Chitch's Shootout Mute/Ban Appeal

[Chitch 3 / 404]

Steam Name(s): Chitch

SteamID: STEAM_1:1:167866079

 

Admin that banned you: Gramps

What kind of punishment was it (mute/gag, server ban): Server ban

 

Why should you be unbanned?

Because I didn't do anything that should constitute a ban.

[l156a21 2 / 735]

Maybe other admins and servers might not have as strict a mindset, but I don't tolerate repeated use of unsportsmanlike behavior, in this case your weapon switch exploit, which I coulda sworn Ryell fixed. I have no beef against you personally, so just consider this a slap on the wrist, I don't wish to see that kinda behavior again.

And I'd advise against taking this personally like some other players have and resorting to smear campaigns on me. I don't find any of that amusing, and anyone who does that I will persecute to the fullest extent of my abilities

The one day ban will continue till its end, and I hope we don't have to go over this again.

[Chitch 3 / 404]

You could also argue that camping with a TNT barrel is unsportsman like behavior. Or I could troll people with brass knuckles and gun throw, would that be a bannable offence? Unlike those, quickswitching is an exploit, sure. But anyone can easily learn to do it. It's a nifty trick like canceling the spencer reload animation, that offers a minor advantage (if done right). If you are going to ban people for it, shouldn't you at least warn them to stop first? Anyway, shouldn't there be a guidline to adhere to? Is quickswitching really something that the other admins agree is a bannable offence?

 

Also, Rebel didn't completely fix it, but it's nowhere near as overpowered as it was before. 

Edited May 24, 2020 by Chitch

[l156a21 2 / 735]

I've been blown up by kegs countless times due to my lack of observation. I wouldn't call that an exploit, since you're not trying to bend game mechanics like the whole reload deal, it's cheap sure, but it's not an exploit.

As for disarming and throwing, that in itself isn't an exploit either. My problem with sawn offs and throwing was due to how much damage you can easily inflict in very little time and the imbalanced throwing power that adds on to that. If you were going about with knuckles out, you are at a disadvantage by having poor range, any throwing that comes subsequently would be what I consider cancelling out inherent disadvantages. Of course if it was someone disarming a sawn off, blasting someone with said sawn off and then throwing, then yeah that would be what I'd consider an exploit.

The ease of everyone else learning an exploit does not make it justifiable, if anything that's not exactly helping your case.

Granted maybe I shoulda just warned you first, but one of the reasons why I'm usually quiet when moderating was because of what I've observed in the past where people pretend to play by the rules when I make myself publicly known. I noticed how I tend to catch people off guard breaking the rules when I stay incognito

Guidelines are constantly evolving anyway, killbinds weren't against the rules until "zorro" was escalating things to the point of smearing me and then framing me for DDOS, suicide bombings weren't against the rules until I pointed out to my supervisor how disruptive it is(I do mean playing the game to deliberately suicide bomb repeatedly, suicide bombing as a last resort isn't against the rules). I have pointed out the problem with the sawnoff and throw as an issue before and I've also done that for the weapon switch, but I don't think appending those rules are a high priority, so I guess you can consider them transitional house rules. But I will take what you say into account, I will warn players first next time before enacting anything since it's not official yet.

Credit where credit's due, at least you didn't have a meltdown and resorted to character assassinations like HABITUALOFFENDER did

EDIT: I should also note that unlike the weapon switching, camping with powder kegs, however cheap it is, can't exactly be used constantly. So yes, it is pretty unsportsmanlike but not to the extent of the former or something like camping with a rifle behind the sweetwater train where there are areas that are completely bulletproof for the camper

Edited May 24, 2020 by l156a21

[Chitch 3 / 404]

"Of course if it was someone disarming a sawn off, blasting someone with said sawn off and then throwing, then yeah that would be what I'd consider an exploit."

How is that an exploit?

"The ease of everyone else learning an exploit does not make it justifiable, if anything that's not exactly helping your case."

How so? I don't see how something being an exploit means it's inherently a bannable offence. And the easier it is to do, surely the more likely it is to become accepted as a normal part of play. It's not like it gives a major advantage. Plus it can be messed up easily, at least it rewards skill. Something like clipping under the map in a specific spot and farming rank points... that's clearly a far more dubious exploit. Some exploits are innocent enough imo, I just don't see how it's a bannable offence. 

