Declined Rewarden exception (1 Viewer)

Should somebody be able to rewarden if the previous warden is teamkilled while ff is on?


  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Doge Loaf

Active Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
113
Every once in a while, the warden will get accidentally or purposefully team killed during arena/hg while an admin isn't on to respawn them.

My suggestion is that if the warden is teamkilled illegally during hg, a different guard (not the one that teamkilled him obviously) can rewarden so that the round doesn't go to waste and lr can be given.

I understand that this might be abused somehow, but I think this would do a lot more good than bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kazzy
Its a good idea in mind. But then you have to weigh in the idea that someone is gonna kill the warden cause he/she didn't like the warden. :/ Its a good idea though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kazzy
I think this is a decent idea, but it has a major flaw that green already touched one. I believe that this will be abused when bad wardens are running the game (especially normal day w/ ff LRs), and instead of trying to correct them or help them learn, they just kill them and rewarden. There also isn't a way to prevent someone who team killed to be warden (that I know of), so that would be even harder to enforce.

Basically, I think this will create a bump in "accidental" freekills and more confusion on when you can and can't rewarden and therefore could require more help from admins to solve the problem. While I think this is a decent idea, I don't think in practicality that it would be very useful (this scenario happens fairly rarely) and is more likely to be abused to remove wardens who aren't as good or someone finds annoying. I would rather encourage helping out a new warden/ dealing with mistakes than encourage vigilante-ism of replacing wardens.

Edit 2: This should probably go in the suggestions area in the future.
 
Last edited:
I would rather keep it as the down side.
The first would be abuse. If a blu teamkills the warden during HG and multiple people ask why was he killed and he would respond "It was an accident." This could lead to multiple people asking whatever its an accidental freekill or a freekill on intent.

Second is that rulebreakers can take advantage of this. They could be very sneaky and try to pull off a teamkill looking like it was an accidental freekill. Then have a friend of his can rewarden to avoid suspicion.

I don't have much to say since @Random Coffee Table explained pretty much all the points I was about to say xD.
 
First of all, sorry for posting this here, I assumed the suggestions area was more for universal suggestions, while this is more server specific. I will repost this in the correct area in a few hours unless an admin can so that we don't lose the replies already posted.


Next, to respond to the downsides of adding this rule. Teamkilling is already illegal. If somebody does not like the warden, teamkilling them would still have to result in them slaying or being reported/guardbanned. I understand that guards who kill the warden is a problem, but my suggestion is to allow the round to continue, and a red to get lr. The possibility that somebody might break the rule, should not be a reason to not add it.

If somebody kills the warden, even by accident, they should obviously not be the one to rewarden, and I think that should be part of the rule if this is added.

In the case that there are two friends that are exploiting rules, which is already a rare occurrence, I think it would be even more rare that they decide to exploit this specific rule rather than just freekilling together.


Here's an important addition to my suggestion, which should deter people from killing warden on purpose:
The new warden cannot make new rules, they may only give reds anti-delay orders (be back in cells by a time or continuously fight) and give lr after there is one person left


The whole point of this suggestion is so that lr may be given, so maybe if the new warden cannot make any new rules, he won't want to rewarden, and somebody responsible can. HG and Arena should already result in there being one person left at the end, so by adding this, it deters troublemakers from rewardening, as they won't be able to do anything new, or remove rules the previous warden added just because he didn't like them.
 
A few flaws with your counterargument: your point on team killing already being illegal is counter intuitive to your argument as if an admin is on, you don't have to bother with rewardening. Sure, someone could be reported, but that isn't an instant fix and there is no way to enforce them not becoming warden after team killing. It doesn't solve the main issue of you can't control this rule without an admin online, meaning it is really only problematic. It isn't about someone breaking the rule against team killing, but this exception becomes a reason to break it and nullifies ramifications for a mistake.

While it isn't often that groups of friends join, it isn't uncommon either. Sure, they probably will mfk, but that doesn't mean giving them another easy to break rule will solve that issue.

