make exposing admins againest the rules in all servers

[ck24]

• Here's the reason why i think exposing admins should be againest the rules
• if an admin is under cover like someone called an admin and the admin is trying to find the hacker and if one of the plays says theres an admin on there server or the name of the admin the hacker might run for it.
• so thats why i think it should be muteable

 

[MLG $WAG BOOTY 2007]

If an Admin is slaying people, he's doing something wrong.

Why though? What reason exists for you to know who the Admin is besides from by your own admission, knowing when you are allowed to break the rules because no one is looking?

People shouldn't be playing ear rape period. Is following the rules something you only do when its punishable now?

Idk at this point I've kinda lost my thought process. I'm not gonna argue anymore cause I keep getting myself into stuff I can't prove my point for.

 

[Antamania]

You want users to behave, and them knowing an admin is present will make them behave, yes that is a given. But at the same rate, if the users are going to misbehave when an admin isn't present, it's better they don't know they're there.

I don't know if I agree with punishment, this feels a bit too much like shooting yourself in the own foot to enforce. Someone calls an admin in for help, then says it like a goof and ends up getting banned, might make people less likely to want to call an admin in. But, I do think if this does happen, the admin should simply tell the person not to do it.

There are arguments for and against, but I just think there is enough trouble for admins to enforce the current rules they have (friendlying in particular) that adding more will make things too complex. A simple talking to would more than likely correct this problem.

 

[Roboute Guilliman]

You want users to behave, and them knowing an admin is present will make them behave, yes that is a given. But at the same rate, if the users are going to misbehave when an admin isn't present, it's better they don't know they're there.

I don't know if I agree with punishment, this feels a bit too much like shooting yourself in the own foot to enforce. Someone calls an admin in for help, then says it like a goof and ends up getting banned, might make people less likely to want to call an admin in. But, I do think if this does happen, the admin should simply tell the person not to do it.

There are arguments for and against, but I just think there is enough trouble for admins to enforce the current rules they have (friendlying in particular) that adding more will make things too complex. A simple talking to would more than likely correct this problem.

Adding onto this, I think we need to evaulate things on a case by case basis.

If someone on my friend's list PMed me and accidentally let it slip, I am gonna tell him to not do that again as its gonna screw things up.

But if some rando on the server calls out "GUILLIMAN IS AN ADMIN" the moment I join to answer a report, then we're gonna have a problem.

 

[ck24]

You want users to behave, and them knowing an admin is present will make them behave, yes that is a given. But at the same rate, if the users are going to misbehave when an admin isn't present, it's better they don't know they're there.

I don't know if I agree with punishment, this feels a bit too much like shooting yourself in the own foot to enforce. Someone calls an admin in for help, then says it like a goof and ends up getting banned, might make people less likely to want to call an admin in. But, I do think if this does happen, the admin should simply tell the person not to do it.

There are arguments for and against, but I just think there is enough trouble for admins to enforce the current rules they have (friendlying in particular) that adding more will make things too complex. A simple talking to would more than likely correct this problem.

On jailbreak this happens almost every time

Edit this also happens when you say your recording as well

 

[ck24]

i hope this gets approved

 

[KillerZebra]

Why stop there? Lets punish anyone who reports or calls a vote on someone because the offender might run for it or stop breaking the rules when that happens.

 

[Percilius]

-1

 

[g .]

+1

 

[ck24]

Ik this is off topic but maybe we should also put a section on sourcebans that’s says warning points and it needs to be beside of comm list and do you know where the ban section is like for ex when you like click on the the rectangle and it shows there name on the left and it shows the steamid and userid and community id and what time expires and the evidence box on the right the evidence has to be required to make it a valid warning point and this could be very useful to as well and in my opinion this a really good idea oh and ps if your having a hard time understanding what i’m Trying to say let me know

 

[Reedgreat]

Ik this is off topic but maybe we should also put a section on sourcebans that’s says warning points and it needs to be beside of comm list and do you know where the ban section is like for ex when you like click on the the rectangle and it shows there name on the left and it shows the steamid and userid and community id and what time expires and the evidence box on the right the evidence has to be required to make it a valid warning point and this could be very useful to as well and in my opinion this a really good idea oh and ps if your having a hard time understanding what i’m Trying to say let me know

I lost you when I realized you didn't use any periods or commas.

I don't think warning points are necessary. It is pretty obvious if someone does something accidentally or intentionally.

 

[DaivdBaekr]

your warning is the rules page

 

[chairius✿]

-1

 

[Salty Mcpepperson]

The main concerns I have for this rule would be the community education and interpretation.

 

[ck24]

i think we should add this rule