Forest

Donate? Now? Okay. One moment.

Lets not get carried away. All that these bombings are going to do is destroy more homes and lives, most of which may very well be innocent. Military force isn't going to solve anything because the whole ISIS organization is formed around a religion. Stifling a religion is near impossible as it's an idea or a belief. It's why terrorism on the scale of guerilla warfare is so effective with a group like ISIS. I'm sorry to say it, but there's some truth in what shadow said (that said, I'm a religious person myself). There are just far too many radicals that are so set in their ways that they're damaging their own self-proclaimed image more than they're helping anything.

Maybe an additional rule stating that the area must be a reasonable size or something? Though this particular thing is completely up to personal preference of players and it could vary heavily so it may not be pushed through

Take it easy m8

Ironic given the fact that it is the Basic MoTD from CS:S, but with several revisions/additions. Though I agree, two versions (one basic, one indepth) would be the best approach if there's a need for detailed rules/regulations as opposed to just making one incredibly long one list; because we all know how well that went over in the late CS:S Division (hint: everyone always complained that it was too long and indepth). Yeah, that rule was always in place which is why I initially brought up my earlier question. How it is currently 'written' in the rules just came off as "you can have a secondary out indefinitely" which didn't/doesn't seem right to me (given the late CS:S rules). But because I never really looked into the CS:GO rules (no "indepth" version that states otherwise), I wasn't sure whether they had changed it so that you could have a secondary out in the aforementioned way, which again, is why I asked my initial question(s).

As did the CS:S Division. For some reason it's incredibly difficult for people to grasp :coffee:

Totally forgot about auto-swap. I get that, but they're essentially the same thing for the purposes of the JB rules. Doesn't need to be two instances of "choose to rebel" is all I'm saying. That's not what I'm referring to. What I'm saying is that one explicitly says "Taking a step out is implied" while the other one doesn't. On both accounts it should say "Taking a step out is implied", or just not say it at all.

Noticed a few inconsistencies in it from skimming: #7 ought to be under the Warden specific rules/regulations. #6 is a tad bit confusing. Why are secondary weapons allowed to be out (also, typo. Says "Secondaries weapons") while primary weapons aren't? Don't know whether this is really an issue on the CS:GO Server (I'll be honest, I haven't really extensively read the CS:GO rules so correct me if I'm wrong) but it looks like it would confuse any new players since primaries aren't allowed, but secondaries are. Looking back on this, I'm not entirely sure why I practically just repeated the same objective. Anyways, #3 and #4 are practically the same. You really only need one or the other. This mention may not be necessary, but because these are definitive explanations I would suggest having the note "Taking a step out is implied" under the terminology for "AFK Freeze" as well as "Gun Check Freeze" to ensure maximum clarity as opposed to just having it under "Gun Check Freeze".

First things first; do you really need the portability of a laptop with the performance of a desktop? In other words, do you really plan on using the laptop to it's full-potential in that you'll be gaming anywhere and everywhere? Reason I ask is that you can pay half the price of what you would normally pay for a gaming laptop to just build your own PC (desktop) that will run on medium and possibly higher. As much as I love the idea of being able to move freely and play wherever I want, I can't justify the amount of money that would be sunk into a gaming laptop for the sake of portability.

Yeah, it's pretty messed up, I heard it while at work. Most f*cked up part is all of the hash-tagging from supporters of [iSIS] it all that are explicitly about Paris being in flames.

yo, u sexy

Take it easy m8. Don't set your bro's house on fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc3BS-Jn4f4

