Chitch's Shootout Mute/Ban Appeal

[l156a21 2 / 735]

I think you're kinda missing the point about the switcheroo. It's easier to get a kill with that than the quickswitch, yes. But you need to also remember that that only works once assuming you're in the presence of multiple enemies before you're forced to switch to your one handed. For something like the mare's leg switch, you can do it over and over again and if you're particularly skilled you can do it against multiple enemies until your ammo runs out.

 

I'm guessing you've not tested out the sweetwater exploit yourself? It's mostly bulletproof but if you've figured out the tiny sliver of usable area just an inch beside the bulletproof bounding box, you can hit enemies but enemies can't hit you because they can't tell which part of it is bulletproof(unless of course you know the map like the back of your hand and can accurately figure out while factoring long distance as to which exact pixel on screen onwards is not protected, but that's just splitting hairs)

 

I haven't been avoiding it, I have been emphasizing over and over that what you were doing IS an exploit and just saying it's "not a good enough answer" is just nebulous.

 

Exploits don't have to be malicious, hell even non-exploit unsportsmanlike behavior doesn't have to be. If someone's spawn camping and is just doing it for easy points, that doesn't mean they did that deliberately to piss people off. But the rules are still rules.

 

Using hacks wouldn't be bending the rules, that's just outright BREAKING them. Using spinbots and wallhacks aren't what's inherently built  in game and just left unpatched because someone didn't realize it might be used for exploitation. Things like reload cycle, that's meant to balance out the game, like the transition animation for the Mare is meant to balance out the power of the shot itself, but you can get around that by skipping the animation, and that would be bending the rules, cos you're aren't going about breaking the game code. Now if someone say, managed to make their mare fire repeatedly after each shot without a transition like the old hammerless, that would go beyond bending and enter breaking instead.

[Chitch 3 / 404]

"you can hit enemies but enemies can't hit you because they can't tell which part of it is bulletproof"

They can still hit you though. It's cheesy and annoying, but bannable?

 

"I haven't been avoiding it, I have been emphasizing over and over that what you were doing IS an exploit and just saying it's "not a good enough answer" is just nebulous."

 

But I already agreed that it is an exploit, what you are failing to do is justify why it is a bannable exploit.

 

"Exploits don't have to be malicious, hell even non-exploit unsportsmanlike behavior doesn't have to be. If someone's spawn camping and is just doing it for easy points, that doesn't mean they did that deliberately to piss people off. "

 

But spawn camping like that would be unsportsmanlike. If an exploit isn't malicious, and isn't unsportsmanlike, why ban it?

 

"Things like reload cycle, that's meant to balance out the game, like the transition animation for the Mare is meant to balance out the power of the shot itself, but you can get around that by skipping the animation, and that would be bending the rules, cos you're aren't going about breaking the game code. "

 

Quickswitching isn't bending the game's rules, because it's part of the game, even if it is an exploit. You're the one deciding it's "against the rules", against your rules. But why should it be? Maybe they are somewhat unfair and unsportsmanlike against those who don't know about them or don't want to use them. But they're not like cheating, and I'm still not convinced they're ban worthy. I want to know why you think they are. But your argument still boils down to "They're exploits therefore they're bad". That's not a good enough reason to ban people. 

"I think you're kinda missing the point about the switcheroo. It's easier to get a kill with that than the quickswitch, yes. But you need to also remember that that only works once assuming you're in the presence of multiple enemies before you're forced to switch to your one handed. For something like the mare's leg switch, you can do it over and over again and if you're particularly skilled you can do it against multiple enemies until your ammo runs out."

 

Time to fire all 9 shots of the volcanic:
Without quickswitch = 6.70 seconds (0.75 shots per second)
With (imperfect) quickswitching = 6.21 seconds (0.69 shots per second)

 

From carbine shot to volcanic shot = 0.62 seconds

 

Switcheroo no quickswitching = 3 dead enemies in 5.12 seconds
No switcheroo just quickswitching = 3 dead enemies in 6.21 seconds

 

So even though you can only fire the carbine once, and you can keep quickswitching for all of your ammo, the switcheroo is still better. 

 

Time to fire 3 shots:

Without quickswitch = 2.25 seconds
With quickswitch = 2.07 seconds

 

Therefore if someone who doesn't quickswitch shoots someone who does 0.17 seconds before they fire back, and they both keep shooting, then the quickswitcher's final shot will land first, by 0.01 seconds, and they'll be the survivor. Mares is more unfair though, since the quickswitcher would get a 0.59 second advantage after being shot first.

 

Is such a marginal advantage, that's so easy for anyone to learn, really worth banning people over? Again, it's like belt jumping, drifting, and mousewheel bhops were - fun (or annoying) little things that increases the skill ceilling. Not something to ban people over lol.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Chitch

[Chitch 3 / 404]

From HABITUAL'S thread you said "It's what YOU truly believe, but your beliefs aren't the rules. You bet I will continue to enforce this to any other player who does it"

But, it's not a rule here either:
 

If quickswitching is bannable, perhaps you should make the case that it is by replying to my above comment. If the mods/server admin agree, surely it can be added to the proper list of rules, and then—justifiable ban or not—at least it's a clear-cut rule, agreed upon by multiple people. But until it's been properly justified, I think banning people for quickswitching is highly dubious, especially since you gave no verbal warning. Maybe I'm wrong, and I really do apologise if so, but I just can't help but think that you get a kick out of banning people. 

