[Jesse]

Suggestion - For a senior admin to make an official ruling or bullet down some points

I suggest this all be made clear to us puggers as to what's acceptable and what's punishable in terms of following/not following objective.

Specifics should be detailed. On a number of occasions, confusion has resulted from the lack of detailed rules. Admins have warned and punished players for not following objective despite these players fully following objective to their knowledge.

Is the objective to get every round over with as fast as possible?

Is the objective to win every round or die trying?

Is the objective to win 16 rounds?

Saving weapons (and in result losing a round by running out the clock) is a dynamic of Counter Strike that aids a team in winning an overall 16 round match.

Saving weapons is a strategy that admins tend to overlook - and strangely this happens almost exclusively when admins are on the opposing team of the one(s) saving - and consequentially punish for.

The most recent example of this that has driven me to type up this post happened about two hours ago on de_season. I was on the terrorist team, a teammate with the bomb decided to rush A alone, they lost the bomb, the bomb was well out of the terrorists' reach, and a teammate said over the mic that they were going to fall back to spawn to save their weapon. I agreed with this player (to also note, this was the player's first pug on wL, they had just found wL pugs) and we both fell back to save our weapons.

The round finished, and we successfully saved our weapons. We did not senselessly run after the bomb which was in a relatively difficult spot to recover considering 4 CT's were still alive and most likely had rotated to keep their eyes on the bomb. We did not essentially commit suicide and lose the weapons we had to save up for to buy. 

Now, as the freeze time is counting down for the next round, an admin in admin chat writes something along the lines of, You must follow objective, this is your warning. Something like that.

This quite upset me because their understanding of what the objective is seemed to be different from what the general understanding of what the objective is. 

Their understanding of the objective seemed to be a narrow-minded, imprecise view at the idea of the objective of 5v5 cs matches. It seemed like their understanding of the objective is something along the lines of, win the round or die trying, not, win 16 rounds before the other team.

Can us wL puggers get a ruling from the top on these matters?

What is the objective? Is saving (in reasonable circumstances for one or a number of teammates to save) despite having time on the clock (idk, 45 seconds?) acceptable, or is saving considered to be not following the objective, no if's and's or but's? I mention the 45 seconds because it seems like the longer the amount of time on the clock for a round, the more likely an admin is to threaten one(s) saving for not following objective.

2v4 or 2v3 with the bomb in a hopelessly shitty spot for T's to retrieve in my eyes makes sense for T's to save. 

Can we get a ruling on this all?

Thank you all and whoever in advance for taking the time to read this and participate in discussing and getting to the bottom of this all.

[B]

Saving if you got an awp in 1vs4/1vs5 make sense (still should try to get exit frags).

Saving if you got no time, because you are too far, or because it took too much time to get in site, makes perfect sense.

Saving because you are below -50hp in 1vs3/4/5 is reasonable.

When it comes to, is it not following objectives or not, those should be considered :

- was he really saving (any gun of value ?)
- did he even try ?
- does he cares about anything bomb related ? (rotate when planted, play with team, or defend bomb vs ct's, etc.)
- how much hp, cause even in 1vs2 if you are 11hp and far (whats the point to even try it ?)
- who are the opposing players left ? If its billnose and ghoul, and you are a below average player, wouldn't it be better to save the awp for som1 else ?

I agree that this rule should be clarified (like Inappropriate language or names, Ignoring admins or undermining their actions).

the objective is to win rounds by any means necessary. why make a elephant out of a mouse with this post.

The rule for following objective is subjective, actually one of the most subjective rules there are. This rule of following the objective needs to maintain its sense of subjectivity because its up to better judgement to rule on this violation. Obviously, I think that the admins here jumpy or triggerhappy when it comes to banning to say the least with the exception of root admins. It seems that admins get no repercussions for making mistakes unless blatantly obvious.

Ambiguity in rules leaves some rules up to better judgement, which I think is lacking. Aside from that objective rule, other rules are not even mentioned in the rules page, which makes arguments really easy to defeat using ambiguity as a mask or shield. Rules like ignoring an admin or undermining their actions are ambiguous because any admin can make you do something that you might disagree with and have valid points against but it would have ultimately broke the rule of not following directions, which is ridiculous (I understand the "ignoring an admin" part of the rule if the admins point is valid).

Some rules are not even mentioned in the rules like admin disrespect. What does that even mean? I can understand if you ban for undermining their actions if they insult you instead of listening, but banning for admin disrespect just allows the loss of credibility. I have only seen two people use this repetitively (Deadie and Drago).

If what nme is saying is correct, every person that saves should be banned for not following objective.

Personally speaking, it is pathetic that admins would try to circumvent their own rules by using a cloud of uncertainty and ambiguity to avoid repercussions. I have asked for clarification of rules before and nothing came of it. What makes things worse is the last sentences of the rules: The list is non-exhaustive. If you're unsure about anything ask an admin. This allows them to determine the rules.

[Jesse]

There are two types of admins

First type makes satisfactory observations and makes determinations based on all things considered (eg Ben spectating Skid all afternoon)

Second type blindly threatens players and uses their admin commands before knowing any of the facts, acting impulsively in general (Drago)

I noticed how Drago or Deadie or whoever wrote on the forums somewhere one time (perhaps on two occasions this has been said by them / one of them, I don't remember) that "don't call your friends into this thread to back you up" or something along those lines.

But quite frankly, just like all of the other mind games and manipulation techniques Drago tries to use, this was written as a straw man scapegoat -ish type of thing. Basically I have no "friends" on here, everyone I consider equal and treat equally unless they do wrong to me.

Drago writing that in the past is essentially a way of saying, other people that share the same viewpoints as you are to be discredited because they are your friend.

I give Ben a hard time just like I give everyone else a hard time with my sarcastic trolly comments or whatever. but at the end of the day I'm here to have fun and play a team oriw

Edit: I need to finish this post on my desktop later.

Manipulation techniques? Thats funny, however this is a suggestion thread, stop talking about me.

Peace.

[Jesse]

sure. just how you were pretending to be the victim the other day "waahh wahh 5all i try to do is be a good admin but everyone turns against me"

Manipulation techniques? Thats funny, however this is a suggestion thread, stop talking about me.

Peace.

This might not be a straw man but it gets the same idea. You choose to say things that acknowledges the thread but avoids disputing or offering a counter argument. The grammar is awful to say the least, in my opinion you disgrace what it means to be an admin. You don't look over any posts you write when we talk about serious issues and have logical fallacies in your arguments when you do give them.

have some decency man, avoid needless arguments, make fair and well constructed posts and you would be better respected by other players even if they troll.

[Jesse]

*insert literally retarded reply* -drago