Declined [JB] Getting LR whilst rebelling rule tweak (1 Viewer)

[Mehgend]

So this has been bothering me for quite a while on and off, but it's something that recently came up again so might as well see what everyone feels.
Been sitting on this one for months!!!


So. Rebellers typically are not allowed to receive LR, but some sneaky people can attempt to get themselves back into the group of non-rebellers and play as if nothing happened. No pardons.
I myself do this from time to time. It is good fun to see how long one can go before getting called out and killed.




Sometimes this results in a rebeller winning LR because both the warden and guards failed to detect that this player was a rebeller.
Other times the player is caught before the warden gives the LR and is killed for it. Either causing a failround or gifting a lucky red an LR.
But sometimes the warden will catch on that the LR recipient had rebelled and will remove the LR of the player who received it.

Not only does this deny somones LR who had it given to them, but it robs the last red killed of an LR for no reason other than the BLU teams incompetence to keep track on who is KOS. If anything the rebelling red successfully baiting a BLU team to give them LR is incredibly impressive, so why should they be punished for revealing it/getting caught well after the fact?





Basically, this is suggesting:

• Disallowing the removal of LR after it is given by reason of the player rebelling earlier in the round without anyone's knowledge at the time (assuming it wasn't given accidentally of course lol).

Thus solving the following two problems:

• The recent team ban given to red and the confusion a scenario like that would create.
• A red making it to the last few players and dying all for it to be voided because it turns out that it was actually a rebeller! No LR for anyone!

Sure this happens rather irregularly and is a rather minor issue, but it is still something that I am quite bugged out by. We shouldn't punish RED team with no LR just because nobody had the game knowledge to make sure there were no living rebellers. What do you guys think?

 

[Mehgend]

Im not the best at writing what im trying to get across, so lemme just make sure I got it right

Im trying to stop
RED rebels -> RED rejoins the pack of non-rebels without being pardoned -> no guard picks up on it -> RED gets LR -> someone notices -> LR removed -> Next round from happening. Just something I never liked

 

[Nergal Nergalton]

I am somewhat on board with suggestion. It falls under the same category as the recent change that disallows BLUs from rewarding if they somehow die to a RED before cells open; getting away with rebelling without BLUs knowing and managing to get LR is an impressive, tricky, and rare feat and getting LR feels deserved.

There are flaws, however. I don't know how often this would happen, but a warden may know someone rebelled and give them LR anyways, and it'd be, depending on the circumstance, very difficult to tell because they could just claim "I didn't know they rebelled." as a lie. There's also the potential scenario of a BLU knowing someone rebelled but choosing to not try and kill them and/or alert the warden, which opens up a whole other can of worms.

I feel this would only be fair if the BLUs were truly oblivious to the rebelling RED the whole round, which is often hard to tell. If a BLU knows someone rebelled and chooses not to speak up or do anything that would honestly count as favoritism, and in that situation I feel it would be right to remove the LR of the offending RED. A lot of this suggestion would hinge on the BLUs trusting each other.

 

[Mehgend]

There are flaws, however. I don't know how often this would happen, but a warden may know someone rebelled and give them LR anyways, and it'd be, depending on the circumstance, very difficult to tell because they could just claim "I didn't know they rebelled." as a lie. There's also the potential scenario of a BLU knowing someone rebelled but choosing to not try and kill them and/or alert the warden, which opens up a whole other can of worms.

What is stopping a warden from doing that right now? I agree it would be hard to admin that kind of thing, but thats something someone can do without this change and with it. Its similar to all forms of ways to rulebreak in calls and group chats.

 

[PistolPoppinSince02]

Very neutral stance. Wouldn't want to be reported, or report someone for this though.

If warden gives someone LR, finds out they're a rebeller, then yeah I get it's their mistake, but rebelling is final per Panda standards.
If they are still KOS, which they are if they ever had rebel status, then yeah they don't deserve LR.
If they accidentally get and keep LR then that's whatever, if its removed or denied also whatever.
Just feel like this doesn't really need any minute stipulations.

 

[Mehgend]

Very neutral stance. Wouldn't want to be reported, or report someone for this though.

If warden gives someone LR, finds out they're a rebeller, then yeah I get it's their mistake, but rebelling is final per Panda standards.
If they are still KOS, which they are if they ever had rebel status, then yeah they don't deserve LR.
If they accidentally get and keep LR then that's whatever, if its removed or denied also whatever.

