diabeetus

Yea

must be real tough to ignore that little tab up top that says 'servers'

Nice Status
~Jesus
(Nothing Personal)

that's going to be pretty hard to do.
heuhuehehuehuehueuheuhjeuheuheuheuheuehuehuheuehuheuhehuehueh

it might help to be in the clan before asking for admin powers.

it might help to not ask for admin powers...
(exception: applications) ..

ok the commenting is annoying/buggy as shit so I'm just going to type out my full reply. Like it says in the motd, CT's aren't allowed to kill a T for rebelling unless they see that T commit a rebellious action. In a normal round of jailbreak, a CT is not allowed to kill a T because he heard the T knife a vent or if the CT sees a T kill someone in the kill feed (but does not see the T actually kill the CT). We should enforce the rules the same on !lr. If the T lures a lone CT into a room and kills him (without choosing the rebel option in the !lr menu) then the CT's shouldn't be able to kill said T on sight without seeing that T further commit a rebellious action. If we just start allowing the CT's to kill the rebellious T on !lr just on a hunch or because they saw the T kill someone through the kill feed, then our motd contradicts itself. We should aim for our motd to be as uniform as possible, so CT's should react to the rebellious T on !lr exactly the same as they would any other rebellious T. Just like the rest of the round, the motd should state that CT's must see the T commit a rebellious action in order to kill said T, regardless if it's !lr or not. It's just all about consistency.

ok the commenting is annoying/buggy as shit so I'm just going to type out my full reply. Like it says in the motd, CT's aren't allowed to kill a T for rebelling unless they see that T commit a rebellious action. In a normal round of jailbreak, a CT is not allowed to kill a T because he heard the T knife a vent or if the CT sees a T kill someone in the kill feed (but does not see the T actually kill the CT). We should enforce the rules the same on !lr. If the T lures a lone CT into a room and kills him (without choosing the rebel option in the !lr menu) then the CT's shouldn't be able to kill said T on sight without seeing that T further commit a rebellious action. If we just start allowing the CT's to kill the rebellious T on !lr just on a hunch or because they saw the T kill someone through the kill feed, then our motd contradicts itself. We should aim for our motd to be as uniform as possible, so CT's should react to the rebellious T on !lr exactly the same as they would any other rebellious T. Just like the rest of the round, the motd should state that CT's must see the T commit a rebellious action in order to kill said T, regardless if it's !lr or not. It's just all about consistency.

Great more complicated rules. This is stupid. Now all a T has to do is round a corner, kill a ct then holster his gun. and he's safe. Rinse, repeat.
 
When there is more than one T alive, Ct's cannot kill anyone if they didnt see it because we are supposed to disregard the kill notification thingy. Like real life, we wouldn't know whodunit. With one T left, however it has to be the last T. Logic. At least @@DarkWolf6052 give us more time to discuss this before the rule is changed. I foresee this as a misguided rule change.
 

Well during the round, if a T rebels and you don't see it, you can't kill him. So if you rebel on lr ( as in without the plugin that says you're rebelling) and a CT doesn't see you, it should be made so they can't kill you, like if only one CT follows you and you're in a seperate room. Just my thought on it.

this is some superb evidence I must say

Could I get my own personal theme song if I join the server?
 
People need some kind of warning

Anything (from a simple freegag to a freeslay to slaying @all) is still considered admin abuse, no matter how insignificant said abuse may seem. The whole purpose of these threads is to report any and all abuse seen by players and to evaluate whether or not the abusive admin should be demoted or not as a consequence of his actions. Don't interpret this as support for the idea that Cristo freeslayed, because I think that Cristo's slay was valid, just not entirely for the exact reason why he said so in the video.
 
The fact that Cristo slayed you (ambersand) does not negate the fact that you broke another rule other than causing a confusing situation with your orders. The motd requires that warden must repeat his original orders at least once, no if's, and's or but's, which you failed to do. While Cristo's reasoning to slay you might have been semi-invalid, the slay itself was still valid as you did break another rule. If you're going to argue that T's should have been doing orders immediately, then why are you also trying to support yourself by saying that you gave them an excess amount of time to do orders? If you're going to take the more hardline approach and say that T's should have been doing orders immediately after cells opened, you essentially allowed T's to rebel by giving them 5-6 seconds to complete orders, which by your own logic would be considered detouring or delaying as T's were supposed to be doing orders immediately. Additionally, I can't see anywhere in the video an instance of you being mocked by cristo. Also, if a CT breaks a rule because of faulty/invalid orders coming from the warden, both the warden and the CT that broke rules will be punished, as it's the warden's fault for giving unclear orders which lead to rulebreaking. -1.

Thank you, and I agree completely with you. If you're going to hold people accountable for rules and making confusing situations, perhaps as a server you should make the rules less confusing? I myself was confused about it, so I guess in that regard, you guys(as in the server in general) broke a rule by making a confusing situation as well. Hard to hold somebody accountable for a rule that is counteracted by another rule, right? So let's move past that "Ampersand didn't repeat his orders so he deserved to get slayed anyway" argument, since it holds no merit to this discussion and was caused by a confusing set of rules anyway, which you can't hold me accountable for.

How is my suggestion anything relevant to trolling?

like you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkQXQLPrCqo
How about this one?
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-agNTzk0a0
Or this?

yay another open-world survival zombie apocalypse game! How original! I can't imagine this division being anything but successful, just as the DayZ and WarZ divisions were.

And the award for best forum posts of the century goes to (drumroll please): everyone on this thread who posted a shitty gif, in some collective yet incredibly pathetic attempt to convey some form of humor. These are some of the most insightful and thought-provoking posts I've ever seen. I'm glad to see that yet another thread has been quickly derailed in a matter of minutes, Congratulations!
 
0 as I honestly couldn't care less whether or not he gets unbanned.

-1 disney? More like shitney.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)this thread is worse than the holocaust( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

To be honest i feel like it would be better for just the people who have this game to play together, based off our past histories with these types of games it seems like a waste of time/resources

Why can't we have a DoD:S JB server?

I don't think we should have someone who just got perm'd on gmod, and banned from TS for 6 hours running a division.