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?
In the past, games where somebody shoots quickly based on a weak read have been ruled as gamethrowing/trolling because "hipfiring" is equated to always rule breaking.
You need to look at the intent. It has always been that way. If somebody wants to lose the game so they hipfire, it is gamethrowing. If somebody hipfires because they have a weak read and want to act upon it or they just get excited, it is not gamethrowing. Playing with a bad strategy is not gamethrowing. It should not be objectively one way or the other. Take every report case by case.
I've never gotten the "hipfiring = violation" rule from the moderators but there are bigger fish to fry.
1
deleteddeletedover 11 years ago
Every time someone argues that a hip fire has to be intentional game throwing I think they've temporarily forgotten that some people are just stupid
I like this post for showing good understanding of both the rule and gun setups (their volatility) I think. Still with hipfires (non-grudge) I don't see how GT can ever be given
"If there is no threat to the Doctor" Threat to Doctor includes losing itself. Game modes that specifically cater to no-saving as a Doctor can't be used as an example without contradicting the no threat part.
deleteddeletedover 11 years ago
Also delete this thread before someone with cancer reads this thread and dies from the posts VictoriaEldor made.
Quick someone make a thread about saving n1 in B2NS.
deleteddeletedover 11 years ago
i wonder why it is that only bad setups result in controversial thread topics such as this
2
deleteddeletedover 11 years ago
Man-Hunt was comped and more often than not, the only thing the vig has to work with is everyone voting NL and not saying a word because they'll **** their pants if spy finds the killer when it's nigh inevitable they will anyways. It's also optimal for vig to shoot n1 in that scenario.
Poll
