Completed [JB] Rule Suggestion (1 Viewer)

[Semicolon Backslash]

Hello jailbreak players, an issue with the rules caught my attention in a recent report (https://www.panda-community.com/threads/report-against-santador.29819/). For those too lazy to click that link currently it is possible to force any guard to become a line leader whether they are prepared to be one or not, this can be used maliciously to teamkill guards without actually teamkilling them or otherwise can force guards into poor places ruining the fun for them. While some could say this is already covered under other rules such as it would force blues to bait or its the same as teamkilling I feel like it would be better to clarify how line leaders on blue should be handled.

The proposed rule would be something as follows

"If the Warden chooses to use a guard to lead players to an area he must first obtain permission from that guard to do so"

I believe this will clarify what is to be done in this situation and close a possible loophole in the rules.

Poll closes in 7 days

 

[scootyman]

everyone bombrush follow semi to that corner over there

 

[tehlinx]

when i was on blue and or red this seemed like more of a disadvantage for the blues. the warden gets someone who they don't like, get the reds to follow them, and then a red picks up a wepeon. something like that may just cause a fail round. so yeah go and implement this rule

 

[Nergal Nergalton]

The warden could also use this to send BLUs they don't like in hopes they get killed, so yes I do approve of having to obtain consent from BLUs for orders like this.

 

[_Black]

Yes.

 

[Ian]

I think a more accurate rule that covers more bases is "Warden shall not intentionally place guards in a position that is made to unfairly disadvantage a guard. E.X: Making them the line leader without protecting the guard from reds entering their melee range while the guard is slower than the reds"

 

[Cowboy]

I think a more accurate rule that covers more bases is "Warden shall not intentionally place guards in a position that is made to unfairly disadvantage a guard. E.X: Making them the line leader without protecting the guard from reds entering their melee range while the guard is slower than the reds"

I think we came to a conclusion that we wanted to avoid using the term "Line Leader" as its a term not defined in the rules and chose to go with this more blanket rule instead.

I do appreciate the feedback though, let me know your thoughts.

 

[Ian]

Yeah, I added it to what I said, and it looks like this: "Warden shall not intentionally place guards in a position that is made to unfairly disadvantage a guard. Example of a disadvantaging/risky situation for a guard: Making a guard lead a group of prisoners without the guard's explicit permission." The reason I added the first sentence onto semi's suggested rule is because many other things can be done to disadvantage a guard such as asking them to stand in a specific place (that can be dangerous), or asking them to do a certain task (that may be dangerous), or just sending a guard to their death in any other way, and I believe that making a rule that creates similar protections on a wider range would be helpful, since I think this issue mentioned with leading reds often expands to those. If Wardens cannot kill a guard with this single order, they will likely find a workaround to potentially disadvantage a blue. I suggest these changes as a failsafe to the potential a warden decides to give orders that are intended to hurt their blues. By expanding the rule to be broader while having the example of the disadvantage being the exact rule implemented, I think this rule serves more purpose than to cover one base alone.

 

[hehe troll]

To just join the discussion, I think the warden should at least give a warning of what they're planning, to at least let the guard in question and reds know what the warden is up to.
It should at least be mentioned somewhere, y'know?
Just to make a comparison, it works just like a relationship: Consent from  both parties is important.

Also yeah the order "[name] is now line leader" seems a bit excessive, make it something like "follow guard [name] to [game,/place]" or "[guard] will guide you to [game/place]"
But of course before that, at least "[Guard], are you okay with the reds following you to [game/place]?" should be mentioned, instead of immediately telling them "you're an important person with a responsible task now without any warning or preparation time, i am expecting a lot from you and you will succeed in this task without dying horribly and causing a failround. good luck."
that is like expecting an unemployed person on their first day to know how all the strings in a company works


yah that's my addition

 

[Semicolon Backslash]

Rule will be implemented