|
What is and is Not a Rage Quit
|
| The Hat of Love |
Posted on 11/01/2012 15:51:09
|
ShawnPeezy
Posts: 9035
Joined: 31.07.11
|
So RQing is a problem, yes, but let's not jump to the conclusion, please, that every quit as a zombie is a Rage Quit.
This is what RQs are actually defined as (from the Infection Server Rules).
LMS quitting before next game start.
Alpha quitting before 4 mins game time or before getting an infection.
Quitting immediately after being infected.
Quitting without any infections before at least 50% are zombies.
These things are not RQs:
Any person who joins game late as zombie cannot be considered to Rage Quit. Rage Quitters must have been infected at some point in the game.
A person that joins late as a zombie and quits (at any point in the rest of the game) has not Rage Quit.
A person that makes several valid attempts to infect humans and quits has not Rage Quit.
I'm writing this because every time someone quits on our servers it seems to get a lot of cries of 'rq!' whether it's actually an RQ or not. It's got to the point where people are afraid to quit if they genuinely need to go for fear of getting banned. People who aren't aware of the RQ rule get complaints made about them, perhaps not even realising that they're on course for a ban.
So I'm asking ZÅ members to calm down a little on calling out RQs. And admins, though we do, of course, trust your judgement, limit bans, like the guidelines say, to genuine RQs and to warn people in preference to a straight-out ban. RQing is not a big deal unless you see someone do it repeatedly.
So just remember, as a general rule, it's not a RQ unless they've just been infected, they're an Alpha or LMS and they haven't infected anyone. And, unless they've just been infected, it's not an RQ after half are infected. The full RQ definition is in the Infection Server Rules.
Thanks.
Edited by The Hat of Love on 11/01/2012 15:52:06
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
 |
| |
|
|
| MasterA |
Posted on 11/01/2012 15:59:56
|
Super Admin
Posts: 2582
Joined: 21.07.11
|
yes everyone needs to calm down just a bit.
I understand we need to punish the repeat offenders (ex:SPN guys), but not everyone.
Example, someone who has never played in our servers before joins, maybe has never played zombies before, he gets infected and decides to quit. Before long their are many cries in server of Rq!, members are taking screenshots and posting them on site hoping that they guy will get punished or admin decides to ban.
Now the guy did break our rules but everyone doesn't need to freak the f*ck out. If anyone sees the guy again a member could calmly explain the rules to him. If they guy continues to quit repeatedly (like on SPN level) then action should be taken.
And as stated I find that their is something wrong if someone has to announce they aren't rqing before they quit because they're scared they may get banned or reported. Thats not the kind of setting we want ZA to be.
Edited by MasterA on 11/01/2012 16:01:07
 |
| |
|
|
| Carnage |
Posted on 11/01/2012 16:06:10
|
Super Admin
Posts: 4245
Joined: 28.09.11
|
It's also nice that we have the complaints section of the forum but when complaints are made for single rage quits or when I open the website in the morning and see nothing but complaint threads on rage quitters then I know we are taking this waaay to seriously. It sort of turns into a situation like the boy who cried wolf and after a while the admins, and understandably so, stop reading the complaints especially from certain people. Just make sure that your complaints are valid or justified and also remember you can just contact an admin on xfire, that's why we require xfire for membership in this clan. If you don't have all clan members added now is an excellent time to ameliorate that.
TLDR: Stop spamming the site with petty complaints.
"Hey guys, I just bought this thing called a sight ward...so it's GG." - MasterA in League of Legends
 |
| |
|
|
| Allie |
Posted on 11/01/2012 16:09:05
|
Wanker
Posts: 818
Joined: 23.10.11
|
I agree it has become a problem. All I know is if I get infected and than infect 1 person than I'm good to leave.
 |
| |
|
|
| Chilla |
Posted on 11/01/2012 16:10:27
|
I got a big blue star for posting. i must be special
Posts: 1634
Joined: 10.04.12
|
thanks for clearing that hat
So i dont have to repeat it that often: Im from Poland and i live in Germany lol
You can tellem that ive been through hell and back
 |
| |
|
|
| MasterA |
Posted on 11/01/2012 16:12:09
|
Super Admin
Posts: 2582
Joined: 21.07.11
|
the word rq in the server is basically like someone screaming bot! or warper!, its almost worthless now that everyone spams it for every quit.
|
| |
|
|
| The Hat of Love |
Posted on 11/01/2012 16:26:15
|
ShawnPeezy
Posts: 9035
Joined: 31.07.11
|
Glad Master and I aren't the only ones. And as a side note, if you see anyone (including non-members) calling RQ for something that isn't a RQ (like someone who wasn't there at gamestart) feel free to politely correct them as they probably don't realise they're wrong to call it.
