10-12-2020, 10:39 PM
I would like to start off my contribution to this thread as mentioning I am biased towards Lycan and Crab, I think they're both good players who make the server more fun.
Secondly, I'd like to mention that I strongly agree with Nicky's claim that the guidelines for what constitutes teaming is far too broad:
"Innocent players refusing to kill a completely obvious traitor that has done many traitorous things in front of them and is ignoring it. This is teaming."
The flaw with this statement is that this game naturally encourages creativity and nuanced situations in it's gameplay. For example, hypothetically, If I go into a room with my good friend GAMER, and we chill in the room for a while and he gains my trust for not shooting me in the room, then later on he starts shooting every person that walks in that looks at him wrong, he could be disputably called an "obvious traitor" but I should reserve the right to not shoot him as the way that TTT naturally functions is that it's in my right to choose to be a pacifist, or side with GAMER, as he earned my trust.
Ok back to the actual situation at hand, im pretty sure I was on the server at this time, and maybe it's because I went and got some pizza rolls during this map, but I didn't even notice this happening. So this brings a major question to hand, if some "rule-breaking" conflict arrises, but it happens so late into the round that hardly anyone seems to care, is a punishment even necessary? I understand why these rules are put into place but if the conflict isn't something as obvious as players being noticeably upset at a sudden discourse in gameplay, should it really be a two week punishment? Especially if these players have proven to be respected players in the community. So to sum things up, I don't think they should even be banned. They were making the gameplay fun and different which is not a bad thing, obviously it would be upsetting if they were constantly teaming and stretching the rules and making the game worse for other people, but I feel like not many, (if any at all) players were negatively affected by their actions.
Secondly, I'd like to mention that I strongly agree with Nicky's claim that the guidelines for what constitutes teaming is far too broad:
"Innocent players refusing to kill a completely obvious traitor that has done many traitorous things in front of them and is ignoring it. This is teaming."
The flaw with this statement is that this game naturally encourages creativity and nuanced situations in it's gameplay. For example, hypothetically, If I go into a room with my good friend GAMER, and we chill in the room for a while and he gains my trust for not shooting me in the room, then later on he starts shooting every person that walks in that looks at him wrong, he could be disputably called an "obvious traitor" but I should reserve the right to not shoot him as the way that TTT naturally functions is that it's in my right to choose to be a pacifist, or side with GAMER, as he earned my trust.
Ok back to the actual situation at hand, im pretty sure I was on the server at this time, and maybe it's because I went and got some pizza rolls during this map, but I didn't even notice this happening. So this brings a major question to hand, if some "rule-breaking" conflict arrises, but it happens so late into the round that hardly anyone seems to care, is a punishment even necessary? I understand why these rules are put into place but if the conflict isn't something as obvious as players being noticeably upset at a sudden discourse in gameplay, should it really be a two week punishment? Especially if these players have proven to be respected players in the community. So to sum things up, I don't think they should even be banned. They were making the gameplay fun and different which is not a bad thing, obviously it would be upsetting if they were constantly teaming and stretching the rules and making the game worse for other people, but I feel like not many, (if any at all) players were negatively affected by their actions.
