Home › Forum Archive › Game Server Discussion › Counter-Strike: Source Discussion › banned sprays
- This topic has 44 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 6 months ago by
MasterP.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 26, 2009 at 4:41 pm #82657
Bitey
SpectatorThen someone went around the policy I had in place. Surprise Surprise.
April 26, 2009 at 4:59 pm #82664MasterP
SpectatorBitey said:
Then someone went around the policy I had in place. Surprise Surprise.Did you not notice the public vote on it? You posted in it and it was pretty clear how split the community was.
If you made a policy you sure as hell didn’t tell anyone about it.
April 26, 2009 at 5:07 pm #82668YahooEarth
SpectatorCitan001 said:
that is fine yahoo but maybe its time we go back and look at those rules maybe its time for a change?If it’s not broke…
April 26, 2009 at 8:20 pm #82707Bitey
SpectatorBan them [ 19 ] ** [59.38%]
Allow them [ 13 ] ** [40.62%]
That is the votes I see, so unless someone did not go by the vote then they should have been banned, which is exactly what I said. If there would have been a different vote I would have said something about it.
April 26, 2009 at 8:39 pm #82711Citan001
SpectatorYahooEarth said:
If it’s not broke…It is broke yahoo because I have seen EVERY admin aside from you tell people not to spray animated sprays even if they were not of bombs or ct/ts.
April 26, 2009 at 8:58 pm #82715YahooEarth
SpectatorCitan001 said:
It is broke yahoo because I have seen EVERY admin aside from you tell people not to spray animated sprays even if they were not of bombs or ct/ts.Well that would not be the rule being broke, that would be admins NOT knowing the rules of the server. So that seems more like broke admins…but you tell me?
April 26, 2009 at 9:00 pm #82716Citan001
SpectatorYahooEarth said:
Well that would not be the rule being broke, that would be admins NOT knowing the rules of the server. So that seems more like broke admins…but you tell me?I disagree if admins are enforcing a rule that does not exist then maybe its time to go back and look at the situation and maybe make a rule. look at the vote so far. It looks like people want em banned.
April 26, 2009 at 9:21 pm #82724MasterP
SpectatorBitey said:
Ban them [ 19 ] ** [59.38%]Allow them [ 13 ] ** [40.62%]
That is the votes I see, so unless someone did not go by the vote then they should have been banned, which is exactly what I said. If there would have been a different vote I would have said something about it.
That’s not the overwhelming majority we typically require when making policy change. Hell we require more than that to start a mapvote.
April 26, 2009 at 9:35 pm #82727Bitey
SpectatorWhen we vote majority wins, there is no percentage, that is how it is done in the meetings and how I thought all votes should be done. So I thought it was done and the sprays were not allowed, when I played I warned and kicked people for spraying them. Again as far as I am concerned they should not be allowed I stressed that when I made my original post in that thread. So back to the original concern it was MY policy to not allow them, obviously someone didn’t listen to me, that or my opinion didn’t matter.
April 26, 2009 at 10:37 pm #82741MasterP
SpectatorBitey said:
Again as far as I am concerned they should not be allowed I stressed that when I made my original post in that thread. So back to the original concern it was MY policy to not allow them, obviously someone didn’t listen to me, that or my opinion didn’t matter.It was a public vote. If you wanted to override the vote and force your own policy you should have said so.
A simple majority win is what got us Zblock. Remember that one?
April 26, 2009 at 10:38 pm #82742Citan001
SpectatorWhat poll was that? The other poll like 1 thread down is like 16 to 9 people or something like that….Maybe we need to get a new official vote and see how it plays out?
April 26, 2009 at 10:42 pm #82744MasterP
SpectatorCitan001 said:
What poll was that? The other poll like 1 thread down is like 16 to 9 people or something like that….Maybe we need to get a new official vote and see how it plays out?He’s talking about the one last semester where it went like 19/13 in favor or banning.
April 26, 2009 at 10:59 pm #82747Citan001
SpectatorMasterP said:
He’s talking about the one last semester where it went like 19/13 in favor or banning.oh see I never saw that one I was just going off of the one bananarchy put up.
April 26, 2009 at 11:02 pm #82749Bitey
SpectatorMasterP said:
It was a public vote. If you wanted to override the vote and force your own policy you should have said so.A simple majority win is what got us Zblock. Remember that one?
Granted, zBlock was fail for our server, I thought I did make it clear that I didn’t want it. If that was not the case then I apologize and will try to be more clear about what I say in future cases.
April 26, 2009 at 11:08 pm #82752MasterP
SpectatorBitey said:
Granted, zBlock was fail for our server, I thought I did make it clear that I didn’t want it. If that was not the case then I apologize and will try to be more clear about what I say in future cases.You gave your opinion along with everyone else and didn’t say anything about setting the policy.
To be honest though, after overriding me on zblock I can’t imagine how *edited*ed I would have been if you’d have done it again on this.
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Counter-Strike: Source Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.