I feel like rebelling is very "if a tree falls and nobody hears it, then did it make a sound" if nobody notices you've even rebelled, then why should the standards matter in that moment? If nobody realizes you've rebelled and you go "hey I rebelled 5 minutes ago and got LR thanks lol" then why should they have the right to remove the LR? The BLU team failed at their job in that moment and allowed an enemy player to win the game. Everybody losing a unique round type from the LR because of it just seems silly to me.

 

[BritishMafia]

I didnt even know wardens can do this. I agree with this vote, its silly that an lr can be denied when someone went through a lot of effort to maintain their "Im not rebelling please dont kill me" cover just to be ghosted and have your lr removed. Also it feels like the blues fault more than anything.

 

[CutePyro0]

if blues know someone has rebelled and gave a lr on an accident then realises their mistake they should be able to correct it if/when that is possible

 

[Bananawastaken]

(assuming it wasn't given accidentally of course lol).

I don’t understand how we can differentiate between an accident and this single rare instance. There are valid instances where warden can remove LR, they can just as easily say these reasons.

Remember, people can be punished for this (if it passes), it’s important it’s as clear as possible

This just sounds like a pet peeve rather than a quality life of change imo.

 

[Mehgend]

if blues know someone has rebelled and gave a lr on an accident then realises their mistake they should be able to correct it if/when that is possible

That’s already clarified as an exception in the suggestion

This just sounds like a pet peeve rather than a quality life of change imo.

Why should something have to be a significant thing to be brought up? Obviously it’s far from a priority, but it’s something I’ve seen a handful of times and wanted to say how I felt on it and see what everyone else thinks. Wardens being killed before cells open at 9 is impossible on basically every map, but it was still a suggestion that many people supported to allow it to pass.

If it’s deemed a change that would create significant problems in enforcing rules then I wouldn’t mind if it got rejected, but all of the problems people bring up about ignoring someone being KOS are still 100% possible literally right now. In fact the status quo created a pretty wonky situation in a recent report where it was (allegedly) intentionally given to a rebeller, but someone else denied it. There were more variables, but that was the main one to me.
The change won’t make them any more KOS. They’d still lose DR and be killed if you catch on they had rebelled. This would simply stop people from removing LRs people may have looked forward to in a rare instance of this happening.

 

[crubf]

I'm getting an aneurysm reading this and feel like I'm not "getting" it. If you rebel you are knowingly potentially fucking yourself over. We're asking to shield rebellers from consequences if they are "sneaky enough"?

Why should something have to be a significant thing to be brought up? Obviously it’s far from a priority, but it’s something I’ve seen a handful of times and wanted to say how I felt on it and see what everyone else thinks. Wardens being killed before cells open at 9 is impossible on basically every map, but it was still a suggestion that many people supported to allow it to pass.

I personally don't care if a suggestion is deemed "significant" but rather it exist as something to help clear muddy waters and this suggestion is not that. It's cooked up to create more confusion than it could ever hope to solve. It doesn't fix any issues that I think your average player goes through even once a week on the server, like nobody is rebelling then later on dying and thinking "aww damnit i wanted that LR!" other than our most detached.

I'm sure all your postings ITT explains the "why" behind this but it's so unnecessarily niche all it's gonna do is confuse and frustrate people.
100% agree with Banana.

 

[ItsNotCalassic]

On paper this sounds nice, except, I can already see all the reports this would cause and all the arguments.

You told me when I asked on the discord, if I give LR to someone who rebelled and then I realized he was a rebeller, I can straight up kill them. Okay so why can I do that and not remove the LR? I feel as if I would get a player report placed on me by a 3rd party because they would initially think of it as a freekill or would this fall under denying DR?

I can give LR to my friends who rebelled and now 100% get away with it by feigning ignorance. Oh he rebelled? Tough luck to the remaining alive reds.

Yes, it is possible to do this now, but at least now it is expected that they would remove the LR.

I would also be curious on how you guys as admins would even moderate this. It seems like it’s going to be a hassle and truthfully I don’t see this passing internally given how the moderating part of things is gonna be a pain in the butt.

 

[BritishMafia]

Most of the times I see this happen, however, its because people ghosting the rebellers after they receive lr. Not once have I seen the warden realize on his own afterwards that they are rebelling, so if the rebeller is ghosted, does that still mean lr can be removed?

 

[Dr. Meatloaf]

In situations where two reds remain and the rebeller gets LR however the other non-rebeller is allowed in death request (something like a forfeit LR or losing a first to finish game might cause this) if the warden finds out that the lr recipient is a rebeller, I think it would be more fair to let the warden transfer the LR to the nonrebeller. I suppose I support this proposed change only with the caveat that if an eligible nonrebeller is alive, LR can still be removed from the rebeller and transferred to them instead.

