previously mentioned) one action is completely different from the other. Although, in regards to what Gawd is trying to say, I agree. The moment you give a lowered punishment for Mass Freekilling, some players will feel they are given much more leniency and will most likely shrug it off should they choose to do so. What I propose to solve that dilemma is simply this; If the Player Mass Freekills (with the intention of doing so), they are CT banned (or server banned depending on the scenario) for X amount of time. After their probation, they are obviously unbanned and free to rejoin CT, however; should they (intentionally) mass freekill again, then as a second offense they Will be permanently CT banned with no chance at an appeal. This way there will be no guilt trips, no discussions, no unbanning. Players will already be given another chance as soon as they decide to Mass FK, but should they choose to betray that trust and do it again, they will be perm'd. In this case, the only time you would appeal for an unban, would be if it was an accidental mass freekill, in which the Staff Members would look into it, weigh the pros/cons and come to a verdict (with the input of the community as well). After all, there is a distinct difference between intentionally breaking a rule and accidentally breaking it. With that in mind, there should be two different punishment times for Mass Freekilling intentionally versus Mass Freekilling accidentally. It should be obvious to determine which deserves what punishment. TL;DR - Player gets CT banned for X amount of time for (intentionally) mass freekilling. Player then has no more chances should they choose to mass freekill Intentionally again and will be permanently CT banned with no chance at an appeal the next time they Intentionally do it again.

#HardOn4HaaDron

I'd be down for a night where we all just hung out casually, no worries about rule breaking (to a certain extent, obviously no excessive power abuse). It'd be like old times, late night karaoke sessions were the best. Granted, a lot of the members who did that aren't exactly around now, but yolo.

I would totally edit one in, but I can't edit it any more, which may be a problem for future promos/demos. @autumn as to why we can no longer edit our past posts? I also noticed it only happens after a certain amount of time, unless it's just me.

The only reason players provide +1s to some (if not all) bans is solely because everyone else is doing the same and they don't want to lose any integrity/credibility by posting a -1 or don't want to be beaten to death for saying "No." A perfect example of such: Exactly. Then it ends up being either ignored or changed to a +1. I won't deny in saying that I've changed my opinion based on how everyone else was so lenient, I'll admit that. The only time I gave my valid opinion was during the time Papi was protesting a ban, in which it seemed no one else would see through the fog of "high stature" and give their unbiased opinion. From then on, I've definitely been giving a lot more slack then should be given. The only way to enforce it properly and solidly enough so that Everyone gets the point, would be to have all the Higher-Ups establish that from this point on, no one, regardless of their previous rank/stature or whatever it is they've done for the clan will have any influence on what they mess up in. If they intentionally mass freekill, or do something related to that, then they'll be "SoL" and won't be legible for an unban. With all that said, from this point on, I'm going back to how Ban Protests were enforced then. If someone decides to mass freekill intentionally, then I won't be providing a 1-up under any circumstances. If it was a mass freekill that was done due to carelessness or was accidental, then I'll weigh the pros and cons and then evaluate based on it and come up with a verdict of which seems fair. #Gawd4Coleader - Dat guy, Forest

What the cuss? Are you serious? Just because of one instance where it caused confusion among Staff Members, you're going to implement a controversial rule that is technically already in effect? Things like this can be avoided if you didn't have your pride so far up your bum to even bother to check the MoTD Rules before arguing that you're 100% correct. I'm getting distressed with the amount of Staff Members who are insisting that just because they have a position of power, means they are Always right. +1 for the removal of this "addition" - Dat guy, Forest

We can do it without LR, it's just that it's in close relations to a Hide and Seek day. Might be easy to confuse the two between each other on which gets LR and which doesn't get LR is all. But it's completely up to the Division Managers/Leader to determine what the rules should be. @@DarkWolf6052 @@Gkoo @@John @@PiNoYPsYcHo @@HighSociety Also, this was just summing up the concept of the day. If it is to be implemented into the MoTD, it will need to be reworked!

