DreamHack Summer 2013 Finnish Qual.
HLTV Ip's
-
(29)
(155)
(62)
(135)
(15)
(138)
(166)
(655)
(13)
(14)
(9)
(15)
(68)
(41)
(1)
(1)
(83)
(14)
(6)
(1)
(135)
(11)
(17)
(5)
(7)
-
-
-
deStrO
pRopaaNS
FACEIT
moxierawr
eSportEurope
Umeroff
Legal?
cl_righthand -1 is legal? Thanks
hacker:D
why do you even ask :ooooo
why do you even ask :ooooo
2012-07-13 23:18:33
+1 lol
i think he wants us to say "NO", then he'll use it
i think he wants us to say "NO", then he'll use it
2012-07-13 23:30:14
OFC NO
2012-07-13 23:21:15
Not being a valid value for that cvar, I highly doubt it.
2012-07-13 23:24:45
It's a very valid value dude
2012-07-14 09:54:51
Valid in what sense?
As far as I understand it it is either all the weapons on the right or all of them on the left. -1 breaks that "hegemony" and may not be that valid.
As far as I understand it it is either all the weapons on the right or all of them on the left. -1 breaks that "hegemony" and may not be that valid.
2012-07-14 23:25:21
lol
2012-07-15 01:48:05
Ahh, in that sense.
Please...
Please...
2012-07-16 00:56:22
Where did you get the understanding that all weapons should be one side? The developers of cs clearly did not think so. That command is no secret/mistake.
2012-07-15 12:03:18
Who is talking about the game developers?
The OP asks if the value is legal and that legality should be based on a set of rules not on what the developers thought or if the value (more than the command) is no secret or a mistake.
The OP asks if the value is legal and that legality should be based on a set of rules not on what the developers thought or if the value (more than the command) is no secret or a mistake.
2012-07-16 00:58:07
Then why do you answer "Not being a valid value for that cvar, I highly doubt it."? Clearly this is referring to what the developers think.
If it really isn't then i'd love to know what got you to make such a definitive statement.
Post edited 2012-07-16 15:58:01
If it really isn't then i'd love to know what got you to make such a definitive statement.
Post edited 2012-07-16 15:58:01
2012-07-16 15:50:16
Again, what is the relation between the developers and a cvar value being valid/legal?
2012-07-16 22:13:35
Since you haven't named any third parties I can only assume you were talking about cvar validity in the game itself. It's valid there.
Again, since this does not seem to be the case, please tell me in what context is it "not valid"? Tell you what. For every league/tourney you find that does not allow it I will link ten big ones that do.
Again, since this does not seem to be the case, please tell me in what context is it "not valid"? Tell you what. For every league/tourney you find that does not allow it I will link ten big ones that do.
2012-07-16 22:42:15
First you bring in the developers of the game and now some sort of 'third parties'. What's next before answering my question on where the relationship between the developers and the validity/legality of the cvar value is?
As for 'clearly' and 'only' assuming what you think I said or meant to say you should indeed pay more attention to what I write and don't rush reading it.
As I stated in #50 as far as I understand it 'mixed setups' are not allowed, thus it is either you have the weapons on one side or on the other.
If you know better, well, looking forward to read the names of those 'ten big leagues/tourneys' that state you are allowed to set this cvar to -1.
As for 'clearly' and 'only' assuming what you think I said or meant to say you should indeed pay more attention to what I write and don't rush reading it.
As I stated in #50 as far as I understand it 'mixed setups' are not allowed, thus it is either you have the weapons on one side or on the other.
If you know better, well, looking forward to read the names of those 'ten big leagues/tourneys' that state you are allowed to set this cvar to -1.
2012-07-16 23:02:38
"Not being a valid value for that cvar, I highly doubt it."
"not a valid value" SAIS WHO? If not the developers, then who? (that's the third party i'm talking about- most likely some major tournaments, leagues, or even minor ones, but NOPE. But you can't just be WRONG can you? so prove it!)
I'm just trying to figure out according to whom this is isn't allowed? I guessed developers, you say no. I ask who then, you say "lol, you thought it was the developers. what's up with that shit?". Avoiding the question.
Who sais mixed setups are not allowed?
And rules don't work that way honey. If it's not stated, it's allowed. So bascially every tournament ever allows it. And thus your original comment is invalid no matter how you look at it.
It's a very simple question. I've asked it five times now.
What.
Greater.
Jurisdiction.
Or.
Major tournament(s). (or minor, same deal)
does not allow this or states that weapons must be in one hand?
Post edited 2012-07-16 23:19:49
"not a valid value" SAIS WHO? If not the developers, then who? (that's the third party i'm talking about- most likely some major tournaments, leagues, or even minor ones, but NOPE. But you can't just be WRONG can you? so prove it!)
I'm just trying to figure out according to whom this is isn't allowed? I guessed developers, you say no. I ask who then, you say "lol, you thought it was the developers. what's up with that shit?". Avoiding the question.
Who sais mixed setups are not allowed?
And rules don't work that way honey. If it's not stated, it's allowed. So bascially every tournament ever allows it. And thus your original comment is invalid no matter how you look at it.
It's a very simple question. I've asked it five times now.
What.
Greater.
Jurisdiction.
Or.
Major tournament(s). (or minor, same deal)
does not allow this or states that weapons must be in one hand?
Post edited 2012-07-16 23:19:49
2012-07-16 23:15:36
You read #78, didn't you? Well, if you replied to it I presume you did but I just want to be sure.
If you had you would have seen that I use 'valid' in terms of 'legal' as that is what this thread is about, isn't it?
And legal is usually used in terms of a set of rules.
Therefore, again I don't understand why you refer to the developers but, it seems that as you know better than myself that I can't not be wrong (genius!) you just have to have it your way.
There isn't anything you have to figure out as I explained it quite clearly in my previous messages. Why should I avoid questions then? And if on my behalf I ask you it is because you do not seem to know what this thread is about.
Have you ever seen a mixed weapon setup in CS? In any match of a major tournament/league? If you have seen it, please, let me know.
With so many CS players willing to personalise their setup setting cl_righthand to -1 seems to be the less popular, again, as far as I understand it.
'If it is not stated, it's allowed'
Are you sure that rules work that way? If it isn't stated it just hasn't been defined or the set of rules assumes that the participants will understand, as I do, that in terms of weapons showing it is either one way or the other just as the own cvar name indicates, on the right hand side or not. Weapons on the left but the knife on the right? As said, I highly doubt it.
If you had you would have seen that I use 'valid' in terms of 'legal' as that is what this thread is about, isn't it?
And legal is usually used in terms of a set of rules.
Therefore, again I don't understand why you refer to the developers but, it seems that as you know better than myself that I can't not be wrong (genius!) you just have to have it your way.
There isn't anything you have to figure out as I explained it quite clearly in my previous messages. Why should I avoid questions then? And if on my behalf I ask you it is because you do not seem to know what this thread is about.
Have you ever seen a mixed weapon setup in CS? In any match of a major tournament/league? If you have seen it, please, let me know.
With so many CS players willing to personalise their setup setting cl_righthand to -1 seems to be the less popular, again, as far as I understand it.
'If it is not stated, it's allowed'
Are you sure that rules work that way? If it isn't stated it just hasn't been defined or the set of rules assumes that the participants will understand, as I do, that in terms of weapons showing it is either one way or the other just as the own cvar name indicates, on the right hand side or not. Weapons on the left but the knife on the right? As said, I highly doubt it.
2012-07-17 00:08:19
Well I asked who a dozen times just now. No answers still. But you did address the "'If it is not stated, it's allowed'" part. Yes; this is exactly how rules work with any decent event. There is a very good reason why tournaments and leagues have detailed rules.
For example; pretty much all rules state that cheating is not allowed. This is a pretty obvious rule right? Yet all tournaments write it. Even though it's completely obvious And if someone were to ch-WAIT
THAT GUY IS USING GUNS IN DIFFERENT HANDS. OH MY GOD THAT IS SO OBVIOUSLY WRONG WHY WOULD WE EVEN HAVE RULES ABOUT THAT. I MEAN ANY OF US TOURNAMENTS. EVER.