[l156a21 2 / 735]

Regarding the sawnoff, I decided to test out the effectiveness of it by using it on frozen bots. Most players who use the sawnoff blast and throw tactic usually do hit and runs by charging up close and blasting the enemy twice, even if not aimed precisely, that distance is enough to deal devastating damage. So far nothing out of the ordinary, annoying but nothing disruptive. If that alone wasn't enough to kill a player, they can use the throw which when I tested allowed for near full damage despite only having the throw gauge charged up by 1/3, the run and gun spraying along with the unbalanced throw is usually good enough for quick and easy kills. As I've said before, I have issues with how the throwing is implemented, I personally feel it shouldn't deal that much damage when you've barely even winded up your throw, but I will overlook that for most weapons as they are either low powered or harder to aim. Guns like the deringer and hammerless aren't particularly powerful on their own so I say those weaknesses balance out the throw's issues. More powerful weapons like the revolvers and mare's leg require good aim and/or are slower to use, so again, it(marginally) balances out problems with the throw

As for your point about exploits, you are still giving yourself an unfair advantage. Like I mentioned earlier, about the sweetwater train exploit. It's easy to do, any knucklehead with a rifle can just hop on over to the front of the train and are easily protected from shots. It's not even out of the map or anything, it can be easily accessed. I've seen that being done again and again, but it's still unfair. The ease of the exploit isn't justification for doing it, it is after all an *exploit*. If someone does it once or twice for shits and giggles I couldn't really care less, but I've noticed that those who do know about exploits do it time and time again to give themselves an advantage. And whatever your stance is on that, I find that just unfair to others. 

[Chitch 3 / 404]

Sawed-off shot + gun throw and Sweetwater train spot aren't exploits. 

"you are still giving yourself an unfair advantage."

 

You could say that of the carbine+volcanic switcheroo since it's so powerful, and some people get annoyed when it's used, and prefer to duke it out with revolvers. But that's just a part of the game, not all weapons and combos are equal. But what I mean by exploit is doing something that probably wasn't intentional, to give yourself an advantage. Getting under the map on Revenge where enemies can't shoot you, but you can shoot them, that's an exploit. 

"The ease of the exploit isn't justification for doing it, it is after all an *exploit*."

So all exploits are bad and bannable if people do them more than a couple times for shits and giggles? What about box jumps, and yellow dynamite jumping? Advantage or not, exploits are fun, wacky shit, that add character to the game. Lots of good players quickswitch, it's a beneficial thing to do, so why wouldn't they? If Rebel deems it too much of an advantage, he should further fix it. But like I said, the advantage is slight, and takes skill to do (since you have to aim quicker, and your accuracy needs to re-adjust). So, I still don't see how it's a bannable offence.

[l156a21 2 / 735]

"But what I mean by exploit is doing something that probably wasn't intentional, to give yourself an advantage. "

Was the whole quick switch thing made by the devs done on purpose with the intent of firing quicker in mind? Clearly not, why else would it have a transitory animation of flip cocking/cocking? For guns like the volcanic, it's already pretty iffy, but for something like the mare's leg which has a long transition, it was clearly meant to balance out the power of the shots with low ROF. Same thing with the recently patched spencer too. And I don't know what you meant by getting underneath revenge, unless you're referring to the cellar, with the hole in the stairs. I certainly hope you didn't mean that, because that would be easy to counter. Good thing GFL doesn't have revenge huh?

"What about box jumps, and yellow dynamite jumping?"

Pretty sure those 2 aren't a thing anymore ever since the patches

"Lots of good players quickswitch"

You're comparing apples to oranges here, the two have no direct correlation. For instance, otherwise smart people in history(and the present) have been known to do dumb things despite their intellect, that doesn't mean I'm gonna copy their mistakes just because they were smart everywhere else. Yeah, it's beneficial to *them* but it's still exploiting.

"If Rebel deems it too much of an advantage, he should further fix it."

Considering what he did to the combat mechanics overhaul despite massive objection to it at the time, I'm not holding my breath

[Chitch 3 / 404]

I never said quickswitching isn't an exploit, it is. I just don't think it's a bannable offence.

"don't know what you meant by getting underneath revenge"

You can get under the ground where enemies can't hit you, but you can hit them. I think you can do a similar thing on overtop iirc.

"Pretty sure those 2 aren't a thing anymore ever since the patches"

They aren't a thing now, but I was asking your opinion on them. Should they have been bannable offences?

"You're comparing apples to oranges here[...]"

My point is that it just makes sense to do, so top players do it. Would you ban players for quick reloading in CS:GO?  Nvm, doesn't seem to give an advantage like I thought it does. Better comparison might be switching faster in CS 1.6.

"Considering what he did to the combat mechanics overhaul despite massive objection to it at the time, I'm not holding my breath"

Combat mechanics overhaul is irrelevant. Rebel could've nerfed it more, but he didn't, and quickswitching is what it is now, and people are gonna play depending on that. Should everyone who used Mares leg quickswitch have been banned prior to the patch? Should people have been banned for bunnyhopping with scroll wheel? (if you could somehow tell?)

Edited May 24, 2020 by Chitch

[l156a21 2 / 735]

"You can get under the ground where enemies can't hit you"

In that case, yep. I would've considered a ban

"They aren't a thing now, but I was asking your opinion on them. Should they have been bannable offences?"

Most instances I saw of box hopping were fairly mundane, they just were used to get to places that *are* accessible by normal means but not as easily. If they used box jumping to get to otherwise inaccessible area, then yeah that would be considered bannable if repeated multiple times. Usually when that happens (especially if they're sniping), I'd blind them as a warning first. As for dynamite jump, same thing. I've seen them used to get in places normally inaccessible, even legends like Nassic were guilty of this, but I wasn't an admin then.

"Would you ban players for quick reloading in CS:GO? "

I've never played CSGO before so I had to look it up, but from what I've observed, it looks extremely minor compared to something like the mare's leg transitory animation. One thing to note is that while you're quickreloading, you're vulnerable to attack since you can't fight back with that weapon(switching to sidearms is irrelevant), but for something like quickswitching, you're constantly on the offense.

"Should everyone who used Mares leg quickswitch have been banned prior to the patch?"

I assume you mean should players be banned if they quickswitch the mare before ryell fixes it properly at last. In which case, I would warn them first. If they keep refusing to listen, then yeah, I would ban them. though maybe 1 day is a bit harsh in hindsight, maybe something like an hour. If someone keeps refusing to listen to you, I don't think something as temporary as a kick would do much anyway. As for bunny hopping, considering the amount of nerf done to it, I don't see it as much of a problem as it used to

[Chitch 3 / 404]

Quick reloading in CS was a bad example. Switching faster in CS 1.6 is a better example.

From what I remember, it seemed most places you could get to with dynamite belt wasn't a great advantage, so I dunno why it would've been worth banning over. As for Mares before nerf, it was only a matter of time before that got fixed, so I dunno why people shouldn't have been allowed to have some fun with it first. If it was never fixed, then fair enough maybe, because it was super OP from what I remember. Would you ban me for camping with a sharps on the red chest roof on Revenge, or the big building on Depot? You can reach both places without exploits, but they are hard for most players to get to. I got an 82 killstreak on the Depot roof with sharps only a few days ago. You can be a total nuisance there, and even see enemies spawn. Is spawn camping a bannable offence?

 

You can't bunny hop with scroll wheel now at all. Well, you can, but it's not an advantage anymore. Should people have been banned for doing it when it was still possible? Should people have been banned for bhopping at all when it was OP sometime in 2016-2017, whenever it was? Anyway, this is all rambling off topic a bit now. Bottom line is that quickswitching is something that gives you a slight advantage that anyone can do, like mousewheel bhop or switching faster in CS 1.6. It's not an overt, unfair advantage like using aimbot. It's just a little something you can learn to do better. I really think you should reconsider banning people for it. Stealing people's gun with brass knuckles/heavy loads and then throwing it back to kill them pisses people off way more, and is arguably more unfair, exploit or not.

Edited May 25, 2020 by Chitch

[l156a21 2 / 735]

For the roof on revenge and the building at depot, those are a pretty grey area, banning or even warning probably isn't the first thing on my mind because even though it isn't easy to reach, it's not hard to counter it either, dynamite works like a charm for me for both instances. Funny you should mention spawn camping, because that IS a bannable offense on GFL even before I arrived

 

On the topic of heavy loads, I have brought that up to my supervisor after I noticed a fair number of prop killers who aren't using heavy loads as a on the fly improvisation tactic but rather just going about grabbing crates and chairs to find someone to disarm. I do find that pretty damn disruptive. And when folks do that I usually tell em to cut it out followed by a kick if they ignore me. If they return and continue their shenanigans I ban them briefly for ignoring admins.

