Vampirism Beast Legends

The Official Vampirism Beast Clan
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog inLive Stats
Log in
Username:
Password:
Log in automatically: 
:: I forgot my password
Navigation
 Portal
 Memberlist
 Profile
 FAQ
 Search

Share | 
 

 Rule Flexibility

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
AmAzIn[G]
Peon
Peon


Battle.net Name : AmAzIn[G]
Posts : 14
Join date : 2013-07-25

PostSubject: Rule Flexibility   Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:12 am

I'm not asking you lift my ban, I agree I broke the rules. However I do think their should be a clause that enables the things which I did to not be against the rules.

Example scenario in which I'm referring to.

Ex1. Player green uses his slayer to kill player blues vault and houses. Player green will continue to kill player blues stuff until he leaves. If play blue retaliates he will be banned for a day. What does play blue have to do according to the rules? Leave the game. Well then player green joins the next game and joins again. This could happen a number of times before player green is banned.

I suggest that in this incident player Blue be allowed to defend himself. It's about the same thing as not waiting for the police to arrive to stop an aggressor from killing your wife. If we all waited for the police to arrive before defending ourselves we'd all be broke and dead.


_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
jakestevenson
Grunt
Grunt


Battle.net Name : Rok, fel, tzz, sem
Posts : 90
Join date : 2013-07-20
Age : 21
Location : North Carolina

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Thu Dec 12, 2013 7:31 am

http://clanvbl.forumotion.com/t151-banned-krave-ban-request

I tked an ulti tower in my rights but it was not justified. He retaliated by tking my vault. Therefore we were both in the wrong.

You're not defending anything by tking you just become the one who harasses the harasser making you an aggressor as well.

AmAzIn[G] wrote:
It's about the same thing as not waiting for the police to arrive to stop an aggressor from killing your wife. If we all waited for the police to arrive before defending ourselves we'd all be broke and dead.

I guess the aggressor is a slayer and your wife is a super worker?

A better example is someone burned down your house and killed your family so you went to burn down their house and kill their family. You both go to jail.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
opaca
Berserker
Berserker
avatar

Battle.net Name : opaca
Posts : 434
Join date : 2013-06-13

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Thu Dec 12, 2013 10:10 am

jakestevenson wrote:


I tked an ulti tower in my rights but it was not justified. He retaliated by tking my vault. Therefore we were both in the wrong.

You're not defending anything by tking you just become the one who harasses the harasser making you an aggressor as well.
You were both in the wrong because he tked for revenge, not self defense. Killing your vault won't make you unable to tk him


AmAzIn[G] wrote:
It's about the same thing as not waiting for the police to arrive to stop an aggressor from killing your wife. If we all waited for the police to arrive before defending ourselves we'd all be broke and dead.

jakestevenson wrote:
I guess the aggressor is a slayer and your wife is a super worker?

A better example is someone burned down your house and killed your family so you went to burn down their house and kill their family. You both go to jail.
So you are saying that Tinganei321's family and house = his slayer? I think not. Amazin[g] had to tk his slayer, and the proof is in the replay itself; once he let Tinganei321 revive his slayer, his knights got tk'ed, making his wall die, finally completely ruining the game for Amazin[g]

Northern.Lite wrote:
By going into IF_e_a_r's base and destroying houses to get at the tavern that teal had built to replace his slayer, you are also guilty of tking (all be it on a minor scale). For this reason, I have no choice but to ban you also, for one day.
I hope he wasn't banned for destroying unused village houses (10lumber), otherwise this is a joke ban
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Northern.Lite
Shaman
Shaman


Battle.net Name : Northern.Lite(VBU)/Demoness(VBL)
Posts : 256
Join date : 2013-05-21
Location : Ontario, Canada

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Thu Dec 12, 2013 10:56 am

AmAzIn[G] wrote:
I suggest that in this incident player Blue be allowed to defend himself. It's about the same thing as not waiting for the police to arrive to stop an aggressor from killing your wife. If we all waited for the police to arrive before defending ourselves we'd all be broke and dead.

The immediate solution to your problem was to get the other players to help you votekick Tinganei321 from the game.  That stops him from killing your units/buildings and does not break any rules.


Opaca wrote:
Northern.Lite wrote:

By going into IF_e_a_r's base and destroying houses to get at the tavern that teal had built to replace his slayer, you are also guilty of tking (all be it on a minor scale). For this reason, I have no choice but to ban you also, for one day.

