Reminder that the definition of exploiting does include loopholing rules, as other people have mentioned.
CWU isn't relevant to the conversation because the ban is about exploiting. If you want to change how CWU works, make a suggestion because otherwise protesting the design of the class through breaking the rules is itself breaking rule A5. (Ex. suggest that typing into team chat also sends a local chat message)
"RDM" isn't relevant to the situation if the circumstances were caused by the circumstances of your exploit ban, as they were in all recordings i've seen (which I won't post, i'll leave that to HAs when they review the case). You also don't have any evidence posted of being RDM'd, though the communal understanding that "Civs get RDM'd frequently" isn't incorrect.
I also doubt that you did not act maliciously, as evidently showcased in the recordings which show you changing your name to be similar to other Anarchists in at attempt to get them killed, or changing to names designed to frustrate people. Both of which are inherently malicious acts, even if you don't consider what you were banned for to be "malicious". I also don't care if the names you used aren't technically against the rules, your point was that the act wasn't "malicious", which your actions prove otherwise.
There was a rule proposed about not being able to change names during an Anarchist Faction KOS, however, it was not implemented.
I would state that the implication of being marked as KOS for acting "hostile" would also imply that you should remain KOS as long as you're identifiable, which considering that people saw you change names in front of them, would cause you to remain KOS. Getting killed would obviously remove the KOS, but that was the whole point of what you were doing; not getting killed.
So, -1.
(Also the people who think that the community server needs to operate with the precision-in-wording needed for actual legal work are kinda dumb, because in a community individuals can be held accountable for their dickish actions, and there are people who have specifically dedicated their time to being available to clarify the meaning of the rules (AKA, Head Admins) so no misunderstandings are required, just people who don't pay attention or don't bother to ask questions)
Neutral,
Rules need to have implied power because a set of text can’t possibly cover every situation, so I see how this could be considered exploiting.
However, that implied power can’t be taken too far, and from what I saw earlier today ghost was in no way violating the written rule.
I think this merits a ruling for Joe on what exactly the boundary of rule implication is, and this is a good precedent to set for all rules.
TLDR I’m not adding any value to this post
Edit: did not see Ait’s post
even so, I had been rdmed prior to this situation as well after being called out for kos and dying for it then still being shot after a sword had just respawned.
This still needs clarification which I had mentioned in one of my previous posts in this thread.
But when I had changed names repeatedly the verdict was apparently direct and clear.
"RDM" isn't relevant to the situation
Directly it isn't indeed, but I was trying to talk about ruling generally which then would be relevant. The seemingly direct punishment I received contrary to the ones I had reported for RDM shows there is a lack of equality. Not to forget that I had stated that you as an individual being called out would impact your game FAR less than RDMing an anarchist 50 times and him only reporting you once over the entire span of those 50 times.
I also doubt that you did not act maliciously,
refer to my previous remark against Niko on page 1 to get the clarification on this if you have not read it already.
tldr:
Never stated the actions were NOT malicious, but that they weren't a heinous crime against humanity. if you look back at the last sentence under "RDM isn't relevant to the situation"
Cause if we question how malicious the intent was, it wouldn't be such a dire situation such as shooting from under the map at players.
quick little edit.
There was a rule about anarchist factions when kos they couldn't change name but it was a bad implementation and all anarchist factions went berserk cause they had to stay on the job for an hour as well.
You also can't be expecting people to read the MOTD and not take it at face value, If the MOTD states "you can change your name and appearance in civilian spawn" some may take it as that YOU CAN change your name in civilian spawn. No rules from my understanding were directly broken. I think it entirely depends on how you view the implications of the actions committed by me with how you view the MOTDs ruling.
Was he loopholing rules or was he following the rules?
I'll be going over every point made in the original post individually, so my apologies if I go over something that has already been properly addressed by somebody else in this thread.
Before I begin, I'd like to address Antonio's concern where he (rightfully so) raised that there is currently not a clear degree of bending a rule that necessitates "Exploiting"
I can't give a solid, hard definition that will apply in every case as the very nature of the rule requires that it be handled on a case by case basis, but the closest thing I can give to that is this simplification: Exploiting can be defined as behaviour that deliberately circumvents the intended purpose of a rule. There's a significant difference between simply following the rules and engaging in behaviour that, though technically allowed under the MOTD, is clearly something that it is meant to prevent.
Okay, great, how does this circumvent the intended purpose of a rule, specifically, B1?
B1 was originally introduced exactly two years ago to the day in direct response to this exact behaviour from you, minus the being within the respawn zone part.
To quote Brand's announcement upon its introduction: "This was done to prevent Anarchists mysteriously changing gender and clothing in a split second to avoid being caught for crimes they committed."
Now, obviously you can't be expected to comb through announcements from years ago to discern the intended purpose of a rule, but generally speaking a bit of thought makes the purpose of any rule clear: What kind of behaviour is this rule meant to prevent?
