[Evil Fingers]

Warpaint, on Sep 23 2007, 02:14 PM, said:

Bobbjoe, on Sep 23 2007, 09:48 AM, said:

I need an opinion as to who is right in this situation:
Our field has a mandatory surrender rule. This means that id someone asks you to surrender at close range, your out, but you don't have to ask for a surrender, you can just lihg them up. Yesterday at the field i tried to bunker a guy, and when i was about 5 feet away i called for a surrender. He stood up and started running backwards with his gun pointed towrd me. I shot him once in the shoulder. He stared yelling and screaming and cursing me out for shooting after i caled a surrender. Who do you think is right?

At the fields I have played, we have to abide by a set of close range rules:

1. No shooting within 10 feet. If you shoot someone under 10 feet, you're out.

2. No more than 3 shots on a player. If you shoot someone more than 3 times, you're out. Call a ref for a paint check.

3. If you are asked to surrender, and you do not, you are fair game under rules #1 and #2.

In the situation you described, your shot was fair under the rules described above if your shot was from 10 feet or more, and you had called for a surrender, and the other player declined. The rules where you play may be different, but I doubt any reputable field has a stipulation allowing players to "light" each other up in any situation. There is NEVER justification for "lighting" someone up, or cheap shots...you're not the ref, nor the judge and jury. That's poor sportsmanship, and causes hard feelings to escalate. You might FEEL justified, but how you feel is never an excuse for poor behavior.

Amen to all that!

[Bobbjoe]

Evil Fingers, on Sep 24 2007, 07:48 PM, said:

Warpaint, on Sep 23 2007, 02:14 PM, said:

Bobbjoe, on Sep 23 2007, 09:48 AM, said:

I need an opinion as to who is right in this situation:
Our field has a mandatory surrender rule. This means that id someone asks you to surrender at close range, your out, but you don't have to ask for a surrender, you can just lihg them up. Yesterday at the field i tried to bunker a guy, and when i was about 5 feet away i called for a surrender. He stood up and started running backwards with his gun pointed towrd me. I shot him once in the shoulder. He stared yelling and screaming and cursing me out for shooting after i caled a surrender. Who do you think is right?

At the fields I have played, we have to abide by a set of close range rules:

1. No shooting within 10 feet. If you shoot someone under 10 feet, you're out.

2. No more than 3 shots on a player. If you shoot someone more than 3 times, you're out. Call a ref for a paint check.

3. If you are asked to surrender, and you do not, you are fair game under rules #1 and #2.

In the situation you described, your shot was fair under the rules described above if your shot was from 10 feet or more, and you had called for a surrender, and the other player declined. The rules where you play may be different, but I doubt any reputable field has a stipulation allowing players to "light" each other up in any situation. There is NEVER justification for "lighting" someone up, or cheap shots...you're not the ref, nor the judge and jury. That's poor sportsmanship, and causes hard feelings to escalate. You might FEEL justified, but how you feel is never an excuse for poor behavior.

Amen to all that!

huh?

[Evil Fingers]

Read it Slowly man and you'll fully understand what WarPaint said.

[Warpaint]

Jackson, on Sep 24 2007, 08:25 PM, said:

Warpaint, on Sep 24 2007, 08:10 PM, said:

Back up or move away and shoot, or move-in and barrel tag. Do I hear another "Huh?" Seems to be a lot of that in here...I hope it's just an echo! If you get closer than 10 feet to someone, whose fault is that? Your options are: Play smarter (well, this may not really be an option for the easily confused!), call for surrender, quickly back up or move away and clear, or barrel tag. Those are the rules the fields I play ask us to abide by. We seem to be able to figure it out without degrees in rocket science. I don't call for surrenders...number one, I don't put myself in that situation, and two, I would prefer to clear myself and take the shot as opposed to trusting the other player to surrender...besides, he would probably only say, "Huh?" and shoot me anyway!

I still think that rule is flawed. It just discourages surrendering. If someone calls surrender on me and they are closer than 10 feet but far enough away to be out of barrel tag range, I'm not taking it then. To each his own I suppose. If those are to be the rules that there is absolutely no shooting under 10 feet, you should have to take the surrender to prevent the screwy no-surrender stalemate.

