PDA

View Full Version : A question for Jailbreak server.



Fake789
15 Jun 2009, 04:51pm
I remember there used to be a rule around, that in order for a CT to kill a T he would of had to personaly see that T do something wrong. An example is if a T kills a CT, but another CT no where even near sees the name in the top right corner. Would that CT be able to walk all the way over, look at all the T's names then kill the one with the name?

Cause as far as i see it, he shouldnt be able to considering he didnt see it happen, because as far as that guard knows hes just a normal T.

So my question would be does a guard have to see a T do it, or is the guard allowed to just go by the names in the top right corner?

Ms. Blargh
15 Jun 2009, 04:55pm
The rule right now is they can kill a T that they know has killed a CT without seeing it. I also think this rule shouldn't change because one it will cause to much whining and its kinda hard to prove whether or not they did or did not see it.

Also if a T kills one CT he is going to continue to kill as many CTS as he can before he is killed. So it is in their best interests to kill a T has killed a CT

Dracula
15 Jun 2009, 05:13pm
The rule right now is they can kill a T that they know has killed a CT without seeing it. I also think this rule shouldn't change because one it will cause to much whining and its kinda hard to prove whether or not they did or did not see it.

Also if a T kills one CT he is going to continue to kill as many CTS as he can before he is killed. So it is in their best interests to kill a T has killed a CT

:clap::clap::clap: Very nice.

Crimson
26 Jun 2009, 12:07pm
If we could removed the Who killed who Hud, then it would be awesome.


But the rule is now, if a T Kills a CT, another CT Can kill the T without having to see it.

TheTruth
26 Jun 2009, 01:47pm
Yea that happened to me :P I killed a CT and then a minute later I got killed :P

Ms. Blargh
26 Jun 2009, 02:22pm
If we could removed the Who killed who Hud, then it would be awesome.


But the rule is now, if a T Kills a CT, another CT Can kill the T without having to see it.

except the CTs would end up killing the person that they "thought they saw" stabbing another CT like when a T throws a nade. Most of the time they kill the wrong person

MtrxMn
26 Jun 2009, 02:24pm
wtf are you talking about? :confused:

Exactly what i was thinking

dr|jake
26 Jun 2009, 02:51pm
I think it should stay the way it is, making that rule will just cause crying, and ct's saying they saw them but actualy didn't..

PingPong
26 Jun 2009, 10:54pm
If we could removed the Who killed who Hud, then it would be awesome.


But the rule is now, if a T Kills a CT, another CT Can kill the T without having to see it.
Oh my lord that sounds like a great idea which i personally would love to see happen BUT there would be some much whining about freekill, freeshooting it wouldnt even be funny. The only way this would work if 90% of the people didnt bitch about everysingle thing. Enough said

Dante
27 Jun 2009, 02:52pm
If we could removed the Who killed who Hud, then it would be awesome.


But the rule is now, if a T Kills a CT, another CT Can kill the T without having to see it.

Stupid, thats all i can say to this, there would be soo much freekilling, and you'd stop going there, half the admins rarely play there so why make it worse with such a stupid thing?

Nighthawk
30 Jun 2009, 10:56pm
Oh my lord that sounds like a great idea which i personally would love to see happen BUT there would be some much whining about freekill, freeshooting it wouldnt even be funny. The only way this would work if 90% of the people didnt bitch about everysingle thing. Enough said

FREEKILL! I KILLED SOMEONE- BUT YOU DIDN'T SEE IT ON HUD OR IN PERSON THEREFORE YOU HAD NO CLUE!!! :P

*Queen VenomousFate*
1 Jul 2009, 01:39am
You can kill a T once you have reasonable suspicion that they have engaged in an attempt to harm a CT, whether that information comes from direct sight, the little thing that tracks kills, or from another CT who tell you that a certain T tried to attack him.

Tcp-Kill
1 Jul 2009, 07:56am
It might be in the !rules

*Queen VenomousFate*
1 Jul 2009, 03:27pm
It might be in the !rules

I am almost positive it isnt.

Tcp-Kill
2 Jul 2009, 12:46am
Added to the !rules

MtrxMn
2 Jul 2009, 12:24pm
Added to the !rules

Thank you! Hopefully, but not likely, less QQ

*Queen VenomousFate*
2 Jul 2009, 01:24pm
Added to the !rules

Edit: TCP I HATE YOU.

Dracula
2 Jul 2009, 01:26pm
I see all kills, try and prove I dont :]

p.s. Venom he added the you dont have to see part.

Awacs
2 Jul 2009, 01:29pm
Please don't tell me Beth authorized the "You have to see it to kill for it" rule.

Dracula
2 Jul 2009, 01:35pm
He added the "CT's dont need to see the T do the killing" part not that you have to see it.

*Queen VenomousFate*
2 Jul 2009, 01:39pm
He added the "CT's dont need to see the T do the killing" part not that you have to see it.

Lol, the post made it sound like he made a rule saying that a CT had to see the T.

I am going to make a forum rule banning ambigous posts which only say an action was taken, not what that action was.

Awacs
2 Jul 2009, 01:44pm
Thanks.