In the case of B1, I believe this to be relatively clear.
What kind of behaviour does B1 prevent aside from excessive name changes to avoid KOSes, and by extension, the consequences for engaging in actions against a faction as an anarchist/civilian?
From this, it isn't difficult to see how simply spamming adverts from within the civilian respawn zone and changing your name immediately afterwards repeatedly could be considered exploiting.
Quote:Why should we remove warn/ban: I was informed that the reasoning behind my ban was due to "excessive name changing to avoid KOS",
while from my recollection that it is perfectly well within the rules to make use of the ability to change your name and appearance.
Addressed above; the intent of the rule is specifically to prevent said behaviour. If you do wish to get into the specifics of it, I could easily make the argument that, for RP purposes, it is simply nonsensical to change your name immediately after making an advert and instantly gain a metashield preventing you from suffering the consequences of your actions.
Quote:I simply do not see the difference in me calling out in an advert about combine activity
and then changing my name and appearance,
as a CWU calling out anything he also can BUT in team chat without anyone able of seeing it making it practically a UNCOUNTERABLE scenario.
I am merely copying CWU in an Anarchist fashion but rebel sided.
Already addressed by Ait, but to be clear, this is a false equivalence. I can't comment on the merits of how CWU currently exists, but what I can say is that you cannot simply bring up what another class does within the rules and use it as an excuse for behaviour committed outside of it (and without taking the time to confirm with a staff member that doing so is acceptable, for that matter).
Quote:It may seem like CWU is my scapegoat but no it really isn't
If you didn't intend to make the argument that CWU's existence merits your behaviour you wouldn't have dedicated half your post to the devastating effects of CWU on the rebel economy.
Quote:This is simply a map-based situation, not a heavily maliciously intended action that would disrupt player gameplay, which the latter exploiting tends to be.
I can't tell if you're trying to argue that rebels being pushed back justifies this or if you're arguing that it's just a quirk of the map that civilians can do this while rebels are pushed back but I'll address both points separately to be sure.
If you're arguing the former, when has the map ever justified rulebreaking in the name of a faction.
If you're arguing the latter, then that solidifies the argument of this being unintended behaviour that circumvents the intent of a rule.
As for the points on being RDM'd, I don't really believe that to be relevant in any way?
I can't get the medal clip to load so I can't comment on any specifics, but if you're having problems with punishments not properly being applied, you're free to contact head admins with your concerns. The precedent has been set on other appeals time and time again that other people not being punished doesn't warrant a reduction in punishment for anyone who was banned; it just means we missed people. I'm not sure why you're confused on your punishment being so prompt when you were doing something the entire server could quite literally see happening in real time if they held the tab key on their keyboard.
Appeal has been denied and the ban remains. In the future, if you're ever unsure if something may perhaps be considered exploiting, particularly when you're treading the line so close to what is not allowed under the rules, you are always more than welcome to contact any online staff or head admins for clarification.
i doubt they would actually command it, im betting that it was a "hey joe/sentinel should i ban this guy he did xyz"
CWU isn't relevant to the conversation because the ban is about exploiting. If you want to change how CWU works, make a suggestion because otherwise protesting the design of the class through breaking the rules is itself breaking rule A5. (Ex. suggest that typing into team chat also sends a local chat message)
"RDM" isn't relevant to the situation if the circumstances were caused by the circumstances of your exploit ban, as they were in all recordings i've seen (which I won't post, i'll leave that to HAs when they review the case). You also don't have any evidence posted of being RDM'd, though the communal understanding that "Civs get RDM'd frequently" isn't incorrect.
I also doubt that you did not act maliciously, as evidently showcased in the recordings which show you changing your name to be similar to other Anarchists in at attempt to get them killed, or changing to names designed to frustrate people. Both of which are inherently malicious acts, even if you don't consider what you were banned for to be "malicious". I also don't care if the names you used aren't technically against the rules, your point was that the act wasn't "malicious", which your actions prove otherwise.
There was a rule proposed about not being able to change names during an Anarchist Faction KOS, however, it was not implemented.
I would state that the implication of being marked as KOS for acting "hostile" would also imply that you should remain KOS as long as you're identifiable, which considering that people saw you change names in front of them, would cause you to remain KOS. Getting killed would obviously remove the KOS, but that was the whole point of what you were doing; not getting killed.
So, -1.
(Also the people who think that the community server needs to operate with the precision-in-wording needed for actual legal work are kinda dumb, because in a community individuals can be held accountable for their dickish actions, and there are people who have specifically dedicated their time to being available to clarify the meaning of the rules (AKA, Head Admins) so no misunderstandings are required, just people who don't pay attention or don't bother to ask questions)
Ancient GRID CmD, prior SU Major/GB COL.
Credit to SEVIN.