Well, I can't take credit for the rules, I just follow them. I don't think they're so flawed, but you have a right to your opinion. I don't always like the rules, but again, I follow them. Sometimes rules serve a purpose not immediately visible to or appreciated by us. Sometimes the rules work for us, and sometimes they work against us. The proximity and surrender rules are simple, promote fair play and good sportsmanship, and ensure player safety and repeat customers. When the rules work against us, the more seasoned players know how to avoid unfavorable situations, and if we cannot avoid it, we know how to improvise upon the situation and work it to our advantage.

This post has been edited by Warpaint: 25 September 2007 - 12:00 AM

[motherboard1]

Ok, If Evil Fingers says we should read it again, I'll definatly read it again very slowly.... and now I have. I went back and read it over many times, slowly, and I still just cant see how this is that complicated.

This is how I comprehend, or miscomprehend the situation.

As bobjoe explains, his field has a mandatory surrender rule (in that you must surrender if asked) just like a bunker tag rule er whatever. This means that the issue of long range surrenders doesnt come up, or that there is a maximum surrender distance, Or that there is indeed a 10 foot rule, only one person here can tell us for sure.

bobjoe tries to surrender "the other guy" instead of shooting him, nice fella right? nicer than some of us, I wouldnt risk it, except for a youngster, or maybe a girl .

"the other guy" (and he does this outside of the field rules) makes a move and motions to return fire. So bobjoe pops him in the shoulder, just once.

and this is where I get lost, I just completely fail to see whats wrong here.

So I'll just pick apart warpaints post and show you all the parts that make no sence to me.

Quote

In the situation you described, your shot was fair under the rules described above if your shot was from 10 feet or more, and you had called for a surrender, and the other player declined.

As you indicate in the quote, and again just ahead here, this is your fields rules. bobjoe never mentioned whether or not his field has a 10 foot rule, we dont know yet, but moveing on.

Quote

The rules where you play may be different, but I doubt any reputable field has a stipulation allowing players to "light" each other up in any situation. There is NEVER justification for "lighting" someone up, or cheap shots...

bobjoe shot him once, just once, in what was basically self defence at that point.

Quote

you're not the ref, nor the judge and jury.

nor does he claim to be. Hes not sure if his decission was right. Thats why he's here asking us forumers to be the jury.

Quote

That's poor sportsmanship, and causes hard feelings to escalate.

bobyjoe knows one paintballer who would agree with you

Quote

You might FEEL justified, but how you feel is never an excuse for poor behavior.

See the thing about this is that whether or not it was poor sportsmanship or poor behavior is not clear cut, its a matter of opinion, some of us dont feel that it was poor sportsmanship at all.

Now that said. Warpaints post DOES make sence, on its own. But directed against bobyjoe, to me it comes off as a strawman argument.

Theres only one conclusion I can draw from all of this. Warpaint IS " the other guy! " (the one that bobyjoe shot) yes, yes! Now that makes sence

This post has been edited by motherboard1: 25 September 2007 - 12:32 AM

[Warpaint]

motherboard1, on Sep 25 2007, 03:20 AM, said:

Ok, If Evilfigners says we should read it again, I'll definatly read it again very slowly.... and now I have. I went back and read it over many times, slowly, and I still just cant see how this is that complicated.

This is how I comprehend, or miscomprehend the situation.

As bobjoe explains, his field has a mandatory surrender rule (in that you must surrender if asked) just like a bunker tag rule er whatever. This means that the issue of long range surrenders doesnt come up, or that there is a maximum surrender distance, Or that there is indeed a 10 foot rule, only one person here can tell us for sure.

bobjoe tries to surrender "the other guy" instead of shooting him, nice fella right? nicer than some of us, I wouldnt risk it, except for a youngster, or maybe a girl .

"the other guy" (and he does this outside of the field rules) makes a move and motions to return fire. So bobjoe pops him in the shoulder, just once.

and this is where I get lost, I just completely fail to see whats wrong here.

So I'll just pick apart warpaints post and show you all the parts that make no sence to me.

