Rule 9

[Birthday Party]

Okay we were discussing Rule 9 in Pub a little bit. As a thing that is illegal, it says:

"9. Running multiple clients or using any of which to hunt people from spectator mode."

Okay, as it reads, the "which" refers to the "multiple clients" being ran. So it says using any of multiple clients to spec hunt is illegal, but not spec hunting itself, as in using only one client to find where someone is and then switching from spec.

Was that the intent of the statement of the rule? Or is spec hunting supposed to be illegal whether you do it with multiple clients or not?

[D1st0rt]

I would interpret "using any of which" to mean no clients should be used for spec hunting

[Left_Eye]

This is where legal courses come in handy:

"9. Running multiple clients or using any of which to hunt people from spectator mode."

Let's break it down.

The obvious fact is that using multiple clients to spec hunt is illegal. So if you have one in spec, while playing with the other, and use it to find someone on the map and hunt them, that's strictly illegal.

However, let's read more into it.

"9. Running multiple clients or using any of which to hunt people from spectator mode."

If you think about it, the "using any of which" can be specified towards even using one of those clients to spec hunt. So, that covers the entire spec hunting rule. If you are using one client (and one client to play only), and you are using it to spec hunt somebody, then that is considered using one of those "any of which" clients to spec hunt somebody. So overall, spec hunting is illegal, and so is running multiple clients.

Two birds. One stone.

P.S. I just noticed that D1st0rt said it before I could. Damn.

[Ewan]

I agree the wording is slightly off. I tries to combine 2 only slightly related rules into 1 rule which can lead to some confusion.

If I was to read this not already knowing the rules I would interpret is as such:

Running multiple clients - Ok fair enough, I can't use more than 1 Continuum client

or using any of which to hunt people from spectator mode. - Well, it's said I already can't have 2 running, so why do they include what I can't do with any of these multiple clients? Oh well it must just be redundant wording from an old set of rules or something.


I wouldn't interpret it as saying I can't spec hunt generally.

[Birthday Party]

L.E:

But how could running one client be considered to be running one of multiple clients as you say? There wouldn't be any multiple clients to be speak of which that one client could be one of...

[Birthday Party]

I agree the wording is slightly off. I tries to combine 2 only slightly related rules into 1 rule which can lead to some confusion.

If I was to read this not already knowing the rules I would interpret is as such:

Running multiple clients - Ok fair enough, I can't use more than 1 Continuum client

or using any of which to hunt people from spectator mode. - Well, it's said I already can't have 2 running, so why do they include what I can't do with any of these multiple clients? Oh well it must just be redundant wording from an old set of rules or something.


I wouldn't interpret it as saying I can't spec hunt generally.

They might have meant it like this, connecting the purpose clause("to hunt people from spectator mode") to both the "running multiple clients" and the "using any of which" clauses:

"Don't spec hunt with multiple clients, and this also means (to clarify) not spec hunting with one client and running other clients."

You can see why they would include the "any of which" if you read it this way: Because it would be left ambiguous if they didn't also specify that using one of multiple clients to spec hunt is also illegal, because if you just said "Running multiple clients to hunt people from spectator mode" someone might think that means that you have to use multiple clients in spectator mode in order for it to be illegal, whereas with the "or any of which" addition it clarifies that it's also illegal to use just one of those multiple clients in spectator mode while hunting people.

Anyway, if you read it that way, it would say that running multiples is illegal if you're doing it in order to spec hunt, and wouldn't say anything about running multiple clients if not spec-hunting, and also it wouldn't say anything about spec hunting in general, but only that it is illegal if done with multiple clients.

[EnFlAmE]

I spec hunt every day










in dd and jd's ^_^

[Static Burn]

I can still use multiple clients to rig votes in elim though right?

[Birthday Party]

I can still use multiple clients to rig votes in elim though right?

Only if you vote Lev.

[Left_Eye]

L.E:

But how could running one client be considered to be running one of multiple clients as you say? There wouldn't be any multiple clients to be speak of which that one client could be one of...

Sorry. I should make myself more clear. When reading the rule, more in depth, you can see that "using any of which", which is referring to the client aspect. Not the multiple part.

"9. Running multiple clients or using any of which to hunt people from spectator mode."

The green writing is referring to the red writing. I wish I coudl draw arrows, but this is as close as it gets.

So, to make it more clear, the way you should read it is follows:

"9. Running multiple clients or using any [client] of which to hunt people from spectator mode."

On the 2nd part of the rule, you only refer to the client, not the multiple.

[Dameon Angell]

One unique soul per user name on at one time
No spec hunting

[EnFlAmE]

One unique soul per user name on at one time
No spec hunting

what about domnestic animals since they have souls aswell?

[H.M.S. Stargazer]

what about domnestic animals since they have souls aswell?

Do they?

[Birthday Party]

Sorry. I should make myself more clear. When reading the rule, more in depth, you can see that "using any of which", which is referring to the client aspect. Not the multiple part.

"9. Running multiple clients or using any of which to hunt people from spectator mode."

The green writing is referring to the red writing. I wish I coudl draw arrows, but this is as close as it gets.

So, to make it more clear, the way you should read it is follows:

"9. Running multiple clients or using any [client] of which to hunt people from spectator mode."

On the 2nd part of the rule, you only refer to the client, not the multiple.

Clearly the rule bans using "any [client]" of some sort to hunt people from spectator mode, as you say, I think we could all agree on that. But it modifies that object with the partitive genitive "of which." So any [client] of [some group] to hunt people from spectator mode is banned. The question is what is that group? You say that it refers to clients in general, but I just don't see how (maybe I'm missing something), because clients in general are never mentioned, only clients which are decribed as multiple and being ran. For example you say it refers only to "clients" in the previous part of the rule (as you mark in red), but that's the very object which is described as multiple and being ran!

It would be like this: "No petting brown dogs or throwing to any of which a bone." Would you read that rule as banning the throwing of a bone to dogs in general, or only to brown dogs? I think it would have to be brown dogs, because the which is referring to "dogs" in the previous clause which are defined as brown ones.

Maybe a general question is better, this previous discussion is all purely theoretical and not really what I want to get at even though I do find it interesting: Who makes up the rules and what really is their intention on this issue?

[Blood]

That's just a retarded effort at elaborate wording. It's bad English. It's bad communication and that's not worth anything to anyone. The whole sentence is ungrammatical to begin with since it's supposedly an answer to the question "What's illegal in TW?". You can't just separate the two answers with "or" and expect to be able to refer to the first part with "any of which" with no confusion. They're two separate answers. I'd go to my grammar books to construct a clearer explanation but it wouldn't be worth it.

Perhaps the simplest way would be to replace "which" with "them" or if you don't like that, write them as separate rules.