Rules need to have implied power because a set of text can’t possibly cover every situation, so I see how this could be considered exploiting.
However, that implied power can’t be taken too far, and from what I saw earlier today ghost was in no way violating the written rule.
I think this merits a ruling for Joe on what exactly the boundary of rule implication is, and this is a good precedent to set for all rules.
TLDR I’m not adding any value to this post
Edit: did not see Ait’s post
even so, I had been rdmed prior to this situation as well after being called out for kos and dying for it then still being shot after a sword had just respawned.
This still needs clarification which I had mentioned in one of my previous posts in this thread.
But when I had changed names repeatedly the verdict was apparently direct and clear.
refer to my previous remark against Niko on page 1 to get the clarification on this if you have not read it already.
tldr:
Never stated the actions were NOT malicious, but that they weren't a heinous crime against humanity. if you look back at the last sentence under "RDM isn't relevant to the situation"
Cause if we question how malicious the intent was, it wouldn't be such a dire situation such as shooting from under the map at players.
quick little edit.
There was a rule about anarchist factions when kos they couldn't change name but it was a bad implementation and all anarchist factions went berserk cause they had to stay on the job for an hour as well.
You also can't be expecting people to read the MOTD and not take it at face value, If the MOTD states "you can change your name and appearance in civilian spawn" some may take it as that YOU CAN change your name in civilian spawn. No rules from my understanding were directly broken. I think it entirely depends on how you view the implications of the actions committed by me with how you view the MOTDs ruling.
Was he loopholing rules or was he following the rules?
Before I begin, I'd like to address Antonio's concern where he (rightfully so) raised that there is currently not a clear degree of bending a rule that necessitates "Exploiting"
I can't give a solid, hard definition that will apply in every case as the very nature of the rule requires that it be handled on a case by case basis, but the closest thing I can give to that is this simplification: Exploiting can be defined as behaviour that deliberately circumvents the intended purpose of a rule. There's a significant difference between simply following the rules and engaging in behaviour that, though technically allowed under the MOTD, is clearly something that it is meant to prevent.
Okay, great, how does this circumvent the intended purpose of a rule, specifically, B1?
B1 was originally introduced exactly two years ago to the day in direct response to this exact behaviour from you, minus the being within the respawn zone part.
To quote Brand's announcement upon its introduction: "This was done to prevent Anarchists mysteriously changing gender and clothing in a split second to avoid being caught for crimes they committed."
Now, obviously you can't be expected to comb through announcements from years ago to discern the intended purpose of a rule, but generally speaking a bit of thought makes the purpose of any rule clear: What kind of behaviour is this rule meant to prevent?
In the case of B1, I believe this to be relatively clear.
What kind of behaviour does B1 prevent aside from excessive name changes to avoid KOSes, and by extension, the consequences for engaging in actions against a faction as an anarchist/civilian?
From this, it isn't difficult to see how simply spamming adverts from within the civilian respawn zone and changing your name immediately afterwards repeatedly could be considered exploiting.
Addressed above; the intent of the rule is specifically to prevent said behaviour. If you do wish to get into the specifics of it, I could easily make the argument that, for RP purposes, it is simply nonsensical to change your name immediately after making an advert and instantly gain a metashield preventing you from suffering the consequences of your actions.
Already addressed by Ait, but to be clear, this is a false equivalence. I can't comment on the merits of how CWU currently exists, but what I can say is that you cannot simply bring up what another class does within the rules and use it as an excuse for behaviour committed outside of it (and without taking the time to confirm with a staff member that doing so is acceptable, for that matter).
If you didn't intend to make the argument that CWU's existence merits your behaviour you wouldn't have dedicated half your post to the devastating effects of CWU on the rebel economy.
I can't tell if you're trying to argue that rebels being pushed back justifies this or if you're arguing that it's just a quirk of the map that civilians can do this while rebels are pushed back but I'll address both points separately to be sure.
If you're arguing the former, when has the map ever justified rulebreaking in the name of a faction.
If you're arguing the latter, then that solidifies the argument of this being unintended behaviour that circumvents the intent of a rule.
As for the points on being RDM'd, I don't really believe that to be relevant in any way?
I can't get the medal clip to load so I can't comment on any specifics, but if you're having problems with punishments not properly being applied, you're free to contact head admins with your concerns. The precedent has been set on other appeals time and time again that other people not being punished doesn't warrant a reduction in punishment for anyone who was banned; it just means we missed people. I'm not sure why you're confused on your punishment being so prompt when you were doing something the entire server could quite literally see happening in real time if they held the tab key on their keyboard.
Appeal has been denied and the ban remains. In the future, if you're ever unsure if something may perhaps be considered exploiting, particularly when you're treading the line so close to what is not allowed under the rules, you are always more than welcome to contact any online staff or head admins for clarification.
Thread locked & moved.