Quote

In the situation you described, your shot was fair under the rules described above if your shot was from 10 feet or more, and you had called for a surrender, and the other player declined.

As you indicate in the quote, and again just ahead here, this is your fields rules. bobjoe never mentioned whether or not his field has a 10 foot rule, we dont know yet, but moveing on.

Quote

The rules where you play may be different, but I doubt any reputable field has a stipulation allowing players to "light" each other up in any situation. There is NEVER justification for "lighting" someone up, or cheap shots...

bobjoe shot him once, just once, in what was basically self defence at that point.

Quote

you're not the ref, nor the judge and jury.

nor does he claim to be. Hes not sure if his decission was right. Thats why he's here asking us forumers to be the jury.

Quote

That's poor sportsmanship, and causes hard feelings to escalate.

bobyjoe knows one paintballer who would agree with you

Quote

You might FEEL justified, but how you feel is never an excuse for poor behavior.

See the thing about this is that whether or not it was poor sportsmanship or poor behavior is not clear cut, its a matter of opinion, some of us dont feel that it was poor sportsmanship at all.

Now that said. Warpaints post DOES make sence, on its own. But directed against bobyjoe, to me it comes off as a strawman argument.

Theres only one conclusion I can draw from all of this. Warpaint IS " the other guy! " (the one that bobyjoe shot) yes, yes! Now that makes sence

All you have truly demonstrated is that you still are unable to both READ and COMPREHEND my post. All I did was state the rules I am familiar with and abide by, and then based upon that understanding, shared my opinion, which the original poster solicited. No one here forced his confession. Furthermore, I did not overtly say he cheated, but went on to propose and elaborate upon another situation in which such action might be considered unfair and unsafe. However, by presenting his conflict here for us to judge, he indicated his own ignorance or uncertainty of the rules, and then sought to vindicate his actions and absolve himself of his guilt for shooting a cheater under safe range through popular opinion here. Well, if he just wants to feel better, he should see a priest, and do 20 Hail Mary's. But if he wants to understand, he needs to hear the truth, and see for himself where he went wrong (not that he committed a crime or anything) and correct it, not what makes him feel better about doing again. Some people here have confused making someone feel better, with explaining their understanding of the rules or the difference between right and wrong. Unfortunately, the truth doesn't always make us comfortable. You have displayed your ignorance of the rules by your defense of breaking them, and then weakly deflecting attention to me personally, because you and several others have failed to come up with a sound argument which justifies breaking one rule to avenge the breaking of another. That line of thinking only provokes escalation, and invites others to control our behavior with more rules.

The fact that things don't make sense to someone does not necessarily imply that the things that escape that person's comprehension do not make sense, but rather perhaps that person is challenged in making sense of anything...



...wait for it...



...wait for it...



...waaiiittt for it...






"Huh?"

[Boss]

i think your right, but you should not shot him .

[motherboard1]

Quote

All I did was state the rules I am familiar with and abide by, and then based upon that understanding, shared my opinion

Yes, and your opinion is where we disagree. I hope you can accept that, and I hope you dont attribute every disagreement you have in life to somebody elses inability to comprehend you.

And his shot was not in "revenge" of anything. It was in reaction to it, and it was clearly the other players ignorance and uncertainty of the rules wich put bobjoe on the spot, a situation where there was no right answer in wich both players get a fair deal. Maybe you would have waited for the other guy to shoot first, I dont know.

Im all for sportsmanship. Yes I do understand and appreciate the importance of other players haveing a good time at the field as well, and I think thats where you may be comeing from. Your thinking of the other guy, and you would let him go because you want him to have a good game, and not a bad experience.

You seem like your so cought up in not ruining a good time for the other player, that you risk haveing the game ruined for yourself. But "you" would have done it differently. Bobjoe isnt you, maybe he wants to reap the benefits of his successfull tactics so that he can have fun. As for the other guy, he risked ruining a good time for both himself and bobjoe. I think bobjoes choice was the lesser of evils. Even if it was technically against the fields rules (we dont know yet) wich were "A" already broken by the other player, wich makes everything confuseing, because after the first rule is broken nothing seems fair and within the rules at the same time, and "B" put in place to make sure everyone has a good time.