However, the biggest problem is your addition of not being able to make new rules. That only works in the context of hg, and nothing else. It doesn't work for normal day with ff (though that often turns in pseudo hg), pokemon, or warday with ff. It actively hampers those rounds from continuing on normally if the warden can not give new orders making it even more difficult to implement and harder to enforce. I still disagree with the suggestion and if it is implemented, I see the additional rule as not being feasible to work nor enforce.
 
A few flaws with your counterargument: your point on team killing already being illegal is counter intuitive to your argument as if an admin is on, you don't have to bother with rewardening. Sure, someone could be reported, but that isn't an instant fix and there is no way to enforce them not becoming warden after team killing. It doesn't solve the main issue of you can't control this rule without an admin online, meaning it is really only problematic. It isn't about someone breaking the rule against team killing, but this exception becomes a reason to break it and nullifies ramifications for a mistake.
My point is that if somebody teamkills the warden, by accident or on purpose, they have already broken the server rules, and rewardening directly after doing so would only further that. To exploit this rule, it requires you break a different rule first.

If an admin isn't on, there is no instant fix to somebody breaking any rule, but reporting them is so that they are prevented from doing it in the future. You cannot make an argument saying that a rule should not be added because it cannot be enforced without an admin online, because that would mean that every rule is void until one gets on. You can't enforce rules like "no ghosting" without an admin on, but it still happens and is a rule. The way to enforce any rule without an admin online is to tell them it's against the rules, and/or to report

While it isn't often that groups of friends join, it isn't uncommon either. Sure, they probably will mfk, but that doesn't mean giving them another easy to break rule will solve that issue.
Even if two or more rule-breaking friends joined, It's highly doubtful that they will want to exploit, or even know about it's existance. In the specific case where one person does kill the warden and the friend rewardens, the person killing the warden would still likely get reported, and the new warden would either break more rules (especially with my addition), or continue the round normally. As I said before, a different rule has to be broken in order to exploit this one, meaning the incentive to kill the warden is nullified.

However, the biggest problem is your addition of not being able to make new rules. That only works in the context of hg, and nothing else. It doesn't work for normal day with ff (though that often turns in pseudo hg), pokemon, or warday with ff. It actively hampers those rounds from continuing on normally if the warden can not give new orders making it even more difficult to implement and harder to enforce. I still disagree with the suggestion and if it is implemented, I see the additional rule as not being feasible to work nor enforce.
In making this suggestion, I was mainly only thinking about hg and arena, (and possibly meatgrinder,) because they are defined in the server rules or by map design. It could easily apply to pokemon with only change needed being that the warden can reassign trainers if one is to die, as the only other exception to the "no new rules" addition. What I do agree with you on however, is not applying this rule to custom lrs that involve ff, since they have the possibility to require new rules.

My suggestion was only meant to be applied to the pre-defined minigames, and not things like cellwars or other custom ff lrs. That may be a discussion to have in the future, but adding this as it applies to the minigames I said before, will help rounds be continued, and run smoother despite issues with teamkillers.
 
To clarify my first point: I understand that teamkilling is already an bannable offence, it is resting on the laurels of that particular offense. I didn't do a good job explaining, but my point is that if someone already breaks one rule, it doesn't really matter if they break another at that point other than stating it in a report. Basically, it boils down to this suggestion being pointless when an admin is on (hopefully we get more soon), and impossible to control without one as that is only where it applies. By nature, this rule is only active when an admin is never on and can only be reported on afterwards, when it is null, not to mention confusion if an admin joins incognito and they have to expose themselves for a different problem than they were potentially called for.

I agree that two people abusing it is unlikely and I find it far more likely for someone teamkill and then rewarden. However, if you'll let me go down a cynical rabbit hole, I can see this being abused by regulars who are on blue. I think that is a more likely exploitation of that small rule could have larger ramifications. Lets say a warden does turns on ff in soccer and they don't like it, they "accidentally" kill warden and go on with the round differently. Perhaps that is me being cynical, but sometimes with the unhappiness I see with some regulars around younger children on blue, that is where the problem can lie.