I hope he wasn't banned for destroying unused village houses (10lumber), otherwise this is a joke ban

That statement was perhaps not as precise as I could have made it.  To clarify:  Amazin[g] was in the wrong the moment that he destroyed any other human buildings or units.  He was banned for a day to make the point that tking is not permitted.  (The ban is short because he has not been banned in the past and was not the original aggressor.  Tinganei321, on the other hand, was the aggressor and has 7 bans on the bot logs prior to the current ban request.)  That may seem unfair or a joke to you, but no one ever guaranteed that life would be fair, either.  Since Amazin[g] understands that, I am a bit lost as to why you apparently do not.  It seems you are  being obtuse just for the sake of arguing.

The fact that teal was ultimately responsible for the loss of Amazin[g]'s base is no defence for his killing the tavern repeatedly in the time leading up to that event (possible future outcomes do not make present actions defensible).
Back to top Go down
View user profile
jakestevenson
Grunt
Grunt


Battle.net Name : Rok, fel, tzz, sem
Posts : 90
Join date : 2013-07-20
Age : 21
Location : North Carolina

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Thu Dec 12, 2013 2:43 pm

All I'm saying is just because someone tked you doesn't justify you doing the same to them. My example was extreme but relevant xD

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AmAzIn[G]
Peon
Peon


Battle.net Name : AmAzIn[G]
Posts : 14
Join date : 2013-07-25

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Thu Dec 12, 2013 5:05 pm

Northern.Lite wrote:
(possible future outcomes do not make present actions defensible).

When you make the rules black and white yes, I see your point of view. But what I'm saying is a clause. A clause allows for some gray area in the rules that allows for people to defend themselves from tking by tking. I believe that TKing a persons slayer and stopping them from being allowed to get a slayer is a perfectly reasonable way of stopping them from further ruining a game. It's their fault for misusing the slayer in the first place.

+Being an admin you have the ability to just ban people like this ingame. However for people who aren't admins we have to get 10-11 people to kick one person, which in my 550+ games I've seen done 3-4 times. That's how much people give a shit. I've seen hundreds of people break the rules and 3-4 have been ultimately kicked. That's a problem. Sure their banned a whole day later, but that ruins the game, and is just plain annoying. All I'm suggesting is that we put some common sense into the rules. Their meant to protect people who want to play the game, not the people who intentionally break the rules.

Also the reason why ting wasn't vote kicked from the game, even though we tried to vote kick him was because people just didn't give a shit. Unless there's an admin in the game people really don't give a shit about the rules. + IFEAR wasn't about to votekick his own brother.


jakestevenson wrote:
http://clanvbl.forumotion.com/t151-banned-krave-ban-request

A better example is someone burned down your house and killed your family so you went to burn down their house and kill their family. You both go to jail.

Ok yeah this is a good example, but you got it wrong.

Someone burned down your house and took your supplies. If you don't kill them they will come back and kill your family too. Because you know he's been trying to do it but so far you've stopped him (by ousting him). Rather than continuously typing !oust all you decide to kill him and get on with your life and because you don't want your family to die. (You don't however burn down his house and kill his family, you just kill him, thus stopping him from killing you).

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
jakestevenson
Grunt
Grunt


Battle.net Name : Rok, fel, tzz, sem
Posts : 90
Join date : 2013-07-20
Age : 21
Location : North Carolina

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Thu Dec 12, 2013 5:43 pm

lol you're being too literal and looking at the slayer individually and shit. all im saying is you cant justify breaking a rule in response to someone else breaking a rule. like, if one vamp leaves it's okay to suicide as human to get the game going xD

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sir.
Grunt
Grunt
avatar

Battle.net Name : Sir.
Posts : 214
Join date : 2013-07-06
Age : 26
Location : Newcastle Upon-Tyne, England, Great Britain

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Thu Dec 12, 2013 6:57 pm

I thought tk'ing a slayer that already attacking you is a valid form of defense ? ive done that plenty of times and denied said slayer from being revived.

And saying everyone could have votekicked ? How often do you see a votekick be successful in pub games?

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AmAzIn[G]
Peon
Peon


Battle.net Name : AmAzIn[G]
Posts : 14
Join date : 2013-07-25

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Thu Dec 12, 2013 7:35 pm

jakestevenson wrote:
like, if one vamp leaves it's okay to suicide as human to get the game going xD

You have to get everyone to agree before suiciding in this case because it affects everyone.

In the case of tk'ing a slayer that is already attacking you, it only is affecting you. If you think that if player A uses a slayer to TK player B's stuff affects player C in any way you would be sadly mistaken.

It's not like this is a ground breaking rule change. I'm just trying to get a clause in here so that people who did what I did aren't banned for a day for defending themselves.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
jakestevenson
Grunt
Grunt


Battle.net Name : Rok, fel, tzz, sem
Posts : 90
Join date : 2013-07-20
Age : 21
Location : North Carolina

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Thu Dec 12, 2013 10:17 pm

you cant justify it. you can try but you cant, accept that

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AmAzIn[G]
Peon
Peon


Battle.net Name : AmAzIn[G]
Posts : 14
Join date : 2013-07-25

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Thu Dec 12, 2013 10:47 pm

jakestevenson wrote:
you cant justify it. you can try but you cant, accept that

This isn't about me, this about a rule change.