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
|
| |
|
|
| za heystarface |
Posted on 11/01/2012 17:15:06
|
Admin
Posts: 6130
Joined: 20.11.10
|
Correct - the whole purpose of banning/punishing/filing a complaint regarding RQs is to prevent the severe disruption of game play. If someone does RQ but game play was NOT interrupted, then blow it off. RQ rules and bans should really only apply to quitters who are negatively affecting game play to a NOTICEABLE degree.
 |
| |
|
|
| mikeypy |
Posted on 11/02/2012 02:40:57
|
Wanker
Posts: 777
Joined: 11.06.12
|
Yes, All of above I certainly agree on. Personally, I don't like quitting until end of game so that people that haven't read rules don't think of ZA in a bad way. I also, am tired of seeing useless complaint after complaint, I don't bother reading it, because most times it is about RQ. I have read, "What is RQ?" that used to be in nav panel. I'm not 100% clear on it, but I understand what it is.
Should we be taking note though or have a thread where we just type/write down a list of names so that we all are aware of who needs warnings? It might even help if we put a strike next to their name after being warned and continuously RQing?
^Just a thought...^
Michael. 
[ZÅ]Mikeypy/ AKA ApexTwas- ALSO, Member of the MC MD
IF I HAVE NOT VERSED YOU, THEN YOU HAVE NOT, I REPEAT NOT, SUFFERED SERVERE PAIN!
P.S. THE MASTER IS ALWAYS IN DISIGUISE! 
 |
| |
|
|
| JOSEPH5 |
Posted on 11/02/2012 02:46:35
|
I got a big blue star for posting. i must be special
Posts: 1606
Joined: 01.05.12
|
za heystarface wrote:
Correct - the whole purpose of banning/punishing/filing a complaint regarding RQs is to prevent the severe disruption of game play. If someone does RQ but game play was NOT interrupted, then blow it off. RQ rules and bans should really only apply to quitters who are negatively affecting game play to a NOTICEABLE degree.
Agreed.
 |
| |
|
|
| ZA BrickSquad |
Posted on 11/02/2012 04:11:49
|
ShawnPeezy
Posts: 5303
Joined: 12.05.11
|
mikeypy wrote:
Yes, All of above I certainly agree on. Personally, I don't like quitting until end of game so that people that haven't read rules don't think of ZA in a bad way. I also, am tired of seeing useless complaint after complaint, I don't bother reading it, because most times it is about RQ. I have read, "What is RQ?" that used to be in nav panel. I'm not 100% clear on it, but I understand what it is.
Should we be taking note though or have a thread where we just type/write down a list of names so that we all are aware of who needs warnings? It might even help if we put a strike next to their name after being warned and continuously RQing?
^Just a thought...^
Michael.
I have a paper in person with a list on names with a tally of RQ's and a special box for any notes needed to add, such as their behavior, other offenses, etc.
Off Topic:
I also have a list of police officer badges, license plates, names, etc.... (Bad police only)
Point is..............................Don't mess with the Brick and follow the rules(;
Edited by ZA BrickSquad on 11/02/2012 04:15:05 |
| |
|
|
| SpartanJaz |
Posted on 11/02/2012 05:28:33
|
Junior Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 13.08.12
|
Yeah, I find ragequit callers incredibly irritating sometimes. Sometimes it gets to the point(After I've tried to calmly explain that it's not a ragequit) where I have to threaten to votemute them or call in an admin.
It would be much better if anybody that didn't know the RQ rules 100% just stayed out of it. If you don't know the rules fully yourself, don't go reporting others for breaking them.
I think some admins need to have the RQ rules explained to them though. Me and MasterA had to explain to Kitty what the rules actually were because she didn't understand them fully. So it might be a good idea to have a meeting and explain the rq rules to those other admins who don't fully understand.
I kind of understand why some don't understand the rq rules. They are quite confusingly set out. I had to ask Carnage for clarification on the 50% rule. It says that ragequitting is "Quitting without any infections before at least 50% are zombies". But it might make more sense for it to say something like; "Quitting after 50% are zombies should not be considered a ragequit, regardless of infections".
Edited by SpartanJaz on 11/02/2012 05:31:38 |
| |
|
|
| ZA BrickSquad |
Posted on 11/02/2012 05:41:25
|
ShawnPeezy
Posts: 5303
Joined: 12.05.11
|
Or you know how you can type @rules, why not @rqrules for full info on a rq? =D |
| |
|
|
| The Hat of Love |
Posted on 11/02/2012 09:43:33
|
ShawnPeezy
Posts: 9035
Joined: 31.07.11
|
SpartanJaz wrote:
I had to ask Carnage for clarification on the 50% rule. It says that ragequitting is "Quitting without any infections before at least 50% are zombies". But it might make more sense for it to say something like; "Quitting after 50% are zombies should not be considered a ragequit, regardless of infections".
Apart from that's not true because if you quit immediately after being infected I'd still say it's an RQ whether it's half or not. Yes, clearly they are confusing.