If anyone could successfully test this ingame (With permission from Staff Members of course) that would be amazing. After doing so, it would be great if you could post on how it worked out and if the players enjoyed it. After all, we don't want to implement another game that no one likes //cough FR/LR //cough. Also, if anyone could, run a test on how it works out Without Tasers, then how it works out With Tasers so we can determine whether or not it should be allowed.

DDOS THREAT??? Jk. Don't ban me. :whistle: Welcome to the xG community mate, I'm Forest, ex-Division Manager of the CS:S Division, so if you ever have any questions feel free to message me via TeamSpeak, Forums or Steam! Hope to see you around on Jailbreak as well as our TeamSpeak server, and I hope you enjoy your stay! - Dat guy, Forest

It's a shame to see you resign mate, I never personally got to know you (maybe I have, but have forgotten due to my stupidity) but I know you were a frequenter of the CS:S JailBreak server, at least back then. I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavours and hope to see you around every now and then on the Jailbreak server, not as a Member, but as a player. Peace - Dat guy, Forest

Un-needed thread, not because of the server, but because it just instigated a flame war. Posting a thread for the sole purpose of determining who deserves the title is unnecessary. It only leads to Group A arguing why Leader A is better as opposed to Group B arguing why Leader B is better. All you get out of threads like this are hateful comments and disrespect toward one or the other. Best to discuss it in private with a Co-Leader present and come to a conclusion that both parties can be happy with, rather then publicly humiliate one or the other in a thread. I'm going to #RequestToClose because all this thread accomplished was trolling/flaming/disrespect. - Dat guy, Forest

It is technically considered interfering with LR if it is becoming an annoyance for the Terrorist. CTs are not supposed to interfere with LR, and if the T requests to not be gunplanted or baited, then CTs better not gun plant or bait (continuing to do so may lead to a slay). It's his/her Last Request, he/she can do whatever they want (to a certain extent). It's like having a CT running in front of a T who is doing Shot 4 Shot for the sole intention of being an annoyance, which is slayable. -1 for any sort of rule implementation regarding this as it is implied. - Dat guy, Forest

+1 for implementation. Only thing that may be a problem in the future is if a CT camps in the VIP area for Last CT (or even just messes around in there) since Ts cannot access it without a CT pressing the button. Just a heads up, not like it'll be a huge issue.

Dear god...

The name of the game is Man Hunt. It is essentially the same as Hide and Seek, but with a twist. CTs will be the ones who hide while the Ts hunt. How it would work out: Warden declares it will be a Man Hunt day CTs must drop all of their weapons in Armory Warden must order all Ts to be in one specified area while the CTs go hide (Isolation [must be able to open from inside], big cage, medic, etc) and may give a time for them to leave Warden will issue a time where Ts become KoS, however the minimum amount of time given can only be three minutes CTs will hide it out until Last CT is initiated, in which case the Last CT will avenge his/her fallen colleagues CTs are obviously KoS, however Ts are not until the time the Warden has specified There is still LR on this day I will also point out one other thing if this just looks like a massacre of guards; 1. I am aware that for every CT, there are two Ts, therefore being a ridiculously low chance for survival if you are a CT. To combat this, what I propose is that CTs may only be armed with Tasers and may use it to slow Ts as well as disarm, HOWEVER; they cannot kill a T by using their knife under any circumstances (with the exception of Last CT and during the "expansion" time). Not only will the T be disarmed, but they will be slowed for a long enough duration to high-tail it out of there and find a new hiding location. 2. The biggest outcome for this is Last CT being activated. If by some chance the CTs have lived through to the "expansion" time, then it will be a Global Warday but LR will still be given. Sleep deprivation as well as boredom drove me to do this, so I apologize if it all seems like a terrible idea. In addition to this suggestion, feel free to post any other ideas you may have for a new MoTD Game! Comments? Thoughts? Discussion? Suggestions? Hate-mail? Criticism? Leave it below. - Dat guy, Forest

Nah, you got a double sided lightsaber. You're neutral party, green And red.