You might not understand the concept of self defense, but here in America we have a little thing called freedom to protect ourselves.
All I'm saying is that maybe a little freedom to defend yourself would be a positive rule change.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Triton144
Map Developer
Map Developer
avatar

Battle.net Name : Triton144
Posts : 389
Join date : 2013-05-21
Age : 21
Location : South Carolina

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Thu Dec 12, 2013 10:51 pm

AmAzIn[G] wrote:

jakestevenson wrote:
you cant justify it. you can try but you cant, accept that

This isn't about me, this about a rule change.

You might not understand the concept of self defense, but here in America we have a little thing called freedom to protect ourselves.
All I'm saying is that maybe a little freedom to defend yourself would be a positive rule change.
Even in America we cannot go into another person home or cause damage to another person's property out of self defense. ex. I cannot go to your house and shoot you because I know you are going to try to shoot me. I find it odd you are not in jail tbh if that is your idea of American freedom.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://clanvbl.forumotion.com
AmAzIn[G]
Peon
Peon


Battle.net Name : AmAzIn[G]
Posts : 14
Join date : 2013-07-25

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Fri Dec 13, 2013 2:17 am

Triton144 wrote:
AmAzIn[G] wrote:

jakestevenson wrote:
you cant justify it. you can try but you cant, accept that

This isn't about me, this about a rule change.

You might not understand the concept of self defense, but here in America we have a little thing called freedom to protect ourselves.
All I'm saying is that maybe a little freedom to defend yourself would be a positive rule change.
Even in America we cannot go into another person home or cause damage to another person's property out of self defense. ex. I cannot go to your house and shoot you because I know you are going to try to shoot me. I find it odd you are not in jail tbh if that is your idea of American freedom.

I think you have a hard time understanding a joke. I clearly wasn't being serious when talking about "freedom".

Secondly, I think It would be better if you're allowed to kill someones slayer after multiple offences of tking. I'm not just talking about one time, but if they go into your base after you have -ousted them 3-4 times then yes you should be allowed to stop them from coming into your base and killing your shit.

This really isn't that hard to understand.

I'll give you two scenarios, the first scenario both parties should be banned, the second scenario the aggressor should be banned.

Scenario 1: Player A kills player B's vault and houses + some workers. Player B then does the same to player A. In this case both player A and B should be banned because that is wrong.

Scenario 2: Player A killers player B's vault and houses + some workers. Player B ousts player A's slayer. Player A repeatedly teleports into player B's base and kills more shit. Player B has now ousted player A 3-4 times, and has attempted a !votekick (player name). Player A still doesn't seem to get the message. So player B decides to kill player A's slayer and slayer tavern so he can't continue to tk his stuff.

Now if we're being honest with ourselves player B in scenario 2 doesn't seem like such a bad guy, and really shouldn't be banned. He was doing what I'd like to call "self defense".

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
jakestevenson
Grunt
Grunt


Battle.net Name : Rok, fel, tzz, sem
Posts : 90
Join date : 2013-07-20
Age : 21
Location : North Carolina

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Fri Dec 13, 2013 2:38 am

If you feel like you were right to tk him then you can feel that way, but that's not how it is. It's like beating the shit out of a school bully because he wont stop picking on you. That doesn't make it right..

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AmAzIn[G]
Peon
Peon


Battle.net Name : AmAzIn[G]
Posts : 14
Join date : 2013-07-25

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Fri Dec 13, 2013 3:36 am

jakestevenson wrote:
If you feel like you were right to tk him then you can feel that way, but that's not how it is. It's like beating the shit out of a school bully because he wont stop picking on you. That doesn't make it right..



You're a huge *****.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
KD-VII
Peon
Peon


Battle.net Name : KD-VII
Posts : 34
Join date : 2013-07-26

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:25 pm

You all are taking an uncomplicated issue and trying to make it complicated. There is no need for weird analogies of freedom, high school bullies, or scenario 1 and 2; this is a very simple issue. If someone kills you shit multiple times, and you have exhausted all other remedies, you should be able to kill his slayer, period. If he's killing your shit he's not in essence your team anymore. He's not going to knight you, tower you, or flute for you. He's trying to kill you, just like a vamp. It's not team killing, its just killing.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AmAzIn[G]
Peon
Peon


Battle.net Name : AmAzIn[G]
Posts : 14
Join date : 2013-07-25

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Fri Dec 13, 2013 5:38 pm

KD-VII wrote:
You all are taking an uncomplicated issue and trying to make it complicated.  There is no need for weird analogies of freedom, high school bullies, or scenario 1 and 2; this is a very simple issue.  If someone kills you shit multiple times, and you have exhausted all other remedies, you should be able to kill his slayer, period.  If he's killing your shit he's not in essence your team anymore.  He's not going to knight you, tower you, or flute for you.  He's trying to kill you, just like a vamp. It's not team killing, its just killing.