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
|
| |
|
|
| MasterA |
Posted on 11/02/2012 09:50:57
|
Super Admin
Posts: 2582
Joined: 21.07.11
|
The Hat of Love wrote:
SpartanJaz wrote:
I had to ask Carnage for clarification on the 50% rule. It says that ragequitting is "Quitting without any infections before at least 50% are zombies". But it might make more sense for it to say something like; "Quitting after 50% are zombies should not be considered a ragequit, regardless of infections".
Apart from that's not true because if you quit immediately after being infected I'd still say it's an RQ whether it's half or not. Yes, clearly they are confusing.
I would say its not in most situations because the admins were getting really strict on it.
Example: 3 humans left on putput with 13 zombies one of the humans dies, after he dies he preceeds to quit, by the rq standards it is a rq(though it doesn't really affect the gameplay) but I do not believe it was something we should ban for or make complaint threads for or that it affected the gameplay at all. But alot of ppl were doing that. See where I was going with it? Quitting after half are infected doesn't really affect the gameplay in most situations, especially when the server is full and someone is gonna join to take your spot right after you quit.
Also the rule could be viewed as even though you quit right after infection it is past 50% infected which would null that out...its really interpretive.
|
| |
|
|
| za heystarface |
Posted on 11/02/2012 10:32:52
|
Admin
Posts: 6130
Joined: 20.11.10
|
Look, it's simple: we cannot force people to play in our servers. We can't punish every person who doesn't want to be zombie.
The only people we SHOULD be punish for RQing are people that NEGATIVELY AFFECT GAME PLAY by quitting. If they quit right after being infected but there are 10 other zombies, then the game play was not affected.
I agree that admins need to let up and take a good look at WHY we are trying to limit RQers. If they're rounding them up for BOS just because it's a rule - then I'm going to get rid of the rule. In order to enforce the rules CORRECTLY you have to understand what the rule's purpose is - and the purpose of our RQ rule is to: you guessed it - limit the number of players in our servers who PURPOSEFULLY AND NEGATIVELY AFFECT GAME PLAY.
|
| |
|
|
| mikeypy |
Posted on 11/02/2012 23:05:18
|
Wanker
Posts: 777
Joined: 11.06.12
|
za heystarface wrote:
Look, it's simple: we cannot force people to play in our servers. We can't punish every person who doesn't want to be zombie.
The only people we SHOULD be punish for RQing are people that NEGATIVELY AFFECT GAME PLAY by quitting. If they quit right after being infected but there are 10 other zombies, then the game play was not affected.
I agree that admins need to let up and take a good look at WHY we are trying to limit RQers. If they're rounding them up for BOS just because it's a rule - then I'm going to get rid of the rule. In order to enforce the rules CORRECTLY you have to understand what the rule's purpose is - and the purpose of our RQ rule is to: you guessed it - limit the number of players in our servers who PURPOSEFULLY AND NEGATIVELY AFFECT GAME PLAY.
Personally, I think there shouldn't be an RQ rule since many are confused and not all have actually viewed the tab in the NAV panel. If people are making the gameplay negative and affecting it, well, they should just be banned straight out, no questions asked. <That's my opinion.
The RQ rule really needs to be thought on, and, yeah, I think we should have a meeting so that the rule is clarified if we do go ahead with it.
[ZÅ]Mikeypy/ AKA ApexTwas- ALSO, Member of the MC MD
IF I HAVE NOT VERSED YOU, THEN YOU HAVE NOT, I REPEAT NOT, SUFFERED SERVERE PAIN!
P.S. THE MASTER IS ALWAYS IN DISIGUISE!
|
| |
|
|
| The Hat of Love |
Posted on 11/03/2012 09:49:12
|
ShawnPeezy
Posts: 9035
Joined: 31.07.11
|
mikeypy wrote:
za heystarface wrote:
Look, it's simple: we cannot force people to play in our servers. We can't punish every person who doesn't want to be zombie.
The only people we SHOULD be punish for RQing are people that NEGATIVELY AFFECT GAME PLAY by quitting. If they quit right after being infected but there are 10 other zombies, then the game play was not affected.
I agree that admins need to let up and take a good look at WHY we are trying to limit RQers. If they're rounding them up for BOS just because it's a rule - then I'm going to get rid of the rule. In order to enforce the rules CORRECTLY you have to understand what the rule's purpose is - and the purpose of our RQ rule is to: you guessed it - limit the number of players in our servers who PURPOSEFULLY AND NEGATIVELY AFFECT GAME PLAY.
Personally, I think there shouldn't be an RQ rule since many are confused and not all have actually viewed the tab in the NAV panel. If people are making the gameplay negative and affecting it, well, they should just be banned straight out, no questions asked. <That's my opinion.
The RQ rule really needs to be thought on, and, yeah, I think we should have a meeting so that the rule is clarified if we do go ahead with it.
The RQ rule is there for a reason. Not knowing the rules is not an excuse for breaking them. Now you're saying that we should start banning people for breaking rules that we just got rid of.
This was my practical alternative to a meeting since it informs everyone. The rules are fine as it is, we just need to work out our priorities.
I think we've got the idea now - what Star said. Thread locked.
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
|
| |
|
