Re: PCS and no-go lines

**Berzerker2** · 01-24-2005, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

Good example, but I don't think of the referee as interpreting as much as observing. Somewhere, it's documented what you have to do to get called for "holding"?

That's kind of my point - it probably *is* written down somewhere exactly what qualifies as 'holding'. But it doesn't matter. The best referees don't enforce statically just the rules of the game, they dynamically adjust to the way the game is being played by both teams, and do what they have to to keep the game running smoothly. They also adjust to individual players - if a potential penalty happens, but it's obvious the player in question didn't do it intentionally because he's a clean player, and it didn't break the play, you can probably safely let it go.

How that all maps onto our discussion is something you've said repeatedly: "trust". If we're going to play "PCS" without hard rules, we have to "trust" our admins to give the right amount of "trust" to the players, and see what happens. The more rules we write, and the less open to interpretation they are, the more "trust" is removed from the equation. My personal take is that's a bad thing, but I know others disagree.

Great posts all around though. This is an awesome discussion, and even if it's not getting anywhere, I'm enjoying it.

**Apophis** · 01-24-2005, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Berzerker2

That's kind of my point - it probably *is* written down somewhere exactly what qualifies as 'holding'. But it doesn't matter. The best referees don't enforce statically just the rules of the game, they dynamically adjust to the way the game is being played by both teams, and do what they have to to keep the game running smoothly. They also adjust to individual players - if a potential penalty happens, but it's obvious the player in question didn't do it intentionally because he's a clean player, and it didn't break the play, you can probably safely let it go.

How that all maps onto our discussion is something you've said repeatedly: "trust". If we're going to play "PCS" without hard rules, we have to "trust" our admins to give the right amount of "trust" to the players, and see what happens. The more rules we write, and the less open to interpretation they are, the more "trust" is removed from the equation. My personal take is that's a bad thing, but I know others disagree.

Great posts all around though. This is an awesome discussion, and even if it's not getting anywhere, I'm enjoying it.

Like Cing said.. Players either "Get it" or they don't.. If they don't, there are THOUSANDS of other CS servers out there for them to enjoy, if they do.. Then they have Tactical Gamer.

**Wyzcrak** · 01-24-2005, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Let me know when you've got the rules typed up.

boooo sarcasm.

Originally Posted by Berzerker2

something you've said repeatedly: "trust". If we're going to play "PCS" without hard rules, we have to "trust" our admins to give the right amount of "trust" to the players

I think this is the closest to a solution we can get, really. I like the focus on the admin's responsibility as well as the player's. If either party fails on their responsibility enough, it'll fall apart.

**Pokerface** · 01-24-2005, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Like I said, either a player "gets it" or he doesn't. If a player is repeatedly warned for abandoning his objective and repeatedly kicked, then yes, he'll eventually be banned simply for not playing in the manner that we expect people to play.

What I'm trying to get across is that getting repeatedly warned and subequently kicked for "abandoning your objective" suffices if and only if both player and admin understand the sin committed, and without something concrete to point at, all you've kicked over is a difference of opinion, no different from getting into a shouting match over the greatness of Michael Moore (or some other such trifle).

Originally Posted by Bezerker2

That's kind of my point - it probably *is* written down somewhere exactly what qualifies as 'holding'. But it doesn't matter. The best referees don't enforce statically just the rules of the game, they dynamically adjust to the way the game is being played by both teams, and do what they have to to keep the game running smoothly. They also adjust to individual players - if a potential penalty happens, but it's obvious the player in question didn't do it intentionally because he's a clean player, and it didn't break the play, you can probably safely let it go.

But it's WRITTEN DOWN. If the ref doesn't call it, then so be it, but if the ref DOES call it, he -- and everyone else: player, spectator, etc. -- knows exactly why the penalty was called. A rule is ENFORCABLE because there isn't room for interpretation as to what breaks it and what doesn't. A ref can see a hold, and know it's a hold, and just not call it based on the game situation. The ref doesn't have to take into account myriad variables to determine IF it's a hold, only to determine WHETHER OR NOT to call it.

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I'm sick and tired (literally), and don't wish to discuss this anymore right now. Let me know when you've got the rules typed up.

As to writing up the rules, that's on the admins' shoulders. You guys "get it" (apparently), so putting it to print shouldn't be that tough.

**GhostintheShell** · 01-24-2005, 06:16 PM

Lord I miss hockey....stop it with all this "holding penalty" talk.

