lmfao how did you pick up on that...........

sorry i just woke up i'm having trouble coherently responding to this thread. i noticed the OP capitalized the M in my name. idk why i care so much about that. w/e

it's GT if it's a grudge or if someone is shooting someone that just claimed PR or something. but in that case it's not really hipfiring it's firing with a reason, just a negative, going against your wincon reason.

WOW. helsinki, that was really well thought out. I appreciate your dedication to get to a definitive solution. I think that is a good idea. The only thing i would warn about is not to make shooting someone before they claim their role considered hip-firing in itself.

Most of the time its a good idea to ask them to claim, but when you have the word of God telling you that they are scum and you are getting blue-balls to go along with your itchy trigger finger... you should be allowed to prevent them from outting PR's by shooting first.

thats what the mods all said too

when i cheated with Shamzy and rednose that was pretty fun & for the lolz, maybe I shouldn't have gotten a violation for that

I have the solution. Someone with free time has to analyze a bunch of gun games and collect data of the rate of error from hipfiring and run some PRE stats. If there's a correlation btwn waiting to shoot and hitting right it's proof hipshooting is GT

I have the solution. Someone with free time has to analyze a bunch of gun games and collect data of the rate of error from hipfiring and run some PRE stats. If there's a correlation btwn waiting to shoot and hitting right it's proof hipshooting is GT

I would suggest that a potential hip firing violation would use the trolling scale of violations (1h/12h/24h/ban) and would outline exactly what players need to do to avoid the violation. I think everyone getting the chance to talk definitely should be a part of it although there are protections that probably need to exist for cases in which someone is intentionally avoiding talking so that they can't be shot. Something like "shooting someone that hasn't talked before 3 minutes has passed" makes theoretical sense but needs to be worded better, considering it also shouldn't be a violation to shoot confirmed mafia if they haven't talked yet. Really I think the gunned just needs to demonstrate reasoning behind their action while also allowing sufficient time to elapse.

Thoughts?

Since hip firing doesn't really mesh well with a rule set that was created before the gunsmith was thought up I think a new rule is in order.

-since hip firing requires using game mechanics to create a negative impact on the game it can be handled as a more objective violation, similar to game related suicide. if someone shoots immediately or shoots without claims or before people have had the chance to talk, it shouldn't have to be a debate. it's open and shut
-creating a new rule and advertising it as a new rule allows the community to better adjust to the shift. even if it's just idiots in fancy pants spamming "u noob u cant hipfire its against the rules" the word will spread faster it'll become a self-policed matter much in the way that copied mechanics is now
-hip firing can still be game throwing if the intent to throw is demonstrated and a gamethrowing violation still supersedes a hip firing violation
-actual stated criteria for what does/doesn't constitute a hip fire makes it clearer to players what they are and aren't allowed to do. it's not unreasonable to believe that some people that hip fire actually believe they're helping and that some players who want to shoot early wouldn't otherwise realize they're doing something that ruins the game. making a rule that states "if you do this specific action you will get in trouble" takes a lot of the uncertainty out of it

I don't believe hip firing is game throwing because:

-game throwing is a subjective rule and hip firing is an objective action. often times when someone shoots without explaining why it's impossible to ascertain their actual intent. soda is the poster child for this, he always claims he has a read on the people he shoots unnecessarily early in the day but i don't think anyone would argue soda's trying to lose all those games
-a 24h suspension for a first hip firing offense is unnecessarily harsh. gun setups are popular and if we started to pop dudes with 1200 points for shooting right away in guns and hookers because they didn't know any better we'd be doing the community a disservice
-game throwing suggests to people that hip firing is okay so long as they shoot someone of the opposite alignment, because they always argue that hip firing mafia means they were "playing to win" and they shouldn't even be able to make this case

I think the biggest problem with the debate over how to moderate hip firing is that it doesn't really fall into either category

I don't believe hip firing is trolling because:

-hip firing removes a player from the game entirely and thus involves a degree of severity beyond that of trolling. when someone's being trolled they still have the opportunity to participate in and play the game. when someone hipfires it takes a player out of the game entirely, solely because of the arbitrary (non-)decision of the guy that happened to land the role that has or gets the gun
-the only part of the definition of trolling that really fits the action of hip firing is "disrupting gameplay through actions". the word "actions" is being loosely interpreted to mean game-related actions of players and I don't believe that was the initial intent of the rule, because you can't exactly "troll" a person with a game related action unless you're silencer or something. intentionally using in-game mechanics in a way that adversely affects your side's win condition is regarded as game throwing in all other cases. if you're playing basic scum hunt and the drunk intentionally drunks the clear cop in an auto win situation, he isn't trolling. he's gamethrowing.
-hip firing is the mechanical equivalent of grudge lynching, which has always fallen under game throwing

Before I start I think I was wrong to insinuate that voting to overturn that report went against precedent. My understanding of the precedent is that hip firing is trolling unless it can be demonstrated that the user was throwing the game, which i believe the user in the report in question can be proven to have done. I did want this discussion but this report probably wasn't the best way to go about challenging precedent, because I'm not sure I'm even doing that. That report is a judgment call on whether you think "next person to talk dies" being the reasoning behind a shot is game throwing or not.

Anyway. Starting with facts:

-hip firing is bad and needs to be punished somehow
-hip firing was originally handled as game throwing until Phil stepped in because he was worried about the strict game throwing punishment
-trolling was chosen as the hip firing punishment because it's a significantly less harsh rule than game throwing and allows players to learn before they start running into serious punishment
-some hip firing is still considered gamethrowing, although in these cases the gun is really just another tool available to the thrower
-gun setups are very popular