Permission to rebel hunt?

[Gkoo 3]

I would say if the warden would want all the prisoners to stay put and keep guard then he should just say it in the beginning of the round.

"ey i want all des guards to stay here with dem prisoners. ask me if you need to go, yo. and i'll give you a kk nig."

 

So why put a rule on it?

[Chrono 372]

I'm almost certain that before leaving your position to pursue someone who may or may not be hostile you would let your superiors/fellow guards know..

 

let your superiors/fellow guards know..

 

know..

key words are let them know.

you would grab steve and say "eyy nigg, we gon get this faggot so holla out to ya boi bob cuz we gettin dat bonus for catchin thiguy eyy aight feg?"

 

you would not (in real jail hu3) go across the compound to your warden's office and go in there, sit down, have a cup of tea, enjoy your crumpets (british) [forest] and then say "why good day my sire warden, i was wondering if after our crumpets if i may go out and find this person trying to escape."

[Forest 309]

enjoy your crumpets (british) [forest]

Just, just die. Please.

 

The only reason this rule is in effect is to negate the amount of CTs dicking around and doing something else. I'm sorry if you feel swift judgement (slay) on them is much better, but being how I am, I prefer them having to Ask so we know what they're doing and Lessening the chances of them being slain.

 

It happens to be working very well, as the amount of CTs being slain recently for not being with Ts has greatly dropped (from what I've seen). If you guys prefer stern punishment and removing the whole permission to ask to Rebel Hunt, then so be it, we'll have it removed if the other DMs feel it should be as well.

[ItsAaron 1]

It happens to be working very well, as the amount of CTs being slain recently for not being with Ts has greatly dropped (from what I've seen). If you guys prefer stern punishment and removing the whole permission to ask to Rebel Hunt, then so be it, we'll have it removed if the other DMs feel it should be as well.

 

I'm afraid I don't agree. Now we just have a lot of people getting slain for forgetting to ask for permission,which is just as stern, but before this rule, not many people were stupid enough to be away from t's dicking around. And I think the poll of 12:2 should speak more of what the community wants than 3 people, no matter their ranks D:

 

Edit: I like crumpets

[Chrono 372]

Edit: I like crumpets

so does forest and i myself enjoy waffles too.

[ItsAaron 1]

Edit: I like crumpets

so does forest and i myself enjoy waffles too.

File:Buttered crumpet2.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crumpets

 

[PLAIN]File:Potato Waffle isolated.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/PLAIN]

Waffles

 

Fool

[Chrono 372]

Fool

waffles are crumpets for us westerners.

[xGShadowSpy 108]

@@Forest Well if the cts arent actually hunting and dicking around doing soccer or surf, thats just when we could slay, the rule doesn't really stop that anyway, just makes the have to ask first to go dick around.

Also, i would say that if a prisoner had ran, they'd chase him but radio in at the same time, being realistic.

[RoxyLalonde 0]

I don't think it should stay the same or be removed, the rule seems fine at first glance, but when a CT grants the permission instantly after whispering "Out of cell rebel"...then you have a problem. There should be something like where you can't call the rule out unless valid, you need to have a point, the only issue I see with the rule is where it is used in unnecessary events. Just a minor flaw that can be easily fixed. Modify it and there shouldn't be a problem, both sides would be happy.

[Forest 309]

Modify it and there shouldn't be a problem

The only way this could be avoided while keeping the rule intact is to make it more defined, which I doubt many players want.

 

I also understand that the Poll states majority is 'Yes', but the fact of the matter is, most of the time people don't even take the time to look at the thread and just pick yes cause "yolo".

 

So, what I propose Now to satisfy this pack of blood thirsty people is the removal of the previous rule stating that permission must be given, and instead have this rule take it's place:

 

"A CT may Rebel Hunt under a reasonable assumption that a Terrorist has Rebelled or is missing (IE. Head count, hearing vents being broken). Before Rebel Hunting, the CT MUST let the other Guards and Warden know what they will be doing through Public Chat or Team Chat."

 

Must let the Guards/Warden know, reason being that if the Warden needs the CTs to be with him/her and the Ts, they need to stay to help out. Reasonable enough? I would really appreciate some input on this whole ordeal from the other CS:S Division Managers (And a few of the previous members who posted), preferably more then just a "+1" or "I agree".@DarkWolf6052 @@ItsAaron @@Chrono @@John @ShdowSpy @@Gkoo @@PiNoYPsYcHo and just for the hell of it @@HighSociety

 

- Dat guy, Forest

[Chrono 372]

+1 I Agree.

 

that is way more realistic, and is the general idea of how it should be done, i completely support that rendition. like roxy said, it was a bit ridic.

[DarkWolf6052 0]

hearing vents being broken

Only thing there is on, for example, Parabellum, we have the radios in cells that make the same vent-breaking sound when broken.

Head count

Yes, but like you said, they have to either type in chat or say out loud that they are searching for rebels.

+1

[xGShadowSpy 108]

@@Forest I like it, its strict enough to keep control, but also not giving an advantage to Ts. I like the balance of it.

[DarkWolf6052 0]

It would just be better to be able to know when a CT is going to be searching for us instead of us rebelling, not seen doing so, but then suddenly a CT comes across us and kills us because he went rebel-searching without any permission

[xGShadowSpy 108]

Thats the fun part of rebelling though, its what makes it more challenging imo. It'd be better for the individual rebelling but then it would just annoy the others not being able to kill them if warden simply says "no".