Now, I know that it is easy to argue when you exaggerate but you can read a very solid point between the lines too. A point I shouldn't be having to make. And you can replace cheating with using net_graph if you want a more comparable situation (though the cheating one works just the same). Basically i resort to arguments that are more fun to write since no matter how I look at I doubt that even you think it's not allowed.
tl;dr, it's never been addressed in rules, if someone used it at a major tournament nobody would comment on it. I mean; what would they say? "Please stop using that" -- "Why? It's not on the list of commands you may not use" -- "Because guns should be in the same hand" -- "......Why?" -- and i can't think of anything even close to reasonable here.
Post edited 2012-07-18 17:15:50
For example; pretty much all rules state that cheating is not allowed. This is a pretty obvious rule right? Yet all tournaments write it. Even though it's completely obvious And if someone were to ch-WAIT
THAT GUY IS USING GUNS IN DIFFERENT HANDS. OH MY GOD THAT IS SO OBVIOUSLY WRONG WHY WOULD WE EVEN HAVE RULES ABOUT THAT. I MEAN ANY OF US TOURNAMENTS. EVER.
Now, I know that it is easy to argue when you exaggerate but you can read a very solid point between the lines too. A point I shouldn't be having to make. And you can replace cheating with using net_graph if you want a more comparable situation (though the cheating one works just the same). Basically i resort to arguments that are more fun to write since no matter how I look at I doubt that even you think it's not allowed.
tl;dr, it's never been addressed in rules, if someone used it at a major tournament nobody would comment on it. I mean; what would they say? "Please stop using that" -- "Why? It's not on the list of commands you may not use" -- "Because guns should be in the same hand" -- "......Why?" -- and i can't think of anything even close to reasonable here.
Post edited 2012-07-18 17:15:50
2012-07-18 17:05:30
You can find all the answers in my messages as I do not built up developers/third party/whatever theories on the basis of this thread.
If this is how rules according to you work it is strange then that if something isn't covered by the rules, instead of 'not in the rules, it's fine', the tournament officers get together and decide on that action in place.
Therefore as I stated if it isn't in the rules it isn't defined just yet or there was not need to do so far.
I understand that you may be disappointed by most tournaments copy&pasting their rule set but that is, again, nothing this thread is about.
But from what I read you still think that you know me better than myself. Welcome to the club whoever its president is! Unfortunately, you are as wrong as the rest of its members.
I already stated that I highly doubt it is allowed.
As you still insist in the 'not addressed in the rules' I will repeat it once again, there wouldn't be any gathering of tournament refrees or admins ever and yet there they are in order to discuss things that are not addressed in the rules set.
I only hope that you didn't apply to yourself the tl;dr part regarding my message. If you did not you would have seen that there I indeed mention something close enough (as close as it can get honestly) to reasonable there.
In case you did, well, I repeat it again, the very own cvar name itself, cl_righthand. Thus it enables the user to show his/her guns on the righthand or not following the boolean (yes or no) nature so to speak of many other ingame commands. By using -1 you break that boolean nature (I know, you still think about the developers and such even though it would be interesting to see if it was actually intended by them to be that way) as you mix up the setup which isn't what the cvar is about or "asks" you for.
Therefore more than a cheat, a quite exaggerated comparison as you yourself have stated both in relation to cheat and net_graph which can actually be used to cheat, this would end more in the category of bugs, glitches or errors of the game. As long as the rules set does not list them directly in the 'Player Settings' that is.
Post edited 2012-07-19 02:08:36
If this is how rules according to you work it is strange then that if something isn't covered by the rules, instead of 'not in the rules, it's fine', the tournament officers get together and decide on that action in place.
Therefore as I stated if it isn't in the rules it isn't defined just yet or there was not need to do so far.
I understand that you may be disappointed by most tournaments copy&pasting their rule set but that is, again, nothing this thread is about.
But from what I read you still think that you know me better than myself. Welcome to the club whoever its president is! Unfortunately, you are as wrong as the rest of its members.
I already stated that I highly doubt it is allowed.
As you still insist in the 'not addressed in the rules' I will repeat it once again, there wouldn't be any gathering of tournament refrees or admins ever and yet there they are in order to discuss things that are not addressed in the rules set.
I only hope that you didn't apply to yourself the tl;dr part regarding my message. If you did not you would have seen that there I indeed mention something close enough (as close as it can get honestly) to reasonable there.
In case you did, well, I repeat it again, the very own cvar name itself, cl_righthand. Thus it enables the user to show his/her guns on the righthand or not following the boolean (yes or no) nature so to speak of many other ingame commands. By using -1 you break that boolean nature (I know, you still think about the developers and such even though it would be interesting to see if it was actually intended by them to be that way) as you mix up the setup which isn't what the cvar is about or "asks" you for.
Therefore more than a cheat, a quite exaggerated comparison as you yourself have stated both in relation to cheat and net_graph which can actually be used to cheat, this would end more in the category of bugs, glitches or errors of the game. As long as the rules set does not list them directly in the 'Player Settings' that is.
Post edited 2012-07-19 02:08:36
2012-07-19 02:05:21
Sticking to the original point here, you are saying that the referees would get toghther and discuss this (doubt it)? Say this happens. They choose not to allow it because of the name of the command.
This is bascially a tldr to the scenario in your world. I would imagine they wouldn't care even the sligtest about booleans and command values, but only the effects on the game. But if you really don't agree then I give up and we will have to agree to pretend to disagree.
Post edited 2012-07-20 01:58:12
This is bascially a tldr to the scenario in your world. I would imagine they wouldn't care even the sligtest about booleans and command values, but only the effects on the game. But if you really don't agree then I give up and we will have to agree to pretend to disagree.
Post edited 2012-07-20 01:58:12
2012-07-20 01:51:28
Once the things you think you know/foresee etc. come true let me know.
As a side joke I would even say that a German team would be the first one to draw the refrees' attention on this. And yes, they would discuss it and, as said, the cvar name itself is the most solid reason there is for it to not be allowed.
And it is not a scenario of my world. The cvar is the same for everyone else thus it applies to everyone.
As for the refrees not caring about cvar values, well, I do actually think they do even if for the players there is no apparent impact on the game.
If that is what you do not agree with, it is with the X competition staff you have to discuss not with me.
As a side joke I would even say that a German team would be the first one to draw the refrees' attention on this. And yes, they would discuss it and, as said, the cvar name itself is the most solid reason there is for it to not be allowed.
And it is not a scenario of my world. The cvar is the same for everyone else thus it applies to everyone.
As for the refrees not caring about cvar values, well, I do actually think they do even if for the players there is no apparent impact on the game.
If that is what you do not agree with, it is with the X competition staff you have to discuss not with me.
2012-07-20 19:32:21
So the cvar name really is the only reason you think they wouldn't allow it. Alrighty. Agree to disagree, with a condescending smirk on my face it is.
2012-07-20 20:12:38
Not the only reason but a good reason.
I do not know if refrees would decide on that the same as I would if I was in charge. And if you wanted to discuss with them on this as said, less condescension might help to be taken seriously.
I do not know if refrees would decide on that the same as I would if I was in charge. And if you wanted to discuss with them on this as said, less condescension might help to be taken seriously.
2012-07-20 20:26:00
I don't think you believe it's a good reason yourself. Keep telling me that but you can't fool yourself. So far your arguments have been laughable, and unless they take a severe change of direction you can keep talking by yourself.
2012-07-20 21:02:11
Say 'hello' to the rest of club members.
2012-07-20 21:05:29
Resorting to unrelated, obscure arguments that sound powerful without any contribution to the discussion doesn't make you any less wrong.
Post edited 2012-07-20 22:16:34
Post edited 2012-07-20 22:16:34
2012-07-20 22:16:27
Then you should indeed avoid telling me what I think or what I am wrong about. I already told you in #85 and you are still missing the point.
Add to that your 'unrelated, obscure arguments' of condescension and smirking and you do not seem the right person to give "thoughtful" advices to anyone.
Add to that your 'unrelated, obscure arguments' of condescension and smirking and you do not seem the right person to give "thoughtful" advices to anyone.