 

[Bananawastaken]

I dont think you people understand how bad this suggestion is, taking the suggestion at face value (let rebelling people get LR, pro red change) and not realising the horrible details that go along with it.

There is not a SINGLE rule based on the "reason given by warden" because basing rules off "reason" is dumb, you people dont understand the ramifications of this, how easily it can be abused, how easily it can be exploited, how difficult it would be to administrate. This isnt a rule, its a suggestion.

I implore someone to actually counter my argument, try to explain to me why someone wouldn't just lie about their reasoning, whats the difference between killing a rebeller and denying their last request? Lol, LMAO even.

This massive headache for TWO NICHE RARE SITUATIONS, really think about the caveats about this rule and the plethora of downsides for practically NO upside.

And the poll is somehow for it? I ask people to change their votes or somehow explain to me how the "benefits" outweigh the clear negatives.

 

[Walter Black]

I dont think you people understand how bad this suggestion is, taking the suggestion at face value (let rebelling people get LR, pro red change) and not realising the horrible details that go along with it.

View attachment 32746

There is not a SINGLE rule based on the "reason given by warden" because basing rules off "reason" is dumb, you people dont understand the ramifications of this, how easily it can be abused, how easily it can be exploited, how difficult it would be to administrate. This isnt a rule, its a suggestion.

I implore someone to actually counter my argument, try to explain to me why someone wouldn't just lie about their reasoning, whats the difference between killing a rebeller and denying their last request? Lol, LMAO even.

View attachment 32747
This massive headache for TWO NICHE RARE SITUATIONS, really think about the caveats about this rule and the plethora of downsides for practically NO upside.

And the poll is somehow for it? I ask people to change their votes or somehow explain to me how the "benefits" outweigh the clear negatives.

I was under the impression that this post meant ''once LR is given, even to a rebeller, it can't be denied anymore next round'' and that's why I voted yes

 

[Dr. Meatloaf]

There is not a SINGLE rule based on the "reason given by warden" because basing rules off "reason" is dumb, you people dont understand the ramifications of this, how easily it can be abused, how easily it can be exploited, how difficult it would be to administrate. This isnt a rule, its a suggestion.

I think you’re misconstruing this proposal. The way that I read this is “disallowing the removal of LR after it is given. (BREAK) By reason of the player rebelling earlier in the round without anybody’s knowledge…” the warden doesn’t have to give their own reason, this is just saying you can’t do x [remove lr] under certain circumstances. This is how every rule works.

In terms of this being abused, I suppose it’s possible but I think you’re overstating the risk. For one, this is not a license for wardens to give LR to rebellers, that’s still against the rules. If certain players constantly give LR to rebellers “accidentally” or they do so when it’s obvious the person is a rebeller it’s my understanding they will still be punished. This rule is just saying that if a warden makes that mistake (and there are no other LR eligible reds if my amendment gets added) they can’t remove the LR, since at this point the recipient kind of earned it. Also the way the rules work now from my understanding is that if a warden accidentally gives LR to a rebeller it’s not entirely clear that they’re obligated to remove it. (At least that’s my understanding, maybe admin team has their own interpretation.) So in reality this rule is not changing much and it might actually be less abusive since now these mistake situations will be handeled consistently.

I also don’t see this as an administrative difficulty at all. Typically it’s against the rules to remove and deny a player LR unless it was given accidentally or the recipient wants it regiven. So when the warden removes the LR in this circumstances the presumption is that they’re breaking the rules. The only change is now the warden can’t justify by saying “I denied LR because they were a rebeller.” Easy peasy.

I’ll finish this by noting that I’m pretty lukewarm about this proposal and I’ll concede that the benefit is marginal. Nonetheless I wanted to respond because I don’t think your criticism is fair, and I was put off by the tone of your response. We generally do defer to your administrative experience and appreciate your input, but I think you took that concept a bit far with how you portray the supporters of this suggestion.

 

[Bananawastaken]

under certain circumstances. This is how every rule works.

Ok what are the other circumstances where they can remove it, if warden gives it by accident right? Thats the "reason given by warden" I was referring to earlier, it wasnt a misinterpretation, this entire rule hinges on the warden giving a valid justification, what other rule is based on a justification given by warden?? Give me one, its a fantasy change rather than something concrete and enforceable.

The only change is now the warden can’t justify by saying “I denied LR because they were a rebeller.”

