The most retarded call staff have ever made on this server pt 2

[Snake 771]

3 hours ago, Grandma Gary said:

This is what happens when we let the sub human @Senior Web Developer have an opinion.

@ Snake merged your post since this one was locked by mistake.

I appreciate the effort to keep the conversation flowing

just doing my duty as retired staff

[ares 399]

7 hours ago, David Miller said:

laced bombs on a gangshed. Blew up gangshed. Got killed by gang. Wants gang banned for RDM. Upset we changed the rules.

Is this not how its always been?? If I am sitting at my shed and I see someone walk up to it and blow it up, I'm shooting them in the head for blowing up my shed, not sitting there and engaging...

[David Miller 724]

31 minutes ago, ares said:

Is this not how its always been?? If I am sitting at my shed and I see someone walk up to it and blow it up, I'm shooting them in the head for blowing up my shed, not sitting there and engaging...

 

Honestly... I have no idea. I have never seen this particular issue exactly like this before. I went through as many old tickets as I could stomach trying to find a predominant precedent and found only one remotely similar and it ruled the same way. That said old tickets are ridiculously easy to miss stuff when a relevant ticket may be named "Timmy #69420" and the message is just a Youtube video that may or may not work anymore. 

Placing explosives by itself isn't hostile action, similar to how wearing a suicide vest isn't. But yeah, if I catch someone placing explosives near my house im probably shooting first and figuring out the details later. I think its what most people would do and Its probably why most of staff agreed that blowing up a shed should fall under hostile action. It went all the way up to Gary, and now we are at this point in time.

[The Antichrist 251]

50 minutes ago, Blitzking said:

@ Community Director Sov Laughable that you think this isn't a hostile action.

You don't just go blowing up random shit for fun, you target someone intentionally, so that argument falls apart.

Look I get the general notion, but this is the exact type of juvenile, not thought out, knee jerk reaction by uninformed and I experienced people that got us into this position in the first place.

Be expected to check with staff on home ownership every single time is aids, and I have 0 faith and 0 confidence staff are going to be thorough enough for this to just not turn into an rdm workaround.

I've explained it to exhaustion at least 5 times and the only people who don't see my issues are the tl;dr omfg a paragraph I hate words types.  

[ares 399]

13 minutes ago, David Miller said:

Placing explosives by itself isn't hostile action, similar to how wearing a suicide vest isn't. But yeah, if I catch someone placing explosives near my house im probably shooting first and figuring out the details later. I think its what most people would do and Its probably why most of staff agreed that blowing up a shed should fall under hostile action. It went all the way up to Gary, and now we are at this point in time.

Exactly how I interpreted the rule in the 7+ years I've been on Oly, not exactly sure why this is an issue now lol

[The Antichrist 251]

11 minutes ago, David Miller said:

 

Honestly... I have no idea. I have never seen this particular issue exactly like this before. I went through as many old tickets as I could stomach trying to find a predominant precedent and found only one remotely similar and it ruled the same way. That said old tickets are ridiculously easy to miss stuff when a relevant ticket may be named "Timmy #69420" and the message is just a Youtube video that may or may not work anymore. 

Placing explosives by itself isn't hostile action, similar to how wearing a suicide vest isn't. But yeah, if I catch someone placing explosives near my house im probably shooting first and figuring out the details later. I think its what most people would do and Its probably why most of staff agreed that blowing up a shed should fall under hostile action. It went all the way up to Gary, and now we are at this point in time.

Staff are not going to do their due diligence and enforce this fairly.  You're putting the burden on rdm victims to have to upload every single time they die in these circumstances to check if ownership is on point, and they will swap, and I have no fucking clue how anyone is actually expecting staff to be thorough in these situations when half the time they can't even be bothered to read disputes.

You're saying "fuck you" to the people buying the expensive shit to blow up stuff and giving the goahead rdm license to anyone who sees them doing it and they just have to take any potential rdmers word that the property was theirs.  You're fucking people over for using bombs.

And you guys don't care because you can't figure out how abusable this is because it's not your problem. 

[David Miller 724]

10 minutes ago, Community Director Sov said:

Staff are not going to do their due diligence and enforce this fairly.  You're putting the burden on rdm victims to have to upload every single time they die in these circumstances to check if ownership is on point, and they will swap, and I have no fucking clue how anyone is actually expecting staff to be thorough in these situations when half the time they can't even be bothered to read disputes.

You're saying "fuck you" to the people buying the expensive shit to blow up stuff and giving the goahead rdm license to anyone who sees them doing it and they just have to take any potential rdmers word that the property was theirs.  You're fucking people over for using bombs.

And you guys don't care because you can't figure out how abusable this is because it's not your problem. 

I just disagree. The burden has always been on the reporter to upload. I think this issue is pretty rare considering how difficult it was to find similar reports. I believe staff will do the due diligence to check on the rare instances where it matters and there is a dispute or question about home ownership, its incredibly easy to verify who owns what. 

I think the flip side of this is saying "I know you watched someone blow up your stuff, but blowing up your house isn't hostile so you are getting a ban for RDM" is unintuitive, and how we end up with a crazy web of rules that only make sense to people with 1000+ hours.

Saying blowing up someone's stuff is hostile action and you can be killed for it seems to me so far to be pretty intuitive.

Saying I don't care because I disagree with you, I don't how to fix that, I just disagree with you. 

[The Antichrist 251]

3 minutes ago, David Miller said:

I just disagree. The burden has always been on the reporter to upload. I think this issue is pretty rare considering how difficult it was to find similar reports. I believe staff will do the due diligence to check on the rare instances where it matters and there is a dispute or question about home ownership, its incredibly easy to verify who owns what. 

I think the flip side of this is saying "I know you watched someone blow up your stuff, but blowing up your house isn't hostile so you are getting a ban for RDM" is unintuitive, and how we end up with a crazy web of rules that only make sense to people with 1000+ hours.

Saying blowing up someone's stuff is hostile action and you can be killed for it seems to me so far to be pretty intuitive.

Saying I don't care because I disagree with you, I don't how to fix that, I just disagree with you. 

This is insanely abusable on both ends and I 100% intend to demonstrate how and you guys are going to refuse to ban when I follow this new system to the letter...watch.  you're changing the rules and you won't enforce them accordingly.

I'm going to be rdmed... multiple times...according to your new made up stupid rules...and you wont do a damned thing to the rdmers.

[Grandma Gary 10529]

13 minutes ago, Community Director Sov said:

This is insanely abusable on both ends and I 100% intend to demonstrate how and you guys are going to refuse to ban when I follow this new system to the letter...watch.  you're changing the rules and you won't enforce them accordingly.

I'm going to be rdmed... multiple times...according to your new made up stupid rules...and you wont do a damned thing to the rdmers.

You are literally the only person who disagrees, this entire thread is you just stamping your feet because you are clearly in the wrong. 

It is also laughable that you consider the mods and admins incapable of making decisions regarding rule changes when most of us have years experiance as civs dealing with these obscure retarded situations.

As for your threat of demonstrating how to abuse this that in itself is against the rules so by all means continue digging that hole.

[Millennium 5848]

Who the fuck uses explosives on gangsheds.... Just put a tempest in the door and close it.

[DopeDealerFelipe 68]

You guys and gals are using a lot of big words put into very long word sandwiches and. . .and the reason for those sandwiches is very very confusing. . .i don't play civ and all but i like explosions. . .and. . .and anything that prevents explosions should be removed. . .but sometimes explosions are scary. . .sometimes the bigger the explosion the scarier!and and. . .there's a difference between someone like Trump2024 and his explosive tractors and. . .a random heavily armed man with a satchel charge. . .im not very smart but i think. . .if someone is up to no good bombing innocent homes and garages they should be considered as terrorists and shoot on site!boohoo you got shot by a random rook banging naked in a bush while trying to. . .LEVEL A DAMN BUILDING! maybe you shouldn't be planting bombs out in the open on houses who's owner you can't check.

 

But since im a medic main who doesn't play civ half as much so maybe im not qualified to talk here but i have a few questions.

1)how should someone engage you as the bomber without having their home or gangshed blown up in the time it takes to message or run up and speak?

2)Should you have the engaged advantage (The fact that they can't fire untill you fire first.) when you are obviously the aggressor planting a bomb?

3)Would checking the home's ownership allow you to then kill on site a person for the next 5minutes after blowing up their house since you are against the one way engagement?

4)How much different is this to the vehicle lockpicking Kos?and if they are could you clarify how so?

[Saul Goodman 59]

7 minutes ago, Millennium said:

tempest

Gotta min max those cost margins with Zamak Fuels  

[Mudiwa 789]

everyone here is mad

[-B- 167]

1 hour ago, DopeDealerFelipe said:

You guys and gals are using a lot of big words put into very long word sandwiches and. . .and the reason for those sandwiches is very very confusing. . .i don't play civ and all but i like explosions. . .and. . .and anything that prevents explosions should be removed. . .but sometimes explosions are scary. . .sometimes the bigger the explosion the scarier!and and. . .there's a difference between someone like Trump2024 and his explosive tractors and. . .a random heavily armed man with a satchel charge. . .im not very smart but i think. . .if someone is up to no good bombing innocent homes and garages they should be considered as terrorists and shoot on site!boohoo you got shot by a random rook banging naked in a bush while trying to. . .LEVEL A DAMN BUILDING! maybe you shouldn't be planting bombs out in the open on houses who's owner you can't check.

 

But since im a medic main who doesn't play civ half as much so maybe im not qualified to talk here but i have a few questions.

1)how should someone engage you as the bomber without having their home or gangshed blown up in the time it takes to message or run up and speak?

2)Should you have the engaged advantage (The fact that they can't fire untill you fire first.) when you are obviously the aggressor planting a bomb?

3)Would checking the home's ownership allow you to then kill on site a person for the next 5minutes after blowing up their house since you are against the one way engagement?

4)How much different is this to the vehicle lockpicking Kos?and if they are could you clarify how so?

We’re medics we can't have opinions.

[The Antichrist 251]

1 hour ago, Grandma Gary said:

You are literally the only person who disagrees, this entire thread is you just stamping your feet because you are clearly in the wrong. 

It is also laughable that you consider the mods and admins incapable of making decisions regarding rule changes when most of us have years experiance as civs dealing with these obscure retarded situations.

As for your threat of demonstrating how to abuse this that in itself is against the rules so by all means continue digging that hole.

I have not threatened to break any rules or exploit in any way.  Quite the opposite.  Only to demonstrate both the difficulties in trying to enforce this insanity and some of the many ways it will backfire and how it is exactly what I said it is.... speculation based rules where players have a license to rdm without consequence.  I don't intend to do the rdming.

And you know as well as I do that if the first two staff members said they were against changing it, it would be 11-0 the other way.  Subordinates don't vote against superiors.

And I'm outnumbered, but far from alone in my take on this...I just use bombs more than anyone so I'm the most affected.

 

1 hour ago, Millennium said:

Who the fuck uses explosives on gangsheds.... Just put a tempest in the door and close it.

The ol Retired staff special.

8 minutes ago, DrB said:

We’re medics we can't have opinions.

If someone who's never played a medic wanted to make a drastic rule change that effected you severely, you would care.

1 hour ago, DopeDealerFelipe said:

You guys and gals are using a lot of big words put into very long word sandwiches and. . .and the reason for those sandwiches is very very confusing. . .i don't play civ and all but i like explosions. . .and. . .and anything that prevents explosions should be removed. . .but sometimes explosions are scary. . .sometimes the bigger the explosion the scarier!and and. . .there's a difference between someone like Trump2024 and his explosive tractors and. . .a random heavily armed man with a satchel charge. . .im not very smart but i think. . .if someone is up to no good bombing innocent homes and garages they should be considered as terrorists and shoot on site!boohoo you got shot by a random rook banging naked in a bush while trying to. . .LEVEL A DAMN BUILDING! maybe you shouldn't be planting bombs out in the open on houses who's owner you can't check.

 

But since im a medic main who doesn't play civ half as much so maybe im not qualified to talk here but i have a few questions.

1)how should someone engage you as the bomber without having their home or gangshed blown up in the time it takes to message or run up and speak?

2)Should you have the engaged advantage (The fact that they can't fire untill you fire first.) when you are obviously the aggressor planting a bomb?

3)Would checking the home's ownership allow you to then kill on site a person for the next 5minutes after blowing up their house since you are against the one way engagement?

4)How much different is this to the vehicle lockpicking Kos?and if they are could you clarify how so?

Were bending over backwards to let a gang rdm me that declines war invites from me on the daily.  I offer them a license to kos, and they decline because they manipulated their way into one way kos where they never have to be in danger.

[Milo 996]

5 hours ago, silton said:

So planting bombs and lockpicking is a hostile action but holding a gang mate in custody with the intent to send them to jail isn't? Man I love Olympus staff.

NGL I've always thought that's how it should be too. If you are able to establish that a group member is in custody, in my opinion it should keep the engagement going. If I had to guess I would bet that is one of the largest misconceptions newer players have regarding RDM rules. It would prevent misconceptions that lead to bans and would make more sense for both parties. Although I know that's not what this thread is about, if that was put up to an internal vote, I would be all for that being revised.

[The Antichrist 251]

34 minutes ago, Milo said:

NGL I've always thought that's how it should be too. If you are able to establish that a group member is in custody, in my opinion it should keep the engagement going. If I had to guess I would bet that is one of the largest misconceptions newer players have regarding RDM rules. It would prevent misconceptions that lead to bans and would make more sense for both parties. Although I know that's not what this thread is about, if that was put up to an internal vote, I would be all for that being revised.

As I have pointed out like 100x now, staff on this server do nothing at all to bridge the gap between the written rules and the rule interpretations.  I've tried to encourage defining these more times than I can count, and I usually get told something along the lines of 'we never really have problems with that status quo it's fine.'    Then it leads to a bunch of wild and radical changes, that usually take place in the middle of situations after staff have already told players it's one way.  

Players should never have to be concerned that one day staff is going to suddenly just up and decide that something is or isn't against the rules when it was always the opposite prior.  A vast majority of staff on the server are basically checked out, and don't even bother paying attention or keeping up to date on previous rulings.  

Take for example, tags.  If a gang has a tag directly tied to a gang you're at war with you can kill them without initiation.  So if someone has Teamplayers (TP) tags, and I'm at war with Teamplayers, and they're white name I can kos.  I guarantee 90% of the staff would say you can't.  It's already been ruled on.  I know how fucky staff on this server are about keeping track of this so I cover my ass by holding onto a screenshot for 4 years of @ Grandma Gary  saying that's the case.   How many staff honestly know that?  There was no formal announcement, no formal rule change, and I guarantee almost every staff member would ban for that because of the poor communication and rule updates.  If I didn't have the forethought to take that screenshot, good chance I would be banned and shawn would say he has a different opinion and it would become an entire vote process to randomly change the rules, they would all try to gaslight me into thinking I don't know what I'm talking about as they have in these last two instances where I don't have recordings/screenshots.  Grandma gary probably doesn't even remember ruling on that.   The rules are so bad players have to keep track of them themselves and even then, constantly wonder if some staff member is going to randomly form a different opinion and everything's going to change for no reason at all.

[Milo 996]

3 hours ago, Millennium said:

Who the fuck uses explosives on gangsheds.... Just put a tempest in the door and close it.

[The Antichrist 251]

Take boltcutting.  Boltcutting a house door has never been engagement, but now @ Milo  and a few other staff members seem to think it is.  Has never been.. but now, instead of correcting what they think, we're gonna do a whole gaslight cycle, pretend it was a gray area, and it's going to be a new rule.

But we're going to pretend it was always that way.

Just like we did with plane engagements, just like we just did with planting bombs ect.  People who pay attention and actually try to follow the rules get fucked cause staff don't pay attention.

[Metro Boomin 247]

I read a very small amount of this thread, but most of the staff does not give a fuck about the server anymore, and the one(s) that take tickets are ego tripping monkeys who make up rules. Idc about most of the shit listed, but I'd like to request spangle killing be allowed if there is prior engagement, if you get ran over it's purely a skill issue and you should just not be garbage IMO. And #freegroovy #freenemo and #freebenshap.

[Milo 996]

5 minutes ago, Community Director Sov said:

Take boltcutting.  Boltcutting a house door has never been engagement, but now @ Milo  and a few other staff members seem to think it is.  Has never been.. but now, instead of correcting what they think, we're gonna do a whole gaslight cycle, pretend it was a gray area, and it's going to be a new rule.

Bro I am not trying to gaslight anyone. I just really do not see bolt-cutting rules as gray. If you're found to be bolt-cutting somthing; that to me is a hostile action. At the end of the day different staff members may have different interpretations of the rules. We try to all be on the same page but ultimately we are all human and all each have our own individual predisposed opinions and perceptions of the rules.

[SheriffJohnBeard 339]

3 hours ago, Grandma Gary said:

You are literally the only person who disagrees, this entire thread is you just stamping your feet because you are clearly in the wrong. 

It is also laughable that you consider the mods and admins incapable of making decisions regarding rule changes when most of us have years experiance as civs dealing with these obscure retarded situations.

What'd you expect from a clown who constantly seeks attention and loves to throws a tantrum when shown how it was wrong?

Caloom's response summed up this post perfectly.

13 hours ago, CaloomClark said:

Gee whizz here we go again

 

[doubleueyeceekay 635]

7 hours ago, -Shawn- said:

Nobody is watching their gangsheds 24/7. Just dont get caught. 

this is the logic i use when the tractors or caesar btts come out

4 hours ago, David Miller said:I think the flip side of this is saying "I know you watched someone blow up your stuff, but blowing up your house isn't hostile so you are getting a ban for RDM" is unintuitive, and how we end up with a crazy web of rules that only make sense to people with 1000+ hours.

I think the flip side of this is saying "I know you watched someone blow up your stuff, but blowing up your house isn't hostile so you are getting a ban for RDM" is unintuitive, and how we end up with a crazy web of rules that only make sense to people with 1000+ hours.

A bit like how the cops having your teammate in cuffs for 5 mins ends engagement?

4 hours ago, Millennium said:

Who the fuck uses explosives on gangsheds.... Just put a tempest in the door and close it.

If you have teammates, 3 tractors will also do the job if you get them to go up on the inside

[The Antichrist 251]

54 minutes ago, Milo said:

Bro I am not trying to gaslight anyone. I just really do not see bolt-cutting rules as gray. If you're found to be bolt-cutting somthing; that to me is a hostile action. At the end of the day different staff members may have different interpretations of the rules. We try to all be on the same page but ultimately we are all human and all each have our own individual predisposed opinions and perceptions of the rules.

Ok they changed the rules on paper on this one.  I'm wrong and stand corrected.  Wasn't an attack on you milo you know I  you.

[doubleueyeceekay 635]

2 minutes ago, Community Director Sov said:

Ok they changed the rules on paper on this one.  I'm wrong and stand corrected.  Wasn't an attack on you milo you know I  you.

are you banned rn? if you are lmk and ill blow up the sheds for you (will need shed location) using urbexes rather than planes