Hey tea,

Mr.Tea Wrote:Completely disagree with the "justified rule" ignoring an admin.  Trying to lawyer it up in a video game.

Lawyer it up? If anything lawyers have to accept the rules/laws as they are, I gave a suggestion which was in opposition of the current rule. It's not about arguing for the sake of arguing, it's about arguing for the sake of fairness.

Mr.Tea Wrote:All of the admins on the servers are here because they have been deemed trustworthy/mature to use good judgement in enforcing the servers

Yes.

Mr.Tea Wrote:1 rule being exploiting the game.  Another rule being exploiting the map.  Consistently joining ct on aztec on t italy is exploiting a weakness of the map to your advantage.

I made two points, one of which was that players should not be punished for "ignoring admins", but only for ignoring justifiable rules. With the "ignoring admins" rule, players could get banned for not complying with virtually anything that an admin wanted them to do. It's like being able to be punished by a police officer for refusing to strip naked and do a back-flip. How can you not see the problem with this?

The other point was regarding whether or not ruplayer was consistent with "unstacking". I'm not very adamant about this point anymore, because I admit what counts as "stacking" can be open to some degree of different interpretation.

I don't have a problem when an admin is abiding by a demonstrably justifiable rule and I'm sure you could justify why team stacking should not be allowed. For example: "it's fairer for the majority of players who don't stack".

Not really relevant: But it would be debatable that this reason is sufficient to override the freedom of the other players who like to choose their team themselves. I don't think it is. Team stacking is not on the same level of exploitation as hacking, or taking advantage of genuinely broken sections of a map.

Mr.Tea Wrote:I disagree with saying that you can't balance certain maps because I have done it.  It just takes the right mix of good and bad players to create a fair round.  I usually try to guilt trip a stacking friend and a lot times it just takes that 1-personality to get a team to win on the hard side.

Seems possible to me.

Mr.Tea Wrote:On a daily basis it seems I refer players to come to war-lords.net when they accuse me of admin abuse.  Before I was admin I would get switched all the time to balance the team.  I thought it funny or a compliment.  People get butt-hurt way to easy.  Your not a good player if the only way you can do well is play the easy side of the map and get high kpds.  Unfortunately, most of the Top 30 in wL stack.

You may not mind being switched in that way but plenty of people do. Yeah, a lot of the time it is a compliment. Still, many would like to be in more control of what happens to them.

Uncle leo

leo Wrote:I also wanted to share my input, since I was on mill at that time. You can clearly see that I said the teams weren't stacked. They weren't. T's had been making a consistent comeback over CT's for three rounds. I was on CT and found it challenging to push back the other team. CT's were in no way easily running over the T team.

Looking at the original pic: http://rcupload.com/images/AEGq.jpg
There were 12 people on CT with more kills than deaths (10 or so players), or the same amount of kills as deaths (1-2 players), compared to the 5 people on T with more kills than deaths. On average the kdr of the players those players on Ct was significantly higher than those players on T. It doesn't look extremely stacked to me, but it still looks stacked, and the teams could have been balanced.

Hey Bison,

M. Bison Wrote:When a team is leading though score, that doesn't necessarily mean it's stacked. I consider a team balanced when most players on both teams die every round. If admins were to continue to move players in order to force a victory on the losing team then we'd actually be the ones stacking teams.

Makes sense, but there can be those few players on one team who can make a big difference (e.g. those boon/chun/jack monroe type players).

Hey Matt,

Matt Wrote:Team stacking management is up to the admins of the server and I will stand by ruplayer's decision in this, and any other admins in this case.

We have tried auto team balancing features in the past and most of them don't work as well as you would think. I'm sure JackMonroe can vouch for this in the early days when it use to run.

I would think that we stand behind someone when they have a justified position, not because they're an admin.

What about a vote which can be initiated to "balance" the teams when enough people think that they are stacked? This seems like a very good idea to me.