Time shouldn't be the factor. Maps is flawed because of RTV, but time shows nothing. There are days when an hour is a single map, or 4 maps, each round played to completion.
I suppose, but if this is the best compromise we can come up with, so be it I just want to create some kind of consistency. The way things are done now doesn't have that
Do it by the round. It can't be RTV'd, it could be tracked across servers if we wanted to take it a step farther, and it makes enforcement by opportunity, instead of by arbitrary time. Even if it's not perfect, due to how rounds can progress, it's also why slays could be a 1 minute punishment or a 10 minute punishment, and nobody complains about that.
The point of times is consistency. Who cares if a map lasts one hour? And what do you mean by "time shows nothing?" If you go by rounds, it becomes inconsistent. It then, is based on how other players decide to play the game. If a group of friends becomes the majority of the server out of, let's say, 12 people, it wouldn't be difficult for them to try to speed through rounds so they could simply RDM again and have their SoL reset. Sure, their slay may be a random thing that depends on the round length, but this thread was mainly to bring up consistency of time between slays.
Time is also based on how other players play the game. Far, far more than individual rounds are. It's a worse measurement, because depending on how it goes, you could play 6 rounds in an hour or, potentially, 30. Going by round means we are going by opportunity. The number of chances they have to RDM VS the amount of time between RDMs.
Since the leads are paying attention: don't put any restraint on it. The rule works best the way it currently works. If you're a law abiding citizen you'll be slain and if the mods can't see the previous slays chances are high your slate will start clean. If you're a very, very naughty boy however, chances are very high the mod still remembers you and the offense that your on due to your own behavior and that is your own damn fault. Changing the current rule to add a certain amount of time or maps to each slay will in my opinion only tilt this to once more be a 'one-size-fits-all' rule. (which would not benefit the normal user at all, infact it'd do the opposite) Spoiler: anything in here is probably redundant, just ignore and read on without clicking the spoiler... or read it. i dont care. In short: Let's say the rule goes through and there's a set limit, a command gets added and now everybody has either a set time limit on their offense or a set map limit. For the scenario's sake lets say an easy 1 hour time limit for 1 slay and 3 map limit (so it doesn't count no longer at the 4th map) - Law abiding citizen makes a mistake, gets slain. He doth not protest and the moderator quickly forgets about him as its a rowdy server. 43 minutes later/3 maps later he makes another small mistake and is slain 2 times now due to the new rule. Without the new rule, he would very likely only been slain once, as he just served his slay, wasn't annoying, didn't harass, etc, so the moderator quickly forgot and after checking the previous map reports he didn't see that name getting slain so he starts at offense one once more. In other words, he simply gets punished for being punished. Or to say it differently, he gets punished due to the minority of toxic players who this rule would work for. But they are far in the minority, as I'd dare say only 5-10% of the people on our servers are that level of toxic. I very passionately belief that adding this rule would take a big chunk of fairness out of the game, since if you behave it's only natural you'd be punished less hard than someone who's just a constant pain in the ass. You basically say that toxic players are exactly the same as people who behave themselves and just make a mistake here and there unintentionally. Yes, I know SGM prides themselves on treating everybody equally and fair, but equal and fair aren't the same in this situation. If you, due to your negative actions, are remembered longer than someone who is not toxic, than you deserve that extra slay. In my opinion this would tilt the benefit soley towards toxic players, and it would be a very negative change for the largest demographic we not just try to reach, but we should also encourage: the non toxic people. What I would support however, is a limit to how long you can still be held accountable for your last rdm offense. I think we should get some sort of limit where you just can't slay somebody for a second offense if they got slain for the first offense 4 maps ago, or 1 hour ago. There should be a limit to how long you can hold that offense, as currently there's no actual rule about it. Technically you could slay someone for 2nd offense rdm if you slain him for his first offense a day/week/month/year ago. Spoiler
Time is a something that isn't influenced by how players play the game. Players cannot make an hour go by faster. Sure, they can make a round go faster, but they can also RDM one or two times in a round. A concrete standard is what needs to be found. Not something that is dependant on who is playing the game and not something that depends on who the staff member is on at the time. Could you imagine players thinking of how fair it would be to see one person get a single slay after say 10 rounds that lasted less than 10 minutes while someone else waited for nearly an hour to get a clean record? I don't think that would aid in tracking players who are toxic or even show a way of fairness to all. This confused me, forcie. At one point you don't want their to be something like this added, but you state you support exactly what is being suggested; you just worded it differently. Keep in mind that just as with bans, discretion can be requested by the moderator that's online to request a harsher or more lenient punishment; as long as that admin+ can refrain from being biased. If this suggestion was created to decrease inconsistency between staff, then have something set that's consistent.