 

Also I'm still curious if you would/have banned people for using run and gun with the sawed-off + gun throw, because that is even more dubious, it's not even an exploit.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Chitch

[l156a21 2 / 735]

Habitual made the mistake of resorting to personal attacks and poisoning the well by pulling out old evidence of me going about harassing players for their playstyle. Yes, I have done that and I have admitted to my wrongdoing, but Habitual decided to present said evidence like I am still going about slaying players and verbally abusing them, which it clearly isn't. You may notice my tone being much more nasty on his thread, because I am really not fond of such rhetoric. The last time this happened, I got framed for DDOSing a server out of spite when someone("zorro") decided to compile a bunch of half truths to make me look bad. As per his last reply I saw, you may have noticed about the false flag ban, which as much as I find Habitual's behavior repulsive, is not something I feel he deserves, I quickly had that fixed by contacting a DL to unban him since I can't do it myself.

 

Regarding the whole quickswitch business, I am going to bring this up to my manager again. As I've said, they've not prioritized something like this as I'm pretty sure they have more important things to do. You need to know however, that while the MOTD for the server serves as a guideline, we mods also police the server with our discretion. There have been other things players have done that you might find trivial, but I felt was exploitative that my manager agreed was at the very least kickable, but still NOT part of the official rules(for instance dropping a mare's leg and then repeatedly killing yourself until you spawn back at or near the drop and then dual wielding the mares). If players like you have grievances about that, then you can bring up such matters in the forums like what you're doing here. I have already taken what you said into consideration, that something like a warning should at least be given out, and I've reconsidered that a day's ban for something like this is a little too much.

 

And here I thought we were gonna have a reasonable discussion, now I get insinuated that I enjoy going about banning people, I must say I am somewhat disappointed. If you look at the bans I did in the past(even if you count my days going about antagonizing people), you'll find that the only times I really banned people for long periods are confirmed cheaters that I either recorded footage of, or someone else has and I banned them pre-emptively. Everyone else are basically minor bans done to people being a nuisance on the server. I've not even actually banned anyone for a gun throw with the sawn off much as I find it disruptive. I have kicked them sure, because that's how I view it(that said a particularly notorious user of this tactic I did ban, but only for micspamming, which is against the rules). I will admit that the bans I place on you and habitual have been somewhat influenced by frustration due to how long it has been since we've been updating proposed rules, but to imply that I did it for fun is just beyond the pale.

 

 

[Chitch 3 / 404]

"I will admit that the bans I place on you and habitual have been somewhat influenced by frustration"
"I have kicked them sure"
"but to imply that I did it for fun is just beyond the pale"

You literally just admitted to kicking people for playing the game normally, and then admit that you allowed your feelings to influence our bans. Sorry if what I'm saying disappoints, but I don't think it's an unfair assumption. Either way I think your job as an admin is very questionable.
 

"I am going to bring this up to my manager again"

Please do point them towards this thread, perhaps then someone will actually consider what I said, instead of avoiding countering my arguments.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Chitch

[l156a21 2 / 735]

Please don't take what I said out of context, I was frustrated with the lack of progress regarding the points I've brought up, not frustration from you or habitual. I don't make any actions on my admin end personal anymore since the last fiasco(though the same can't be said about the banees). It's "well, if you folks(the other admins) aren't gonna focus on this aspect despite me bringing it up, I may as well take care of it." and not "Goddammit those assholes killing me with their damn quickswitch again! This is so frustrating! I shall ban them!"(What habitual believes). The frustration was a byproduct and not the catalyst of the ban.

The whole kicking thing was in the past. I've not gone about kicking people for chucking guns about, yet anyway.

What your implication was in the previous reply was that I did this out of enjoyment or some kind of payback for getting killed, which I've already explained, I did not.

I don't wanna sound presumptuous, but for your first point it almost feels like you've only focused on the last two sentences of my last paragraph, and not the rest of said paragraph.

 

I did point them towards this thread. Now we'll just have to see what they think

[Chitch 3 / 404]

"Please don't take what I said out of context, I was frustrated with the lack of progress regarding the points I've brought up, not frustration from you or habitual."

How did I take it out of context? You said that you allowed your feelings to influence our bans. At least if you were frustrated with us it could've been due to perceiving what we are doing as wrong, but you're saying what influenced our bans, wasn't even related to what we were doing.

 

"The whole kicking thing was in the past. I've not gone about kicking people for chucking guns about, yet anyway."

So you've not yet again gone about kicking people for playing the game normally... but you might.

"What your implication was in the previous reply was that I did this out of enjoyment or some kind of payback for getting killed, which I've already explained, I did not."

If that's not the case, I apologise. But I'm still not certain that it isn't.

"I don't wanna sound presumptuous, but for your first point it almost feels like you've only focused on the last two sentences of my last paragraph, and not the rest of said paragraph."

 

I considered everything you said.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Chitch