Now lets make this a rule mmk!

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Triton144
Map Developer
Map Developer
avatar

Battle.net Name : Triton144
Posts : 389
Join date : 2013-05-21
Age : 21
Location : South Carolina

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:45 pm

I know what you are saying may make sense to you but you can't just look at it out of spite. Whether killing him is to save yourself doesn't matter it's still wrong. If you cannot understand that them I'm sorry for you. Just be the bigger man and play your game. That will be his last for a long time.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://clanvbl.forumotion.com
Sir.
Grunt
Grunt
avatar

Battle.net Name : Sir.
Posts : 214
Join date : 2013-07-06
Age : 26
Location : Newcastle Upon-Tyne, England, Great Britain

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Fri Dec 13, 2013 11:42 pm

Triton144 wrote:
I know what you are saying may make sense to you but you can't just look at it out of spite. Whether killing him is to save yourself doesn't matter it's still wrong. If you cannot understand that them I'm sorry for you. Just be the bigger man and play your game. That will be his last for a long time.

Thats easy for someone who can simply type !kick to say.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Northern.Lite
Shaman
Shaman


Battle.net Name : Northern.Lite(VBU)/Demoness(VBL)
Posts : 256
Join date : 2013-05-21
Location : Ontario, Canada

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Sat Dec 14, 2013 1:18 am

Sir. wrote:
Triton144 wrote:
I know what you are saying may make sense to you but you can't just look at it out of spite. Whether killing him is to save yourself doesn't matter it's still wrong. If you cannot understand that them I'm sorry for you. Just be the bigger man and play your game. That will be his last for a long time.

Thats easy for someone who can simply type !kick to say.

You need to remember that an admin on the ClanVBL bot is probably not an admin on other custom games and can understand the argument from both sides, so do not be so flip about the reply just because it does not give you what you want.

Again, I repeat, if someone is killing your stuff (tk) and no admin is there immediately, get the other humans to support a votekick. End of problem.

If you respond by tking his stuff, and a ban request is posted, you will both be banned when the replay is reviewed.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
the_deku_nutt
Grunt
Grunt


Battle.net Name : The_Deku_Nutt
Posts : 246
Join date : 2013-07-20

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Sat Dec 14, 2013 1:37 am

Vamp beast officially has red tape and bureaucracy.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Dub
Grunt
Grunt


Battle.net Name : Dubhghall
Posts : 90
Join date : 2013-07-05

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Sat Dec 14, 2013 1:40 am

The internet, has and always will be, serious fucking business Deku.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AmAzIn[G]
Peon
Peon


Battle.net Name : AmAzIn[G]
Posts : 14
Join date : 2013-07-25

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Sat Dec 14, 2013 1:57 am

Ok I understand where you're POV is coming from, but just because you think it's wrong doesn't make it so. Rules are based on a majority agreement of what they believe is right or wrong.

I think that a good way of measuring whether or not there should be some rule flexibility here would be to have a poll for a 1-2 week period on this specific rule change.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
opaca
Berserker
Berserker
avatar

Battle.net Name : opaca
Posts : 434
Join date : 2013-06-13

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:59 pm

AmAzIn[G] wrote:
I think that a good way of measuring whether or not there should be some rule flexibility here would be to have a poll for a 1-2 week period on this specific rule change.

this idea has my support
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Triton144
Map Developer
Map Developer
avatar

Battle.net Name : Triton144
Posts : 389
Join date : 2013-05-21
Age : 21
Location : South Carolina

PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:17 pm

Sir. wrote:
Triton144 wrote:
I know what you are saying may make sense to you but you can't just look at it out of spite. Whether killing him is to save yourself doesn't matter it's still wrong. If you cannot understand that them I'm sorry for you. Just be the bigger man and play your game. That will be his last for a long time.

Thats easy for someone who can simply type !kick to say.
I played this game long before I was an admin.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://clanvbl.forumotion.com
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Rule Flexibility   

Back to top Go down
 
Rule Flexibility
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Ard boyz rule faq
» Warhammer Fantasy Rule Book Available Newport Games
» New 40K Rule Book FAQ
» Daemonbane special rule..
» 7th edition Jink rule and why it's awesome!

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Vampirism Beast Legends :: Vampirism Beast Discussion :: Suggestions-
Jump to: