I originally filed an appeal against Mist, mistakenly believing that hip-firing being GT was the precedent ruling. I had this mistaken assumption because the last time I was active on this site, that was the case.
It is now clear that my actual appeal is against the current precedent. Mist was merely basing the verdict on current precedent, and has made no mistake in handling the original report
To me this seems like a very black/white scenario. Shooting a gun for the sake of shooting a gun is a clear indication that you do not care about the outcome of the game. If you cared about the outcome of the game, you would try to shoot in such a way that benefits town.
The current precedent treats hip-firing as trolling. Is there any merit in this? Is someone who randomly fires a gun trying to antagonize anyone, or is it that they do not care about winning?
Helsinki has taken the bold stand against the current precedent, and I imagine that moderators are discussing this among themselves before the next vote is cast.
Lets help them make the right decision. >>>>>>>>>
Poll
Should hip-firing (shooting with no reads) be considered Game-throwing?
Yes57%33
No42%24
deleteddeletedover 11 years ago
i know u are but wat am i
deleteddeletedover 11 years ago
Glad someone took the hard hitting stance of "hip firing is bad"
this is likely sarcastic, but this is how it should be moderated, just like almost every single violation (GRS, Copied mechanics, ERB, even to a degree spamming) are moderated.
deleteddeletedover 11 years ago
r you ok devante you seem kinda frustrated.
deleteddeletedover 11 years ago
If plausible deniability over intent is the issue then take away the option to even argue plausible deniability. You hip fired, now you get to sit in time out, I don't care why you did it
deleteddeletedover 11 years ago
If hip firing were moderated the same way as, say, copied mechanics this wouldn't be an issue. Rather than arguing over who had what reads or non reads you could just say "you did a bad thing that is against the rules". It could still be game throwing if someone had actual intent to not win.
deleteddeletedover 11 years ago
This is why if you suicide while in almost auto loss and claim that your stove was on fire or your internet cut out you get a violation, because the moderators cannot PROVE that your suicide/ veg was NOT game related much like they cannot prove your hipshot was NOT a grudge shot
In a&d you can always argue that you had a read because there was a day 1 before you could shoot, even if the read is ridiculous. It's the problem with moderating an objective action with violations that have subjective criteria
a grudge kill on anyone means the person didn't have any reason related to the actual game to want him dead. it's different in that case even while it narrows down the mafia
Poll