This wasnt an eye for an eye, or revenge as you see it. Once the first rule was broken, both players were going to suffer, both players were going to be upset, both players werent going to have a good game, and somebody was going to suffer a paintball hit at pretty close range, quite possibly bobjoe had he not shot first. The other player was already confused about one rule. Once I seen that marker start towards me, I would have shot, whatever the rules. And on a side note, the other player didnt need to lose his temper over this, it was one shot.

This post has been edited by motherboard1: 25 September 2007 - 02:19 AM

[Bobbjoe]

i like the ignorance part...

And i'm not trying to "make myself feel better", i'm seeing what you guys would have done in that same situation.

RIght and Warpaint, backing up dosn't make any sense. You back up, he oves up. Your both stuck in a freakin stalemate. Our field does seem to allow close range shots, (was playing against a ref once and he seriously lit me up from about 5 feet.) even though there is the surrender rule. One shot to the shoulder at about 9-10 feet, not a big deal. Its not like i emptied a hopper onto him.

This post has been edited by Bobbjoe: 25 September 2007 - 04:40 AM

[Puzuma]

Bobbjoe, on Sep 23 2007, 09:48 AM, said:

Our field has a mandatory surrender rule. This means that id someone asks you to surrender at close range, your out, but you don't have to ask for a surrender, you can just lihg them up.

So you have a surrender rule that's "mandatory". It gives the target NO CHOICE but the asker can either ask for the surrender of "LIGHT THEM UP". What the hell kind of field allows you to empty a hopper on some one at close range? (Are you understanding this much motherboard1 and Bobbjoe?)

Either your field lacks the logic to create a proper surrender rule or you fail to understand it.

Bobbjoe, on Sep 23 2007, 09:48 AM, said:

Yesterday at the field i tried to bunker a guy, and when i was about 5 feet away i called for a surrender.

Back in the day the surrender distance was 6 feet or less. You were about 5, that makes the 10' rule irrelevant. No field I have ever been to in 20 years of playing makes it MANDATORY to accept a surrender. If I think I can shoot you out before you hit me I have that option. If I'm wrong then I pay for my mistake with a welt and you face the same risk if I'm right. (You guys still following this?)

Bobbjoe, on Sep 23 2007, 09:48 AM, said:

He stood up and started running backwards with his gun pointed towrd me. I shot him once in the shoulder. He stared yelling and screaming and cursing me out for shooting after i caled a surrender. Who do you think is right?

The guy tried to avoid a surrender. You shot him. End of story. He wants to cry and whine over it, well, boo freaking hoo for him. He had the option of accepting and didn't. (Still following?)

Now for war paints statements:

Warpaint, on Sep 23 2007, 05:14 PM, said:

At the fields I have played, we have to abide by a set of close range rules:

1. No shooting within 10 feet. If you shoot someone under 10 feet, you're out.

2. No more than 3 shots on a player. If you shoot someone more than 3 times, you're out. Call a ref for a paint check.

3. If you are asked to surrender, and you do not, you are fair game under rules #1 and #2.

These are the rules of a "standard" surrender. Key things to note: minimum distance for surrender rules to take effect, no mention of lighting a person up and you are not out if asked you must accept the offer to be out. Failure to accept negates rule #1 and rule #2 is still enforced.

Warpaint, on Sep 23 2007, 05:14 PM, said:

In the situation you described, your shot was fair under the rules described above if your shot was from 10 feet or more, and you had called for a surrender, and the other player declined.

HOLY COW!!! War paint AGREES that you were correct in shooting the guy! The 10' rule is irrelevant since you were 5' away though. He is basically saying that YOU were complying with the "standard" and were less than 10' from your target.

Warpaint, on Sep 23 2007, 05:14 PM, said:

The rules where you play may be different, but I doubt any reputable field has a stipulation allowing players to "light" each other up in any situation. There is NEVER justification for "lighting" someone up, or cheap shots...you're not the ref, nor the judge and jury. That's poor sportsmanship, and causes hard feelings to escalate. You might FEEL justified, but how you feel is never an excuse for poor behavior.