[Chitch 3 / 404]

Spawn camping is more understandable at least, but in most (if not all) cases I think it's a problem of bad game design and not a bannable offence. Some games like FOF, COD, and even CS:GO to some degree just have shit spawns, and you can't blame people for abusing them. Anyway, you seem to avoid arguing about whether quick switching is actually bannable or not. Seems like you are basically saying it's an exploit, therefore it is bannable, and that's that. But I hope I argued why not all exploits should be bannable e.g. with belt jumping. Kicking people for using heavy loads is bad lol. Disruptive or not, it's not like they are cheating. Would you ban someone for using the volcanic switcheroo if it pissed you off? Ban cheaters, man. Not someone whos just playing in a way you don't like.

Edited May 25, 2020 by Chitch

[l156a21 2 / 735]

The volcanic/smith thing? It does have its inherent disadvantage, I don't see it as that big an exploit.

As for heavy loads I'd never kick people for simply using heavy loads, just doing nothing but heavy load disarms which is just plain obnoxious. "zorro" going about spamming Zs wasn't cheating either, but it was disruptive, so yeah he got banned(and that wasn't even by me, I only gagged him, my supervisor banned him for that)

And yes I understand how you feel about those exploits, and that's fine, but this is the GFL server you're in, so you gotta have to listen to us about specific behavior. I know you're not some bad faith actor going about on smear campaigns(unlike someone whose name rhymes with habitualoffender), so I know you have no malice. I have nothing personal against you with this ban, I just hope you would stick to less exploitative ways.

Good talking to you

[l156a21 2 / 735]

For the record, if I was acting out of my own instinct I would've rescinded the ban due to the levelheaded way you were communicating with me, but an offense is still an offense. My apologies if that inconveniences you, but the ban will be gone in an hour anyway

[Chitch 3 / 404]

I don't think Zorro should have been banned. People don't like him spamming Z, then they can learn to ignore or mute him, problem solved. Someone spamming music on the other hand? Sure, gag them, that's malicious, and a lot more annoying to those who don't know how to mute.

"The volcanic/smith thing? It does have its inherent disadvantage"

What disadvantage?

"I don't see it as that big an exploit."

It's more beneficial than quickswitching.

"just doing nothing but heavy load disarms which is just plain obnoxious"

But why should it be bannable? Camping, coachgunners, TNT suiciders, I don't think any of that stuff should be bannable. If people wanna wind people up, or are just playing their own way, let them I say. I don't get how being annoying is a bannable offence. Imo bans are primarily for cheats. Cheats are a major unfair advantage. Switching to fists and back to your gun for 0.01 sec faster fire rate isn't lol. 

I'll say it again:  quickswitching is something that gives you a slight advantage that anyone can do, like mousewheel bhop or switching faster in CS 1.6. It's not an unfair advantage like using aimbot, so why should it be a bannable offence? Because it's an exploit isn't a good enough answer.

[l156a21 2 / 735]

"zorro" wasn't banned for killbinds I don't think. The ban rule wasn't there when it happened, I believe he was banned because of his increasingly hostile behavior and disruptiveness, I mean for fuck's sake the guy got banned in the actual FOF forums for continuing to stir shit up. Ignoring his actions is just covering up the problem not solving it. That's not even taking into account how he was continuing the killbind spam despite years of telling him to cut it out. Permagagging was the last resort after giving him god knows how many chances.

 

Well if you feel it's more beneficial I'm not gonna debate with you on that, I personally feel it's easier to counter

 

Sure they're primarily for cheats, I don't think any non cheat related offense has ever gotten particularly harsh sentences. But player behavior is certainly another factor for bans too, you can disagree on that, that's fine. But if you look at the rules of GFL, there are more behavior related offenses than cheating ones. Usually for those offenses, especially verbal or written, I usually do mild punishments like mutes or kicks. But it's when people keep doing the same thing I warned them for over and over again where it goes into ignoring admins territory, you don't honestly think something as mild as a kick's gonna do much for that now, do you?

 

 

Edited May 25, 2020 by l156a21

[Chitch 3 / 404]

"Funny you should mention spawn camping, because that IS a bannable offense on GFL even before I arrived"

I don't see it under global server rules?

"Well if you feel it's more beneficial I'm not gonna debate with you on that, I personally feel it's easier to counter"

I'm not sure it can be considered an exploit, but either way, that it's more beneficial is not really arguable. With a carbine/spencer body shot and a follow up volcanic body shot you kill in two fast hits. That's much more useful than having a slightly faster volcanic or mares fire rate.
 

