It was a hipfire and the game should've been refunded as the hipfire made scum lose hooker which made the game incredibly town-sided. Notes / verbal warnings shouldn't serve as free get out of jail cards in competitive games.
I would've ruled it GT but I can see why another mod would disagree. Honestly the most lenient you can go here is a note, which would've probably been much better than a verbal warning considering the purpose of notes is to warn a player and ensure that the mods know that the player has a history of doing this in case they were to do it again
Firstly, you're just repeating solace now and I've already gone through how that's wrong
Secondly, it wasn't 30 seconds. In-game mafia-time is way quicker than actual real time. 01:44-02:14 the time between the first line of the game and the gun shot is 30 seconds of in-game mafia time which is approximately equivalent to 10 seconds of real time.
Hipfiring is not shooting without PR claims, nor is it shooting before every single person in the game has spoken.
There's sufficient in-game context to acknowledge that dzanek made a calculated shot based on the 6 people who were active in those 30 seconds. 5 people had spoken, 2 claimed roles.
This is why I sustained the NV.
I deem the in game evidence sufficient to raise reasonable doubt that his shot was 100% random, and not strategic based on the participation given by majority of the table.
After my long winded post (first post of this page), you seemed to have drifted away from the points I made with posts like "They issued a verbal warning" and "generally in favor of leniency". There's a line when it comes to leniency, it's not supposed to be for clear cut cases in competitive games.
I understand leniency towards new players in red heart games but you're missing the fact that it was a comp game and the user is experienced with an active GT vio.
Yes there could be reports in the past where people were given violations for less, but Cody and I are generally in favor of leniency and we have stressed this with the team again and again.
We try to ease up on most site and in-game violations and take an intent-driven approach to handling reports.
I completely understand that he was given a verbal warning and I'm arguing here that he should have been given a GT vio.
Hipfiring alone is given trolling in red hearts.
But somehow a user who hipfired in comp where it's supposed to be more strict (GT vio), who already has an active GT vio and has been on the site well long enough to know that hipfiring is against the rules was let of with just a "verbal warning". A verbal warning being the lowest of the low of punishments, lower than a note.
Hipfiring is strict in comp. I shot awnyy on d1 this game. I asked him to vote and gave him a timer. As I was counting down he was writing lines to me. He never voted and I had enough townreads at this point so I shot him. He flipped mafia.
The entire mod team decided I hipfired/gt This is precedent; if you disagree then you must OT 178524
I want to clear up a misconception. The report was not ruled to be guilt-free. They issued a verbal warning believing it was not severe enough to warrant a violation.
I also understand what you're saying and I'm saying it's wrong. I've broken down simply as to how it's wrong -
"enough content was generated to raise reasonable doubt "
There wasn't enough content
4 players hadn't even spoke, 2 players said 1 line, 1 player quoted and said the same thing twice and another 1 player (JM123, arguably the only who could possibly be read) had said a few lines
The so called TR on MARCO
"I could see them townreading MARCO"
Marco said 1 line which was "i am blue finally". This could easily be forced, it's no where near enough to generate a read upon him
Him PoE'ing his shot
This is completely different to the "YOLO" lynching case. Isolating a shot to a percentage of 50% of hitting mafia is not high enough for it to not be a hipfire especially when PRs are hidden.
Further reasons pointing to it being GT
Hipfire is supposed to be way more strict in comp games. There was a whole thread outlining how hipfiring is going to be given a trolling vio in red hearts and GT vio in comp.
He also shot in ~10 seconds into the game (without any reports or anything along those lines), does that not mean anything to you?
Him having a GT vio despite it not being related to hipfire shows that he has threw a game before and therefore should clear any benefit of the doubt being given to a borderline-GT case (this isn't even borderline, it's clear cut GT).
Reads are subjective and it's difficult for me to speak on dzanek's behalf.
"i am blue finally" is an emotional response. FINALLY. Maybe they saw MARCO's mafia winrate (something I generally do) and concluded that they would not employ that kind of wifom as mafia.
The way JM123 casually said "i rolled mafia" could have been townread. I am not saying that it is a good idea, but it is content that can be interpreted.
I am generally in favor of giving benefit of the doubt when reasonable so yes, if a BS/Cop was shot and a player explained the thought process behind their shot, I would probably be still willing to argue that it was not a hipfire.
It's definitely fair to challenge the verdict considering Dzanek already has a GT vio and therefore there's no reason to give him extra benefit of the doubt. Secondly, the game was a competitive game and hipfires are supposed to be dealt with more stricly (the rules specifically state that for red heart games hipfiring is trolling and for comp games it is GT). Him getting away without a vio and the game not being refunded is basically a free town win from a textbook hipfire.
How is this not a hipfire?