**Twisted_Firestarter** · 01-24-2005, 06:44 PM

Ya, this is all fairly abstract and philosophical. In point of fact, I personally have no problem with the server as-is, with our current nebulous lines of engagement and subjective admins. I typically don't have to spend much time dealing with players who aren't playing PCS--the vast majority seem to get it. Sometimes we'll have a run of pubbies who come for a frag-fest, but for the most part the server is fairly calm. So, in response to the very first post in this thread, 7 pages ago, I probably would not have kicked nor slayed nor warned Berzerker2 in the scenario he gave. It would have annoyed me and if he did it every single round, sure. But, for that one scenario in that one instance, eh, the round is over let's move on.

**Vulcan** · 01-24-2005, 06:51 PM

I think boundaries are a first step but even before boundaries we're going to need some major fathering done on the servers. It's real bad out there with people who do not play PCS ruleset or even give a damn about who's server it is or what rules they play by. It's an every day thing to see someone come in and start bad mouthing everyone with no admin around to take care of it. It gets frustrating but there are ways to deal with it.

**Berzerker2** · 01-24-2005, 07:08 PM

Would it be possible to define a subset of the admin priveleges (maybe just kick and console_say) and give that to all/most of the regulars? Those people would be expected to leave the decisions to the admins if there was any around, and to ignore any play-style differences, but otherwise the ability to kick the obvious jerks would be very nice. The influx of new admins has been great, but with two servers, there's nowhere near 100% coverage. I know this could theoretically all be done with a plugin once something becomes available, but the need for it is now.

**DraG** · 01-24-2005, 07:17 PM

This post is like monopoly it never ends!!!

What so wrong with the way we are playing??

This server is gaining real members everday. I'm not talking about some that come once a week for a hour. I'm talking about real TG members that play everyday or almost. How many times have you had to tell them don't rush, stop hunt kills? It all about the spirit of the gameplay not the results. It hard enough running a server with new players I can't imagine running one with TG JoeDoe pushing the edge. I'm here to have fun and play with a team not a hero. So get with it or move on.

**Scooper** · 01-24-2005, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by Berzerker2

Would it be possible to define a subset of the admin priveleges (maybe just kick and console_say) and give that to all/most of the regulars? Those people would be expected to leave the decisions to the admins if there was any around, and to ignore any play-style differences, but otherwise the ability to kick the obvious jerks would be very nice. The influx of new admins has been great, but with two servers, there's nowhere near 100% coverage. I know this could theoretically all be done with a plugin once something becomes available, but the need for it is now.

I think this is the subject of another thread entirely.

**Pokerface** · 01-24-2005, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by DraG

What so wrong with the way we are playing??

My concern isn't the regulars. My concern is the people who might be regulars, but will never end up being such because they don't "get it" the first time through.

CS here is great, and it always has been, and likely always will be. There's a massive playerbase, and what TG offers is a niche that is relatively difficult to fill, so there players will keep coming in. Many of them will understand PCS, some won't. It's those that DON'T get it that I'm trying to protect here.

Sure, some of the ones that don't get it never will, but can you imagine the frustration of listening to your team, thinking you're playing the objectives, and getting booted anyway? Particularly from a server that purports "Objectives" over all else?

I'm still at a loss over how establishing rules is a bad thing.

**GhostintheShell** · 01-24-2005, 07:51 PM

Everyone is very instructive, patient, and helpful to the new players who are in the server for the first time.

Newbie's have every opportunity offered to them to make it or break it, its up to them to throw away their access to the server.

You have to be trying very hard as a new player for us to "give up" on you and finally for an admin to ban you.

**9 v** · 01-25-2005, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by Pokerface

I'm still at a loss over how establishing rules is a bad thing.

PCS is a bit like sex... the fewer rules you have to worry about, the more fun it is.

**CingularDuality** · 01-25-2005, 06:59 PM

Yeah, I simply don't think PCS can be defined in writing, anyway...

Boundaries don't work. We've tried that. Limit pubbies to a certain area and they'll simply play deathmatch in that area...

We haven't had any problems so far. This thread was started by Berzerker, and despite his aggressive nature, his responses here seem to indicate to me that he "gets it" in terms of the dynamic nature of the area appropriate to defend. Now, if we can just get him to support his team and quit pushing the limits of those dynamic "boundaries"....

Let me know when there's a problem with the way that the PCS server is being run. Until then, I see no reason to change a system that has worked for years.

**CingularDuality** · 01-25-2005, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by eternal

Man is that way off base, I would almost garauntee, most men wished women came with instructions when it comes to sex. I know I do.
Nothing like pcs at all!

Who are you?

Thread Tools

Display