That's exactly my point, what's stopping him from justifying it with another excuse.

So in reality this rule is not changing much and it might actually be less abusive since now these mistake situations will be handeled consistently.

If you want consistency dont base a rule off of player given reasoning, theres no valid solution to this that doesnt muddy the waters or make the game incredibly frustrating to play.

In terms of this being abused, I suppose it’s possible but I think you’re overstating the risk. For one, this is not a license for wardens to give LR to rebellers, that’s still against the rules.

Thats not what I mean when I say abused, when I say abused I mean people just lying to save their own skin, because once again, its based off a justification of a warden.

Nonetheless I wanted to respond because I don’t think your criticism is fair, and I was put off by the tone of your response. We generally do defer to your administrative experience and appreciate your input, but I think you took that concept a bit far with how you portray the supporters of this suggestion.

Obviously I am a bit meaner than usual on this but what I am saying is 100 percent true. Most voters fell into the trap of "reward rebellers for getting LR because its fun" which is something I can appreciate, but they clearly do not understand the pitfalls of having this. Look past a red getting LR because they are rebelling and think of the ways wardens can just circumvent this entirely, then think about the annoying argument in the server and the headache of just wanting a normal round of JB.

Because you people need to understand suggestions are a powerful tool, you can easily get the community on your side with forum clout and an idea that sounds good cool on paper.

Once again

I don’t understand how we can differentiate between an accident and this single rare instance. There are valid instances where warden can remove LR, they can just as easily say these reasons.

If someone can just counter this, I will stop, but until then

 

[Dr. Meatloaf]

Obviously I am a bit meaner than usual on this but what I am saying is 100 percent true.

Why though? We’re two guys arguing on the internet about a niche rule on a niche server game mode on a nearly 17 year old game. Does it even matter? This isn’t life or death, and you’re not 100% right, so again I implore you to drop the superiority complex. It’s not doing you any favors.

Ok what are the other circumstances where they can remove it, if warden gives it by accident right? Thats the "reason given by warden" I was referring to earlier, it wasnt a misinterpretation, this entire rule hinges on the warden giving a valid justification, what other rule is based on a justification given by warden?? Give me one, it’s a fantasy change rather than something concrete and enforceable.

I think the problem is the way you choose to look at this. EVERY rule on this server could be said to apply to this “reason given by the warden” framework. Let’s say the warden turns on FF and team kills a blu. Normally against the rules and the admin is about to guardban him but before they take a second and ask “why did you kill him?” The red then explains that the BLU was pressing buttons and interfering with the round. All of the sudden behavior which is presumptively against the rules is acceptable because the warden gives a justification. This can be applied to every rule and particularly good examples include rules surrounding illegal FF, wardens killing freedays, and illegal minigames.

Now at this point you might be thinking those examples aren’t justified because of the “reason given by the warden,” they’re justified by circumstances in the rules which allow for wardens to do something (teamkill blues, kill freedays, etc…) and you would be exactly right. This rule is the same exact thing. We are simply adjusting the circumstances where an LR can be removed from a red after it’s given. If a red has rebelled earlier in the round you cannot remove LR from them just like you typically cannot remove LR anyway.

I know that part was a bit long winded but hopefully I was able to explain that this “reason given by the warden” language which you’re getting hung up on is really a nothing burger, and certainly does not by any means make the rule unenforceable.

I don’t understand how we can differentiate between an accident and this single rare instance. There are valid instances where warden can remove LR, they can just as easily say these reasons.

Once again
If someone can just counter this, I will stop, but until then

This is the part I want to emphasize. I think this is where most of our disagreement comes from. I talked about this in the original post but you didn’t respond to that part so I guess I’ll expand upon my reasoning here. In my eyes there are two valid reasons to remove LR, and both are easily distinguishable from the situation this rule puts us in.

The first is that the recipient asks for the LR to be regiven. I should hope it’s obvious why this can’t really be faked.

The second is that the LR was accidentally given to the wrong person either by the warden fat-fingering the menu, or because they accidentally think the last remaining red is a different person so they actually give LR to the rebeller in Burger King. In this circumstance warden still gives LR to the correct person.

Neither of these could ever reasonably be pretext for warden removing the LR in circumstances where the rebeller gets LR after all other non rebellers die. Are there other valid reasons to remove an LR? Please enlighten us. Maybe create some hypothetical situations in which it would actually be difficult to tell that the warden is removing LR because the person is actually a rebeller. Until then I just can’t understand the argument you’re trying to make.

 

[Mehgend]

Pack it up everybody. Maybe another day, but not today.