This is the part wheremotherboad1 thinks Warpaint is being harsh. How is this being harsh?
Did he say you light the guy up? No, especially since it was stated that one shot hit the target in the shoulder. The point of this is to show how bad your field is run if they allow you to overshoot someone which, based on the first part of Bobbjoe's quote, this field does.

Lighting a player up is WRONG. If you light a player up, whether they knowingly broke the rules or not, is WRONG. What's next? Are you going to go play at a field that says it's ok to punch a guy because he lit you up? Lighting someone up shows you have no self control, no sportsmanship, no honor and are unable to let the refs do their job.

Now if the two of you are incapable of understand a break down this simple then... get out of paintball.

[Jackson]

Puzuma, on Sep 25 2007, 08:31 AM, said:

Now for war paints statements:

Warpaint, on Sep 23 2007, 05:14 PM, said:

At the fields I have played, we have to abide by a set of close range rules:

1. No shooting within 10 feet. If you shoot someone under 10 feet, you're out.

2. No more than 3 shots on a player. If you shoot someone more than 3 times, you're out. Call a ref for a paint check.

3. If you are asked to surrender, and you do not, you are fair game under rules #1 and #2.

These are the rules of a "standard" surrender. Key things to note: minimum distance for surrender rules to take effect, no mention of lighting a person up and you are not out if asked you must accept the offer to be out. Failure to accept negates rule #1 and rule #2 is still enforced.

Warpaint, on Sep 23 2007, 05:14 PM, said:

In the situation you described, your shot was fair under the rules described above if your shot was from 10 feet or more, and you had called for a surrender, and the other player declined.

HOLY COW!!! War paint AGREES that you were correct in shooting the guy! The 10' rule is irrelevant since you were 5' away though. He is basically saying that YOU were complying with the "standard" and were less than 10' from your target.

Puzuma, I think you are reading Warpaint's post incorrectly. Highlighted in bold are the statements of key interest. Red is where I think you interpreted them wrong. He's not saying Bobbjoe was correct, he's saying that shooting someone from under 10 feet is always unacceptable, at least at his field.

[Iron__Man]

if the word surrender is given, you got about 2 seconds to either yell, hit, out, ok, or put the gun in the air before you take one. ive seen too many "cowboys" tyr to be cool and refuse rather than safely take the hit and leave with dignity.

[motherboard1]

Quote

o you have a surrender rule that's "mandatory". It gives the target NO CHOICE but the asker can either ask for the surrender of "LIGHT THEM UP". What the hell kind of field allows you to empty a hopper on some one at close range? (Are you understanding this much motherboard1 and Bobbjoe?)

Yes, I understand where your comeing from now that you point it out.

Ok, this particular choice of words on bobjoes part seems to be the cause for alot of the confusion. I for one, read into the origional post differently. You guys took "Lite em up" literally, to mean overshoot, or even "empty a hopper" on someone. I read right past it, and took it to mean "take them out" . Not for a second did I assume that bobjoe was trying to state that his field promotes over shooting. But a poor, ambiguous choice of words on bobjoes part yes.

Actually, for me, the connotation with "lite em up" comes from war movies, and just means shoot them.

And also I was going to point out something else, but jackson already said it.

Only now, do I finally understand what you guys were on about.

[Warpaint]

Bobbjoe, on Sep 25 2007, 07:40 AM, said:

i like the ignorance part...

You're welcome. "...I would prefer you just said thank you, and went on your way." Please note there is a world of difference between ignorance (not knowing) and stupidity (poorly applied intelligence). We all possess some level of unintended ignorance, myself included, but stupidity is usually completely self-inflicted.

Quote

And i'm not trying to "make myself feel better", i'm seeing what you guys would have done in that same situation.

And the title of this thread is, "Who's right?", so obviously, learning what we would have done in your situation was not your only intention. Your original and subsequent posts reveal that you sought to assuage your guilt via popularity here, as opposed to the black and white answer to whether what you did was field legal or not. That answer is, neither of you were right, unless your response under the situation you described abode by the field rules. Did they? If so, then you should have no issue to resolve here, no justification of your actions would be required, and no moral support sought. However, if your field has a mandatory surrender rule, your opponent cheated when he failed to yield. He should be out. However, under the rules I abide by, if he failed to go out, you should have cleared yourself, and taken a shot at your field's legal distance. If you shot him under the safe distance, you should be out as well. You may play by different rules at your field. All I did was explain the rules prescribed to me and which I abide by, and speculated how your actions would be viewed under those specifications, but you and a few others took objection to that because you failed to understand the rules I follow, which seem quite fair and simple to me and my fellow players. You may have broken the rules I am subjected to, but perhaps not those you are required to follow. You asked, several of us answered. You take objection to some of those answers, because they imply possible unfair play on your part, which does not change just because it is an unpopular view. But, if there was any guilt, it was ASSUMED, not indicated.

Quote

RIght and Warpaint, backing up dosn't make any sense. You back up, he oves up. Your both stuck in a freakin stalemate. Our field does seem to allow close range shots, (was playing against a ref once and he seriously lit me up from about 5 feet.) even though there is the surrender rule. One shot to the shoulder at about 9-10 feet, not a big deal. Its not like i emptied a hopper onto him.

If you read my posts, you will see I REPEATEDLY answered what I would have done in your situation: 1. Cleared myself and taken the shot, or 2.) barrel tagged, as allowed under the rules precribed to me and which I abide by. Again, the rules you follow may be different, not necessarily right/wrong/better/worse, just different. I also stated how 1.) I avoid such situations in the first place, and 2.) how I would extracate myself from such an event. I nor anyone else is stuck in any "freakin'" stalemate so long as we keep our feet moving, and our heads clear. Now you say your field SEEMS to allow close range shots, which further demonstrates a possible knowledge opportunity (ignorance) with regards to your field rules. Then you attempt to justify your behavior by claiming a previous negative experience with a ref lighting you up. And finally, one shot to the shoulder from 9-10 feet (which I think was 5 feet before) is not a big deal...unless that is below your field's safe disance rule. Do you see a common thread here? You are attempting to recreate the event to sooth some guilt you are experiencing.

The justifications you keep posting and elaborating on reveal the real reason for your post is that you are concerned you did something wrong, and you came here fishing for support and consolation, which some here well-intendingly and generously gave. But if you want the truth, be prepared that it may not be what you WANTED to hear. You FEEL you did something wrong, and that makes you uncomfortable, so you came here seeking the safety and comfort of similarly minded people. However, popular opinion will not change whether you did or did not follow the rules in the situation you are concerned about. If it bothers you, denying it was wrong doesn't change the past, but it does have implications for the future. If you made a mistake, admit to it, then correct it in the future. No lasting harm was done by the paintball, but continually attempting to bend the truth to resolve your guilt (IF you broke the rules) may damage your psyche.

So, if you want a black and white answer, present us with the black and white rules your field mandates, the FACTS regarding your event, and you will have your answer...before any of us even share our opinion. I presented you with the rules I follow where I play, and then ventured a speculation and my opinion of your actions as they would be considered against those rules. I presented ways in which your behavior may been right, how they may have been wrong...and for you to decide for yourself. By your reactions, I suspect you FEEL you did something wrong. Again, your behavior may have violated my field's rules, but not the ones at your field, so then you have no issue, and you can feel vindicated, righteous, and clean again. But then, you say you didn't ask us to make you feel better...or did you?

This post has been edited by Warpaint: 25 September 2007 - 10:16 AM

[PaintGuido]

Bobbjoe, on Sep 23 2007, 06:48 AM, said:

I need an opinion as to who is right in this situation:
Our field has a mandatory surrender rule. This means that id someone asks you to surrender at close range, your out, but you don't have to ask for a surrender, you can just lihg them up. Yesterday at the field i tried to bunker a guy, and when i was about 5 feet away i called for a surrender. He stood up and started running backwards with his gun pointed towrd me. I shot him once in the shoulder. He stared yelling and screaming and cursing me out for shooting after i caled a surrender. Who do you think is right?

I would have shot him, preferably in the mask. Running away after you call surrender on a guy is almost suicidal, at five feet, he should know that. Just ask my friend, he didn't know about the surrender rule, and I still think he has bruises.