Again, I bring up this scenario Now, the solution, to keep it fair for everyone, where we all get what we want, for the most, is: Slay expiration are not a hard thing. If a moderator forgets to give two slays, they forget. If they want to forgive, they forgive. However, before banning or applying a double slay, or a ban, they must check to see if X amount of Rounds or X amount of Time has passed. If that time has passed, the punishment is reduced. Yes, I am aware we still get the above scenario, but it would solve all other problems surrounding the current state, and that kind of unity would make the above scenario even rarer than it is now.
I'm completely against adding an 'x' amount of time that an rdm offense stays on somebody. I am fully against the idea that an rdm offense will stay on you for several maps or minutes. I am completely for the idea of adding a limit to how long an rdm offense can stay on somebody. I am fully for the idea that an rdm offense can no longer stay on somebody after several maps or minutes. The huge difference between those two things is that in the first occasion staff must punish, and in the second occasion staff can punish, but only up until a certain point. (which currently is indefinite)
More rounds = More Living Players = More chances to RDM = More Evidence their RDM is a rare thing More Time ≠ More Rounds ≠ More Living Players ≠ Anything, Consistently Now yes, there is the possibility that rounds go by lightning quick. That the person involved got lucky. How is that ANY different with the passage of time? Just the fact it took more time to reach the same point? You could have 5 rounds take 10 minutes or 30 minutes, but what makes the 5 rounds in 30 minutes better in terms of expiration? Edit: Sure, it sounds neater on paper to say '30 minutes until this', but in such a fluid game with so many variables, it just doesn't line up with anything. You can't get any consistency with a strict time, when the game itself is so inconsistent.
I still have yet to see a single valid point made that convinces me that this is an actual problem. For all the vast amounts of things you guys have written, at no point have you presented to me that our daily gameplay is brought to any meaningful flaw with this supposed issue. @Xproplayer , I see what you're saying, and I don't really disagree with you. My point isn't that something HAS to be broken in order for a rule to be applied, my point is that it serves no real purpose to restrict moderator capacity with new restraints for no real reason in particular. Understand that my perspective may be a little biased, here. I have played with SGM for a good while now and, I'm guessing because I choose to play more carefully, I have not gotten a single ban. I know when to control my weapon most of the time and it rewards me by sparing me the banhammer. The thing is, MOST players are like this. MOST players don't get banned for Mass RDM - my point being, those that do are at fault, not how the punishments are handled by any given moderator. What you're suggesting is that we make a more solid cover to patch a hole where self control is lacking. I am not for that. Learn how to tame yourself and pick your shots better, that's all I can say. Why 'needs to be', Mango? I respect your opinion so I'm curious as to what drives the necessity here. Nothing I've read thus far has provided ample reasoning as to -why- this is necessary, so please enlighten me if you have more to add. Not a matter of difficulty at all. It's the notion that it isn't required/needed. What does their RDM being a 'rare thing' matter? Rules are rules, and as they are, if you RDM frequently or rarely, you are in the same amount of trouble once you hit the adequate amount. Speed isn't a factor, here.
I can't name specific instances but some mod friends do this for me dude lmao like it's pretty obvious to see as a regular who's been around for a long time. I'm indifferent to this suggestion though, could care less. I only play with my friends anyways and I rdm very infrequently
Proof is in the pudding. Servers have continued to operate as they always have for quite some time now without this ever once arising as an issue. Like, at no point has this ever actually affected anything, which is why I'm arguing it in the first place. There's no need for a rule here.
You can say that about literally any rule change: They continue to operate like they always have until that change comes into effect. We used to be able to shoot and kill people for being around T-Equipment until we weren't, and before that, you could always shoot and kill people for being around T-Equipment (If it wasn't called out)
Your point being what, that we amend the rules to cover ground where needed? That's common sense. This particular situation, does not fall in to those grounds, which is why you are attempting to prove otherwise.
