Special Ops Paintball: 3 for 1 - Special Ops Paintball

Jump to content


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

3 for 1 not good for walk-ons Rate Topic: -----

#1 Guest_Dream of Nullification_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 06 March 2007 - 02:37 AM

something that has troubled me lately is the 3 for 1 call (pulling 3 players + the cheater for 1 person that cheats) its a good call but only if they are a team or in a tourny. i saw it recently however at a speedball feild for walkons and i did not think it was a good call for walkon players

the reason being is your punishing 3 people who had nothing to do with the cheater, it was just the luck of the draw they were on the side of the cheater and got taken out. i really disagree with this call especialy when you have newbies, it will discourage them from playing

yes, punish the cheater, make him sit out a few games but i dont think its right to punish three others just because they are on the same side as the cheater

does anyone agree with me that this is bad for walkons/newbies?

its a good call in tournys or where teams are involved but i just dont think its fair to a paying walkon player just because hes on the same side of the cheater

This post has been edited by Dream of Nullification: 06 March 2007 - 02:41 AM

0

#2 User is offline   Legato 

  • AKA reapermen - AKA Legaqua - Resident Brass Whore
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Retired/Inactive Moderator
  • Posts: 8,771
  • Joined: 02-February 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Milford, Massachusetts

Posted 06 March 2007 - 03:24 AM

it would be one thing if the three people were real teammates with the kid, or friends who arrived with said cheater. But to just take 3 people off and punish them for some other losers actions, when they have no affiliation with them, thats just wrong.

If i was ever pulled out of a game cause a kid i dont know wiped, i would immediatly demand a refund and leave that field. Damned if i will give them my business.
"I think wearing camo is dishonorable. No honorable player would pretend to be a tree or bush."Posted Image My Gallery - Ninja/Pirate Alliance - Marker Animations Posted ImageSpec Ops Posted Image Pump CrewSig Rules - Gen Rules & Regs - Avatar Rules - Warn Level/Reduction - Forum FAQs - Ultimate Pump Sticky - PDT
0

#3 User is offline   k2racer45 

  • Forum Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 26
  • Joined: 01-March 07
  • Brigade Name:K2racer

Posted 06 March 2007 - 03:24 AM

Punishing 3 people for the actions of 1 seems unfair. More so for walkon's cause they probaly don't even know the other guy.

But on the upside. It would discourage other cheaters.

So to anyone who is thinking of cheating on a field where the 3-1 rule is used. IF you cheat your going to have at least 3 very UPSET people to deal with. You better be one smooth talking bugger or your in trouble.



edit: By the way DoN. I HATE YOUR SIG. IT'S DRIVING ME NUTS! Just thought i'd share. But you problay intended that anyways.

This post has been edited by k2racer45: 06 March 2007 - 03:29 AM

IPB Image
If you don't know what these mean, then ask.
I'm new to paintball but I know tactics, PM me if you wanna chat.
0

#4 Guest_Dream of Nullification_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 06 March 2007 - 11:03 PM

actualy i intended for it to be a stress reliver, you mean it isnt working? :laugh:

i dont mind the 3 for 1 if its a team or friends like legato said, its great then because you got your entire team to deal with and might even get thrown off the team

but pulling 3 ppl because some dude i dont know messed up yea id be upset too like legato, probably want my money back or atleast give a stern talking to the ref that i dont even know the twit that cheats

i dont think it would discourage him from cheating or that he would even care that 3 ppl are mad at him. he doesnt know em and what are they going to do? shun him? they cant start any violence, it will just end up with the cheater sueing the feild

it felt so wrong to tell these walkons hey leave the feild cause some dude messed up, i should of said somethin to the ref but wasnt sure if i was in my right to do so. so thought id post here
0

#5 User is offline   emr_ambush_alpha67 

  • ambush AkA the law
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 430
  • Joined: 15-January 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:endicott ny
  • Brigade Name:ambush_alpha67

Posted 07 March 2007 - 01:02 PM

as long as u explain the rules to everyone befor hand where they tell them why there will be a 3 for 1 then they should have no problem. it also gets the cheated ousted from the group and make them think twice of doing it again.
~RIP~ Owego Outlaws
NJ TITANS!!! HOW WE ROLLL!!!! SOOOOOUUUTTTHHHH SSSIIIDDDEEE!!!!
~I AM THE SLINKEY~
0

#6 User is offline   Da Ref 

  • too much work no time to play
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 172
  • Joined: 09-February 06
  • Location:Kaysville, Ut
  • Brigade Name:sniper257

Posted 07 March 2007 - 01:03 PM

If it's a walkon game I agree it would be better to have the cheater sit out for three or more games. This way the new players see that there is a real down side, they could sit for a while or even be eject for cheating. It works well in tornys because there are three very upset team mates that want to talk to the cheater.
Its simple I saw the hit,
Your out!!

I need a job with more vacation time
0

#7 Guest_Dream of Nullification_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 08 March 2007 - 01:09 AM

View Postemr_ambush_alpha67, on Mar 7 2007, 02:02 PM, said:

as long as u explain the rules to everyone befor hand where they tell them why there will be a 3 for 1 then they should have no problem. it also gets the cheated ousted from the group and make them think twice of doing it again.



you honeslty think some jerk cheater is going to care what a few walkon newbies think of him? he has never met em before and probably will never see em again
0

#8 Guest_Jester3_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 08 March 2007 - 02:56 PM

I agree, for simply a walk-on game, 3 for 1s are unecessary, the wiper should be taken care of individually.
0

#9 User is offline   emr_ambush_alpha67 

  • ambush AkA the law
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 430
  • Joined: 15-January 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:endicott ny
  • Brigade Name:ambush_alpha67

Posted 09 March 2007 - 06:02 AM

if he contius to cheat pull them again then make the player sit for 3 games... whenever i ref i ask people if they want to play with these rules.... and most of the time they say ya if soemone is caught cheating pull them like its a tourny... and sometimes these people are brand new trying to figure out how they put the hopper on....
~RIP~ Owego Outlaws
NJ TITANS!!! HOW WE ROLLL!!!! SOOOOOUUUTTTHHHH SSSIIIDDDEEE!!!!
~I AM THE SLINKEY~
0

#10 User is offline   ironwasp 

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 11-January 06
  • Location:eastern iowa
  • Brigade Name:ironwasp

Posted 15 March 2007 - 06:39 PM

I dont know if i really agree on a 3 for 1 but peer pressure is certainly a powerful tool im guessing once or twice getting a 3 for 1 and nobody will let him play with them and hed probably be shunned from the feild for good. That or he will get over shot all the time because every one pegs him as a cheater from go.
i will give up my marker only after you pry my cold rigid fingers from the trigger
0

#11 User is offline   Bielerga 

  • The Chemist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,092
  • Joined: 18-May 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cincinnati, OH
  • Brigade Name:Seaspray

Posted 18 March 2007 - 02:30 PM

I think they should be punished but random people should not have to sit out because of what they have done. I would keep calling him "the kid who whiped" for an hour or so just so he would not even think about doing it again.
I am an arms dealer, fitting you with weapons in the form of words

BLOOD FEST OCT 27TH HALLOWEEN BIG GAME Oh,IN,KY Teams
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users