Solely basing my opinion off of my previous questions (found Here) as well as what I've seen outside of the TF2 Servers, primarily in the xG forums. Given the circumstances, I won't be typing out some massive wall of text (I looked back on this and, straight up, I lied) due to the fact that most of what I would bring up has already been brought up in this thread. That being said, it'll still be a lengthy read. To allow an easier time, I'll briefly summarize the main points that I believe were made in this thread with my added opinion. 1. Offensive Material So far, this has been one of the biggest pieces of kindle to the fire, if not the open flame to the firestorm. It's understandable that no one wants to see or hear about the "offensive" material Matsi has brought up, but from what I've personally seen, 9/10 times these moments were instigated or even provoked. Mock the guy by saying something like "go have sex with a dog" (extreme example) and you damn well better expect him to retaliate with something just as vulgar. However, with that being said, it is just as unacceptable for Matsi to talk in detail about something as "offensive" as what he [supposedly] did, especially in the presence of minors either in or out of the Server. While this may be the case, I'd like to remind everyone that vulgarities are a common thing online. Hell I bet I could get on the TF2 Server and at some point or another, someone will outright say "suck my dick" or anything else along those lines. Obviously the two (beasiality, for a lack of better words, and text-book vulgarity) aren't on the same level, but if you're going to argue that Matsi is saying offensive material in the presence of minors, then you should take into account all of the other filth that is said in and out of Servers. In the end, it's all the same and minors should not be subjected to any of it if that's your argument. Needless to say, if you don't want someone to go into detail about their personal life, don't ask. If you won't ask, they won't tell. Stop instigating with comments or posts that either have no relevance or should not have even been mentioned. All in all, any sort of "extreme ideologies" or life choices that aren't PG- 13 should not be shared openly on the Servers. We're here to play games and have fun, not to debate and discuss what gets each other off. This should not be counted as a huge "strike" against Matsi. 2. Sense of Entitlement If the offensive material was the open flame, then this is the pile of dead branches and twigs that contributes the ignition. We've all seen it before, someone posts something in a way that leads others to believe they're cocky or arrogant. I won't say this doesn't happen, I've seen my fair share of Matsi giving attitude and sass in response to a thread or post. I do agree that it is completely unwarranted in most cases, just as it was when the exact same problem had occurred with Vector. With that said, we can all do without this sort of attitude and behaviour on the forums. I'll agree that a change needs to be made here. There's some truth in the saying "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all". It really isn't that difficult to realize not everyone has the same thought pattern or perceptions as yourself (in general), so give the person a break or give them the benefit of the doubt. Anything from the sentence "have a nice day :) " can be misconstrued given the circumstances, which leads me to my next point. 3. Personal Opinion Everyone is entitled to this. I may not be a part of the TF2 Division, but we're all in the same clan. This isn't some civil war where CS:GO is better than TF2 or TF2 is better than ND. Everyone has the exact same say in something, regardless of their primary Division. Even if it is negative, why is there a need to call them out by saying something like "you have no idea what this is about, get out of here and stay out of here"? It's just as easy to tell them why what they said couldn't work or why it isn't a viable option. The relevance of this point is how Matsi is shut out from the CS:GO Division due to whatever the hell the reason is. We all know that Matsi is a whistle-blower (based on the Ban Requests he has submitted) which means that the guy is dedicated to following the rules properly, which I can see no problem. However, because of the attitude he can give, most of what he says may come off in an arrogant way, a sort of "I know all of the rules and what you're doing is wrong" which can appear as though he has this sense of entitlement as mentioned earlier. Mix that with people who have a bad history with him, and you have an explosive and volatile reaction. Case in point, Snackbar's reaction to Matsi's post in which Matsi mentions a pre-existing rule that conflicts with Snackbar's addition of a new rule. Depending on your history with Matsi, you may read what he said as offensive, sarcastic, or any other variant. For example, had he said "As long as it doesn't apply to the TF2 Division, it doesn't matter to me" it would have been interpreted in a different way. It is exactly as how you choose to perceive it. I'm not saying Snackbar is in the wrong, this is just the most recent example that displays how things can be interpreted in a way that can potentially escalate the situation (which it does). After all is said and done, the following are the issues that need to be cleared up: - Vulgarity: Matsi needs to realize that one's personal life or ideologies (especially in regards to any form of sexual content) should not be shared openly on Servers or in the presence of minors. - Sense of entitlement: Matsi needs to better critique people in a way that doesn't display a "I'm better than you" attitude, or just refrain from doing it at all. This includes snide remarks that really aren't necessary both in and out of the forums. That being said, just as with Vector, if you don't feel you can get along, then do us all a favour and don't provoke the guy. It literally does no good to anyone and just exacerbates things. If you don't agree with his personal choices in life, deal with it. It isn't your life, you have no influence on it, stop trying to control it. My verdict? Seeing as how this was never brought up before by means of actual confrontation of Higher-Ups sitting down with Matsi and discussing the situation, I say he gets a stern warning. As I mentioned in my earlier post, if (prior to this thread) there was no moment in which this issue was discussed and a warning wasn't given, I don't see how it's fair to condemn Matsi immediately. As to whether he is deserving of being a Staff Member (my only experience is with his Ban Requests) that is completely up to the TF2 Higher-Ups. *Note: Just to clarify, I do not condone any of Matsi's actions or life choices. However, that does not mean he deserves to be treated any less than any one of you. We all have our own personal lifestyles and choices, and shouldn't be determining how someone else should live their life.

