DarkWolf6052 0 Posted February 1, 2013 1 camping rebel. That can change if its r0bot. :P In this situation it wasn't, but if I remember correctly, it was one of our more, well, pro rebels. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AbrahamL 0 Posted February 1, 2013 I think loller needs a whipping in his booty thatll get him Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DarkWolf6052 0 Posted February 1, 2013 I think loller needs a whipping in his booty thatll get him Did you not have a bind that used to say "wipes yo ass" instead of "whips yo ass"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhyJewMad 0 Posted February 1, 2013 Thank you all for the posts you have changed my insight on this. So are you and @@Deodate going to stop yelling at me, @@Lollerskater, and @@trinindol in teamspeak saying we are the reason this clan is dying? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhyJewMad 0 Posted February 1, 2013 Thank you all for the posts you have changed my insight on this. Sorry. Double posted again.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warriorsfury 12 Posted February 1, 2013 So are you and @@Deodate going to stop yelling at me, @@Lollerskater, and @@trinindol in teamspeak saying we are the reason this clan is dying? Hahahah... I was trying to speak with loller and you were INTERRUPTING ME about a rule that I already knew. Me and Deo yelled at you because you would not keep quiet and let us speak and you kept interrupting us. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhyJewMad 0 Posted February 1, 2013 Hahahah... I was trying to speak with loller and you were INTERRUPTING ME about a rule that I already knew. Me and Deo yelled at you because you would not keep quiet and let us speak and you kept interrupting us. But saying we are the reason the clan is dying was totally unnecessary. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kyoko 0 Posted February 1, 2013 i +1 chrono's clause idea it's good and fits the rare situation. I hope this works... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DuckiiJr. 9 Posted February 1, 2013 Don't be a scaredy duck and go kill the t yourself. Simple. But really I wouldn't care weather this stays or goes. It really doesn't seem like big of a deal. It's kind of a dick move to do that to the ct's, but then again the ct's still have a chance at killing the T. They couldn't have "known" they were going to die. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr.Octagonapus 0 Posted February 4, 2013 We don't need to remove or change the rule, just use some common sense. "The Warden must use their reasoning to reduce CT deaths a much as possible." Simple as that. The Warden just needs to use his brain and in the end, regardless of who wins and who dies, It will be fine. No rule removal needed. -1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DarkWolf6052 0 Posted February 16, 2013 The same case came up tonight, this is the second(?) time its come up, so I'll refresh this thread. Case: Lollerskater and 2 other CTs were alive on Avalanche, 3 Ts alive, 1 was non-rebelling, the other two were rebelling up inside surf. The rebelling T was inside the CT-side of surf(where the auto-sniper spawns) waiting for a CT to come up. Lollerskater, as warden, ordered the two CTs up into surf. One immediately went in, died within seconds after killing one of the Ts. Then the other went up, still under orders from Lollerskater, and was killed. In doing so, last CT was forced upon Loller. Wondering about this rule, but I don't know Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jaybreeze 6 Posted February 16, 2013 You fight for the king, in death and in life. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