The last point was just me showing that it isn't a catch-all solution. The clauses a rule has, the more likely it is for someone to misinterpret it, and the more likely it is to be invoked when it isn't designed to work. In order for your last suggestion to work, it would need an individual clause for each potential use case of this change and if something doesn't line up perfectly with it, it is up to interpretation at that moment.

TL;DR this rule change makes an unlikely even more confusing and opens up another way to change warden when it shouldn't exist. It is easier to say "oops" and move on with the round and start another one instead of having an argument in voice and chat over if they can rewarden and whether or not their powers change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kazzy
I'm going to attempt to say this once more, and then I'm going to quit debating unless somebody brings up new points.

To clarify my first point: I understand that teamkilling is already an bannable offence, it is resting on the laurels of that particular offense. I didn't do a good job explaining, but my point is that if someone already breaks one rule, it doesn't really matter if they break another at that point other than stating it in a report. Basically, it boils down to this suggestion being pointless when an admin is on (hopefully we get more soon), and impossible to control without one as that is only where it applies. By nature, this rule is only active when an admin is never on and can only be reported on afterwards, when it is null, not to mention confusion if an admin joins incognito and they have to expose themselves for a different problem than they were potentially called for.
The point of this suggestion is not to make teamkilling more illegal than it already is, it's to permit others to continue the round during a time when an admin isn't online to respawn the original warden. We have already instated at least one rule similar to this, which is that blu members can teamkill freekillers without being punished, so that the round can continue, even when an admin is not online to remove him.

I agree that two people abusing it is unlikely and I find it far more likely for someone teamkill and then rewarden. However, if you'll let me go down a cynical rabbit hole, I can see this being abused by regulars who are on blue. I think that is a more likely exploitation of that small rule could have larger ramifications. Lets say a warden does turns on ff in soccer and they don't like it, they "accidentally" kill warden and go on with the round differently. Perhaps that is me being cynical, but sometimes with the unhappiness I see with some regulars around younger children on blue, that is where the problem can lie.
Once again, I am not saying that this ok for all situations where ff is on, such as soccer with ff, unless somebody else has an idea as to how to implement it, which would be a different suggestion. It is too tricky to apply this to custom ff minigames, but can hopefully make the situations I have listed easier.

How it could be abused by regulars, I find impossible. Even if somebody teamkills on accident, especially in the case of a regular, they should be slaying, not taking on a promotion that they opened up. Also, with my addition to not be able to make unnecessary rules or remove rules, (because this should only apply to games where the reds are fighting to the last man standing) it gives no incentive to abuse.


The last point was just me showing that it isn't a catch-all solution. The clauses a rule has, the more likely it is for someone to misinterpret it, and the more likely it is to be invoked when it isn't designed to work. In order for your last suggestion to work, it would need an individual clause for each potential use case of this change and if something doesn't line up perfectly with it, it is up to interpretation at that moment.

I'm going to restate the suggestion entirely so that there is no way to misinterpret the meaning:

If the Warden is teamkilled during HG, Arena, Meatgrinder or pokemon, a different blu, who did not partake in the killing, may rewarden under the condition that they give no new orders other than to assign a new trainer if one is killed or to prevent round delay (time to be back in cell area/constantly fight)
 
Now this may seem silly, but what if there was a way to mod a plug in so blues can kill the warden? Just a thought.
 
Now this may seem silly, but what if there was a way to mod a plug in so blues can kill the warden? Just a thought.
I'm assuming you mean a way to mod the server so that blus can't kill the warden, but unless you did a while bunch of coding, the only way to achieve that is to make the warden invincible to both blus and reds, which would obviously not be a good idea. It would take too much time and effort to make, if it even is possible.
 
Yes I did mean can't sorry for the grammer!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread