Counter-Strike (Jail Break) Get rid of "implied" rules

[bliq]

I don't like the idea of implied rules. I think it should be up to the warden to be able to give clear instructions. Allowing implied rules allows laziness. If we got rid of implied rules, it would teach all players what commands mean what and it would push towards more attentive players on both t side and ct side. I believe this would increase the quality of the game and teach people communication skills.

Ex 1 (poor communication bandaged by the implication rule)
Prisoner: "can I have tp st"
Warden: "yes but if you come out of cells and you are green, you are kos"
Prisoner: hides in cells while green instead of coming out
Warden: "Being in cells is implied. kos that guy rn"
Ex1 (good communication with no implication rule needed)
Prisoner: "can I have tp st"
Warden: "Yes but if you are in cells or if you come out of cells you are kos"

Ex 2 (poor communication bandaged by the implication rule)
Warden: "You can pursue the game. First 5 players to my marker are winners"
Prisoner: runs straight to the marker instead of playing the game
Warden: "It's implied that you must complete the game to be considered a winner kos that guy for cheating"
Ex 2 (good communication with no implication rule needed)
Warden: "Pursue the game. Taking the first 5 players to complete the game and get to my marker."

Ex 3 (poor communication bandaged by the implication rule)
Warden: "Get to my marker if you have a bomb or gun"
Prisoner: Goes to marker with bomb
Prisoner: Changes his mind and runs back to group
Warden: "It's implied that going back is KOS. Kill him"
Ex 3 (good communication with no implication rule needed)
Warden: "Get to my marker only if you have a bomb or gun. Going back is KOS"

Let me know what you think.

 

[soupp]

I don't like the idea of implied rules. I think it should be up to the warden to be able to give clear instructions. Allowing implied rules allows laziness. If we got rid of implied rules, it would teach all players what commands mean what and it would push towards more attentive players on both t side and ct side. I believe this would increase the quality of the game and teach people communication skills.

Ex 1 (poor communication bandaged by the implication rule)
Prisoner: "can I have tp st"
Warden: "yes but if you come out of cells and you are green, you are kos"
Prisoner: hides in cells while green instead of coming out
Warden: "Being in cells is implied. kos that guy rn"
Ex1 (good communication with no implication rule needed)
Prisoner: "can I have tp st"
Warden: "Yes but if you are in cells or if you come out of cells you are kos"

Ex 2 (poor communication bandaged by the implication rule)
Warden: "You can pursue the game. First 5 players to my marker are winners"
Prisoner: runs straight to the marker instead of playing the game
Warden: "It's implied that you must complete the game to be considered a winner kos that guy for cheating"
Ex 2 (good communication with no implication rule needed)
Warden: "Pursue the game. Taking the first 5 players to complete the game and get to my marker."

Ex 3 (poor communication bandaged by the implication rule)
Warden: "Get to my marker if you have a bomb or gun"
Prisoner: Goes to marker with bomb
Prisoner: Changes his mind and runs back to group
Warden: "It's implied that going back is KOS. Kill him"
Ex 3 (good communication with no implication rule needed)
Warden: "Get to my marker only if you have a bomb or gun. Going back is KOS"

Let me know what you think.

I like all of these, it's very clean and precise and clears up alot of confusion. People always try to use these implication rules as loopholes and then complain when they're killed by it, it would be ALOT easier if the warden straight up said what they meant without using the "weLL its implied".

 

[Euphoric]

I agree with this. I think it could also be helpful for new or unfamiliar players.

 

[MS]

Many of this is just learning the conventions of commands. Something that may be considered common sense could be argued as an implication to two separate people.

I will point out that the rules don't have an "implied" rule, i.e. the rules that are on the forums are the official rules, regardless of status quo.

This being said, I would chalk up many of your examples to the "**** around and find out rule" (which is actually listed):

As a T, you may look for loopholes in orders when appropriate. If you are basing your actions off these technicalities, end up being killed for them, and then begin to complain, you are in the wrong.

"Get to my marker if you have a bomb or gun"

The official rules make this not an implication. The original command stands, (i.e. you should be in a marker), and the new command only applies if you have a bomb or a gun.

Much of this is up to the Warden, and I personally think we should keep it that way, allowing admins to set the limits on how much the Warden can imply or not imply (again, the rules do have some concreteness in this regard). After all, I would point out that the slippery slope here is the warden would have to be extremely explicit

("When, and only when I have opened the cells, you are to travel to my marker without detouring or delaying to my marker. Once there, remain in it.".)

• Not saying when YOU have opened cells (eg: when cells are opened) leaves the interpretation that a prisoner spawning outside of cells, doing a vent, or otherwise being able to leave their cell (eg: VIP disco)
• Detouring or delaying is always implied, but if we disallow "implications", then the warden would have to say this very often
• Without specifying that they must remain in the marker, the warden is implying that prisoners should stay in it.

("You may begin climb without shortcuts, cheating, or doing secrets. Once you have completed climb and gone through the teleporter at the end, you may get to the marker closest to where you've exited. Loitering or refusing to partake will be considered rebelling").

• Taking shortcuts is commonly implied to be rebelling
• Your example points out that the warden should state the players must complete the game
• If the warden is able to place down multiple markers, it has been historically implied that prisoners should get the the nearest one
• Just because the warden said players CAN pursue the game, the warden implies that they MUST

Ultimately I'm saying you can use common sense or historical precedence.

 

[gliptal]

i think the idea here is fine but i cannot see how you could ever enforce this in a way that does not do more harm than good. implied rules exist for a reason

 

[bliq]

("When, and only when I have opened the cells, you are to travel to my marker without detouring or delaying to my marker. Once there, remain in it.".)

("You may begin climb without shortcuts, cheating, or doing secrets. Once you have completed climb and gone through the teleporter at the end, you may get to the marker closest to where you've exited. Loitering or refusing to partake will be considered rebelling").

1. "When I open cell doors, bomb rush to the marker." bomb rush means no detouring or delaying. Nothing is implied.

2. "Pursue climb. (without shortcuts/cheating/doing secrets is against the rules so it doesn't have to be stated and it's not implied it's just a rule.) Once you complete climb, bomb rush to my specified marker."

neither of these edited statements of yours is unreasonable for someone to say each round or "extremely explicit". What is implied? Nothing. It's simple and clear communication.

This being said, I would chalk up many of your examples to the "**** around and find out rule" (which is actually listed):

This is the very thing my post is disagreeing with. It's a dumb rule. If t's are paying attention enough and are able to be creative enough to follow the warden's orders while disobeying what the warden wants, it promotes creativity and clear communication. I don't understand why this would be a bad thing.

Warden: "Get to my marker if you have a bomb or gun"

bad example. my bad.

Just because the warden said players CAN pursue the game, the warden implies that they MUST

people should know the difference between can and must. this is goofy ahh. This is the purpose of my post. Learning communication while promoting creativity will contribute to a higher quality game.

 

[gliptal]

bomb rush means no detouring or delaying. Nothing is implied.

LMFAO do you know what the word implied means

 

[bliq]

After looking over the rules, I see that the term "bomb rush" isn't even a defined term and if it would be, then it wouldn't be implied. This sounds like something that could be easily changed.

 

[SneakyTurtle]

Started writing a long explanation but couldnt be bothered to finish it.

There is no "implication rule" these scenarios happen because of different rules and or general facts working in tandem.

 

[mary]

I have played on nearly every community and the rules are what make our server, not just the community, the better experience. -1 keep the rules as they are but thank you for trying to improve the server

Started writing a long explanation but couldnt be bothered to finish it.

There is no "implication rule" these scenarios happen because of different rules and or general facts working in tandem.

basically, what turtle is saying. When you have a full understanding of the rules and values of eGO, it's easy to conceptualize why the rules are the way they are.