[Ethan]

The only times I've seen someone banned for mass via incendiary was either 1. Doing it multiple times despite being warned. @Penguinslayer4 remembers. Or 2. They did it intentionally, well aware of what they did. Staff are encouraged to use discretion in nearly all aspects. Perhaps some mistakes happen, but we aren't robots. I fully believe in perma banning someone who intentionally RDMs multiple people. They ruin the fun of the game for multiple people. If they desire to come back they can make an unban request. The act of making the request itself shows an actual "want" to be unbanned.

---

Also nobody should be getting banned or slayed for crossfire @"Saitama" . I'm not sure what you even mean.

I completely agree with you on everything you say about staff discretion and how RDMers ruin the fun of the game for everyone involved, but I also agree with what Russ had to say in terms of the length more than what you had to say. 

I have to believe that a 6 month - 1 year ban length has a better effect that an actual permanent ban (which is the protocol, staff discretion aside). Sure, some people never learn and will come back after their (long enough) term ban and just mass RDM again. Those types can be perm banned and I dont think anyone would disagree. 

But then there are the (moreso of a majority) others who just act like an idiot and mass, but eventually grow up and learn not to do that. 

You have to think about it in this aspect: if you stopped playing GMod for a year or longer but then one day decide to come back, try joining a TTT server and get the "You are banned!" message. What do you do? Find a forum and make a ban request to join this random server? No. You find a different TTT server and play there instead. Maybe you end up enjoying it and play there regularly instead. That's one more regular for Dinks that is lost

[matt_st3 (Strongrule)]

Also nobody should be getting banned or slayed for crossfire @"Saitama" . I'm not sure what you even mean.

I’m sorry what?

[Nicol Bolas]

Also nobody should be getting banned or slayed for crossfire Saitama . I'm not sure what you even mean.

I’m sorry what?

Crossfire (IE the act of attempting to kill another player and accidentally killing/damaging another who either jumped in the way or was behind the other player being shot at) is almost always accidental and is not something that people should be slaying for unless its clearly intentional. This has been in the Staff Guidelines for a long time and is not new.

[Foxka]

Also nobody should be getting banned or slayed for crossfire Saitama . I'm not sure what you even mean.

I’m sorry what?

Crossfire (IE the act of attempting to kill another player and accidentally killing/damaging another who either jumped in the way or was behind the other player being shot at) is almost always accidental and is not something that people should be slaying for unless its clearly intentional. This has been in the Staff Guidelines for a long time and is not new.

Crossfire has always been slayable indotn know what you're talking about? If this was changed it was never made aware to anyone.

[Nicol Bolas]

My apologies, Crossfire is only slayable as accidental t-on-t rdm. However that is the only case in which it is, in fact, slayable.

[matt_st3 (Strongrule)]

Also nobody should be getting banned or slayed for crossfire Saitama . I'm not sure what you even mean.

I’m sorry what?

Crossfire (IE the act of attempting to kill another player and accidentally killing/damaging another who either jumped in the way or was behind the other player being shot at) is almost always accidental and is not something that people should be slaying for unless its clearly intentional. This has been in the Staff Guidelines for a long time and is not new.

Oh you were serious. 

Yes, there are times where it does not deserve a slay. Some idiot walking into the middle of a gunfight for example. But you are ultimately responsible if you kill the guy you’re shooting at and the guy behind him. It even follows common sense because of reckless endangerment. There’s a whole ass system for 1 vs 2 slays for TonT rdm that revolves around crossfire.

---

My apologies, Crossfire is only slayable as accidental t-on-t rdm. However that is it.

No?

[Nicol Bolas]

From the staff Guidelines:

From the Rules:

---

However I will ask that this thread remains on topic, as crossfire is not the focus of this thread. Please make a new thread if the discussion needs to continue. All suggestions will be taken into consideration.

[Foxka]

From the staff Guidelines:

From the Rules:

---

However I will ask that this thread remains on topic, as crossfire is not the focus of this thread. Please make a new thread if the discussion needs to continue. All suggestions will be taken into consideration.

These contradict each other lol


But again, non malicious mass rdm should not be met with a perma

[Nicol Bolas]

These contradict each other lol


But again, non malicious mass rdm should not be met with a perma

As my last bit of input here, unless a new thread is made, The guideline section I screenshot is referring to regular RDM between innocents. Further down it also describes crossfire as slayable in the context of t-on-t rdm. I will admit that the crossfire rulings probably need cleaned up a bit. Will work on that sometime soon thank you for bringing it to my attention.

[Dildo Shwaggins]

From the staff Guidelines:

From the Rules:

---

However I will ask that this thread remains on topic, as crossfire is not the focus of this thread. Please make a new thread if the discussion needs to continue. All suggestions will be taken into consideration.

when u copy paste the rules