2012-07-20 22:32:13
This command doesn't follow the boolean nature. That is the only reason why admins could choose not to allow it, you say (if not, name the other arguments)
cl_righthand.
1=true
0=false
-1= neither true or false, but still technically correct since the weapons are not all in the right hand, but they are not all not in the right hand either. But it does break the boolean system.
I don't see why admins would care. Enlighten me. It doesn't affect gameplay. It doesn't affect their jobs. If I am missing any points that are in any way related to this post, please let me know. I can't see that you would have. Quote yourself or something, because I cannot find the specific parts.
Post edited 2012-07-20 23:08:39
cl_righthand.
1=true
0=false
-1= neither true or false, but still technically correct since the weapons are not all in the right hand, but they are not all not in the right hand either. But it does break the boolean system.
I don't see why admins would care. Enlighten me. It doesn't affect gameplay. It doesn't affect their jobs. If I am missing any points that are in any way related to this post, please let me know. I can't see that you would have. Quote yourself or something, because I cannot find the specific parts.
Post edited 2012-07-20 23:08:39
2012-07-20 23:07:13
And what exactly do you want me to tell you about admins caring or not? If I were to be one of the admins I would tell you what I have told you to justify my decision.
Moreover, you seem to forget that it also a setting accesible through the ingame menu. Is there a way of setting the cvar to -1 there? Not at all.
And again you insist on gameplay, and now add that it doesn't affect their jobs(??).
Enforcing the use of correct values seems to me quite a part of their jobs if they agree on my point of view. Remember the 'bugs, glitches and errors of the game' I refered to? That's in #85 too.
Moreover, you seem to forget that it also a setting accesible through the ingame menu. Is there a way of setting the cvar to -1 there? Not at all.
And again you insist on gameplay, and now add that it doesn't affect their jobs(??).
Enforcing the use of correct values seems to me quite a part of their jobs if they agree on my point of view. Remember the 'bugs, glitches and errors of the game' I refered to? That's in #85 too.
2012-07-20 23:47:47
The command menus have nothing to do with the command and how it works, and it's not a bug, a glitch or error. It's a feature. That does NOT happen by accident. There is nothing about the command that gives reason not to allow it.
2012-07-21 00:55:51
And why does it have nothing to do? The menus show the available values for a given setting listed, Right handed - Left handed, and -1, that is mixed setup, isn't featured there.
And setting the values through the console is considered an alternative way more than an 'extended' mode of doing so. In WCG it wouldn't be posible to use this -1 setting f.e. . Not a big issue as the actual available values are accessible through the aforementioned menus as said.
With your insistance on how the command works, will you again make reference to the gameplay etc.? More than bringing up solid arguments you seem to walk in circles bringing up the same things over and over.
As stated previously (see #85) it is not that I myself consider it a bug, glitch or error of the game (even though I am tempted to do so while a better names comes to my mind) but that I would include it in that section unless listed elsewhere, f.e. player settings.
Post edited 2012-07-21 01:19:45
And setting the values through the console is considered an alternative way more than an 'extended' mode of doing so. In WCG it wouldn't be posible to use this -1 setting f.e. . Not a big issue as the actual available values are accessible through the aforementioned menus as said.
With your insistance on how the command works, will you again make reference to the gameplay etc.? More than bringing up solid arguments you seem to walk in circles bringing up the same things over and over.
As stated previously (see #85) it is not that I myself consider it a bug, glitch or error of the game (even though I am tempted to do so while a better names comes to my mind) but that I would include it in that section unless listed elsewhere, f.e. player settings.
Post edited 2012-07-21 01:19:45
2012-07-21 01:19:14
Most settings aren't available through the menu, yet allowed (assuming the console is allowed as you pointed out iirc). And crosshair color is limited to five specific colours in the menu yet you may use the console for other values. That's no different to this command; visual change, more obscure values in console than menu. Completely allowed.
Post edited 2012-07-22 21:51:15
Post edited 2012-07-22 21:51:15
2012-07-22 21:47:41
I am aware that there are many settings only accesible through the console or further tuneable using it. But cl_righthand isn't one of these, correct?
As I have said, and you should have already gotten the idea by now, you choose either to have the weapons on your right hand or not. There is no further 'tuning' required.