Quick question(s), before I give any sort of opinion on the matter: Prior to this thread, was Matsi ever approached by a Higher-Up(s) to cease and desist any sharing of his lifestyle choices that involved "extreme" ideologies? And if so, as a follow-up question, was any sort of punishment determined (or dealt for that matter) if he ever ended up doing so, and then made public to the community? Reason I ask is that, much like a lot of things xG, it looks like something/someone jumped the gun and went straight from the moment of the "offending" content to the decision of having his Membership revoked and rank dissolved as opposed to warning. Correct me if I'm wrong, it's why I'm asking the aforementioned questions.

(insert obligatory "why did you leave in the first place if you intended on coming back to begin with. Could have just said you were taking a break." rant)

Wicked sick. Does anyone know of an existing somewhat up-to-date Steam Group that includes Staff only? If not, I think each Division Leader (or Division Manager) should make a Steam Group for their particular Division that has every Staff Member in it. Could then just throw up any new additions or rules in an announcement that everyone will get to ensure everyone is on the same page

On second thought, banning the player's ability to spray may end up with disruptive gameplay. I'm not sure how often things like "spray contests" occur on the TF2 Jailbreak Server, but it was common on CS:S Jailbreak. Restricting the player's ability to spray may influence that in the end.

A lot of people seem to be misunderstanding my intentions with this thread, so I'm just going to clarify again; this entire thread only applies under the following conditions: 1. There is no Staff Member online 2. A Staff Member cannot get online to enforce against inappropriate spray(s) 3. A Player/Member wishes to take matters into their own hands by posting a Ban Request 4. A player had an inappropriate spray, but is no longer on the Server (though honestly shouldn't be worth chasing after) I am not suggesting a new way to enforce rules ingame, this sort of thing should only occur on the forums when the aforementioned conditions have been met. While it's true that they simply don't have to spray anymore, the likelihood of it happening may still be high as I know of a handful of "games" that Wardens like to do that involve utilizing sprays (IE. Spray contest). As I mentioned earlier, this whole thing is just a precautionary measure that applies to Players/Members, not Staff Members. A "what-if" scenario, so to speak.

This is a great alternative if this could be set-up. Though what happens when they try to spray? Do they get some sort of SM message stating why they can't spray, or does it just do nothing? My only concern is that people may think that it's bugged or glitched as opposed to them thinking that they have been "banned" from spraying. It wouldn't be as effective if there wasn't some sort of warning/reason accompanied with it that the offending player can see. That is, someone can't learn from their mistake if they don't know what their mistake is to begin with.

Aw, thanks man. Just had it cut the other day. But yeah, as Matsi said, this all only applies when a Staff Member isn't online or can't get on to deal with the problem. A citizen's arrest, so to speak.

They won't always reply, but it's just to ensure that the offending player actually saw the message. Another counter to the "I didn't see a warning" protest. If anything, it would just look like a typical "please change your spray or I'll inform a Moderator/Administrator", though this time it would actually be a warning and not some 10 year old trying to act tough. It isn't, but this is assuming there isn't a Staff Member on during the time to warn the player. It's more of just a precautionary measure that gives the player the ability to personally take care of a another player who refuses to change their inappropriate spray. In a way, it's no different than a Staff Member asking that the player change their spray. The only difference is that there is no kick between the warning and ban, but there is only so much you can work with when reporting a player on the forums. The likelihood of this scenario happening is incredibly slim, but it is something that can happen, so why not be prepared, you know what I mean?

Came to my attention just a few moments ago, and I realized that this is one of those finicky things that are difficult to handle. Reason being that it's something that requires a warning before a ban can be dealt. A simple remedy can be made for this, something that I feel makes a ban far more justified (if you're like me, you don't like to jump the gun and go straight to a ban as everyone deserves a chance). So, the procedure for posting a Ban Request against someone for having an inappropriate spray would follow something like this: Ban Request for an inappropriate spray must include the following: - A screenshot of the offender's inappropriate spray - A screenshot of the one posting the thread asking the offending player to change their spray ingame - A screenshot of the offending player's changed spray, or alternatively their answer to the request ingame This way, the offending player has an opportunity to change their spray without facing a day ban immediately. It will also eliminate those rare moments when the person banned gets on and protests their ban saying "well, I wasn't warned to change it". While minor, this sort of thing can and does happen every so often. What do you guys think? Should this be something that should be included for a Ban Request toward an inappropriate spray, or should the ban hammer just be dropped immediately without question? As usual; discuss, comment or compliment each other on new haircuts below. *EDIT: this concept only applies under the following conditions: 1. There is no Staff Member online 2. A Staff Member cannot get online to enforce against inappropriate spray(s) 3. A Player/Member wishes to take matters into their own hands by posting a Ban Request 4. A player had an inappropriate spray, but is no longer on the Server (though honestly shouldn't be worth chasing after)