"But player behavior is certainly another factor for bans too,"

I'm not debating that. What I'm debating is that you are superficially imposing rules on the way people are allowed to play. You say you would ban belt jumping if it was still around, so would you ban rocket jumps in TF2 because you don't like them lol? Or ban someone who always tries camping on a roof somewhere? Or ban someone for the sawed-off run and gun + gun throw? (Which isn't even an exploit). Annoying or not, exploits or not, these are just ways some people might want to play, and I fail to see how you can justify banning them. On that note:

Quickswitching is something that gives you a slight advantage that anyone can do, like mousewheel bhop or switching faster in CS 1.6. It's not malicious, arguably not unfair, and not overly advantageous (and unfair) like using aimbot, so why should it be a bannable offence? Because it's an exploit isn't a good enough answer.
 

[l156a21 2 / 735]

It's right here

Yeah I know about the rifle/volcanic thing. I do it from time to time as well, it is a very easy way to get a kill sure but you have to remember that you're also vulnerable during the reload(for the smith) or transitory animation(for the spencer) if you want a followup. If there are other enemies around usually you wouldn't do that and just stick to the volcanic until you find a safe place to reload or cycle. You DON'T have to do that for the mare's leg quickswitch. You can feel that's more beneficial all you want, but quickswitching for something like the mare is still easier to pull off for longer periods of time especially if there are multiple enemies around

 

Rocket jumps are part of the game mechanic, dynajumps weren't meant to be. I hope you realize they're not exactly directly comparable. Camping as I've mentioned before isn't usually a problem unless they're hiding in areas like the sweetwater train where there is a bulletproof bounding box.

 

You've come back to this point about the cs 1.6 thing over and over again and that saying it's an exploit isn't a good enough answer. I think I'd like to counter by saying that saying it's something that gives a slight advantage anyone can do isn't a good justification.

You can feel it's completely fair and that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But when it all comes down you are bending the games rules for your own benefit. Whether others can easily pull it off or not is irrelevant

[Chitch 3 / 404]

"but you have to remember that you're also vulnerable during the reload(for the smith) or transitory animation(for the spencer) if you want a followup."

That's not part of the 'exploit' though.

"quickswitching for something like the mare is still easier to pull off for longer periods of time"

Not true, quickswitching is finicky by nature, and accuracy resets, which doesn't help. Switcheroo is easier and kills faster. Quickswitching is beneficial because it means you can kill enemies slightly faster, and therefore be ready to fight more enemies quicker. Or you can potentially kill an enemy before they managed to get in an extra shot on you. How much of an actualy difference it makes, I don't know. The switcheroo is undoubtly better though, because with that, you can consistently kill in two quick hits rather than 3.

"unless they're hiding in areas like the sweetwater train where there is a bulletproof bounding box."

Why is that a problem if other camping areas usually aren't, it's not like they can hit you from there, but you can't.

"Rocket jumps are part of the game mechanic, dynajumps weren't meant to be"

What's it matter if they weren't meant to be a part of the game? They were a part of the game. 

"You've come back to this point about the cs 1.6 thing over and over again and that saying it's an exploit isn't a good enough answer. "

Because you were avoiding it, and it's central to the argument that quickswitching is fine.

"I think I'd like to counter by saying that saying it's something that gives a slight advantage anyone can do isn't a good justification."

But if people want to do better, they are going to use it. That's not being malicious in anyway, and the fact that anyone can easily do it makes it an even playing field, so it's not unfair. It's just a weird thing you can do like how you could accelerate faster by pressing shift.

 

[...] when it all comes down you are bending the games rules for your own benefit."

It's perhaps not fair to say it's bending the game's rules. Using aimbot or wallhacks would be doing that, but exploits are still just part of the game, even if they weren't intended to be doable or are unfair. Anyway, I get your point, but still 'bending the rules' for an advantage doesn't always matter. I could trap an enemy in a table; that's just a nifty trick that people can pull off, like belt jumps were. Quickswiching is another one of those tricks, altho more useful. Some exploits are more dubious than others. Like I said, glitching under the map and farming rank points... it's understandable why you would ban someone for that. But I still don't think you have justified banning people for quickswitching. Rebel could have nerfed quickswitching more when he initially did, but he didn't. Now it's a wacky thing you can do to make yourself marginally better. It's not OP like it was before.