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?
OK, its acceptable to give a lesser violation where intent is unknown, but I would hate to see something like a "hip-firing" violation that makes people afraid to shoot without asking for a claim. I also don't like that giving a trolling violation implies that they had intent to antagonize someone. In a case of unknown intent, what is the solution?
no. giving someone a violation only based on the action of hipfiring is freaking stupid. other actions should also be looked @ and also previous vios ofc
that's gamethrowing, grudge voting is gamethrowing... that's grudge shooting, aka gamethrowing.. retti wasn't given a violation for it because he's friends with the mods
deleteddeletedover 11 years ago
The real answer to the "is hip firing trolling or game throwing?" debate is that it's neither, but nobody responded to my essay on the mod forums about why so
Poll