And if you want to put the -1 value in the same basket than the additional colors for the crosshair, more than solid arguments as said you are simply twisting things just to fit them into your argumentation.
As I have said, and you should have already gotten the idea by now, you choose either to have the weapons on your right hand or not. There is no further 'tuning' required.
And if you want to put the -1 value in the same basket than the additional colors for the crosshair, more than solid arguments as said you are simply twisting things just to fit them into your argumentation.
2012-07-23 01:32:36
Saying that they are in completely different baskets, enough to get one of them not allowed through admin ruling when it already has not been not allowed in the rules with such a certainty that you can go into this discussion saying that "it isn't valid" is delusional. Have a good day.
Post edited 2012-07-23 02:40:32
Post edited 2012-07-23 02:40:32
2012-07-23 02:36:00
I backed up my point with solid reasons whereas you did not. And still saying that my argumentation is delusional is just another one of your twists. Come back with something more solid than that as said or stay at home smirking which you seem to do better.
2012-07-23 20:03:00
Your point is neither backed up or right. Either way your original comment is wrong; it is allowed until someone sais it's not (nobody has).
ESL: So many matches, a lot of people use this command, and it can be spotted very quickly. Now, if it was somehow questionable a lot of people would have tried to call them out on using it right? Well, if this has EVER happened the admins must have let it slide since nobody was breaking any rules. But to avoid it in the future they would have added it into the rules. Seems like they chose not to (they consider it allowed).
And the other option, well, means that pretty much everyone agrees that the command is fine and it has never even come up in the history of the league. Which really doesn't help you either.
Post edited 2012-07-23 22:15:26
ESL: So many matches, a lot of people use this command, and it can be spotted very quickly. Now, if it was somehow questionable a lot of people would have tried to call them out on using it right? Well, if this has EVER happened the admins must have let it slide since nobody was breaking any rules. But to avoid it in the future they would have added it into the rules. Seems like they chose not to (they consider it allowed).
And the other option, well, means that pretty much everyone agrees that the command is fine and it has never even come up in the history of the league. Which really doesn't help you either.
Post edited 2012-07-23 22:15:26
2012-07-23 22:09:59
If it isn't backed up you replied a lot without actually reading.
Seems legit as you don't accept anything else but your point of view. Way to go.
Seems legit as you don't accept anything else but your point of view. Way to go.
2012-07-23 22:15:16
Read edit. Explain why it hasn't been added to the rules at any point. And if the answer is "it hasn't come up" then that means thousands and thousands of matches have gone by without anyone noticing, reporting or caring (and how this doesn't demolish your train of thought too).
2012-07-23 22:17:23
If it hasn't been added ask the related admin team for the reason. I already stated why I wouldn't allow it. But you seemed to have missed that part.
There are many reasons why someone wouldn't report the setting if noticed. One of them considering it didn't affect the outcome of the match (which only you are referring to all the time but not me) or they just didn't care.
Even punishable things like net_graph haven't been reported because one of the teams saw that the opposing one won rightfully. Did that 'demolish' anyone's train of thought about it being a setting not to be checked?
As for 'everyone agreeing', well, Earth wouldn't be a donut even if everyone agreed on it, would it?
There are many reasons why someone wouldn't report the setting if noticed. One of them considering it didn't affect the outcome of the match (which only you are referring to all the time but not me) or they just didn't care.
Even punishable things like net_graph haven't been reported because one of the teams saw that the opposing one won rightfully. Did that 'demolish' anyone's train of thought about it being a setting not to be checked?
As for 'everyone agreeing', well, Earth wouldn't be a donut even if everyone agreed on it, would it?
2012-07-23 22:27:27
We aren't talking about your opinions. We are talking about whether or not this command is legal. If everyone agrees it is, well maybe this is wrong (because, God forbid, all the guns aren't in the same hand) but it is still legal nevertheless.
And for every sensible person who doesn't follow the the rules to death there are a few who will try even to report things that are perfectly fine (i've seen a few "opponent used autosniper, ban":s in my time.) Seems like this hasn't happened in any league, ever concerning _cl_righthand -1. If I get a response from an ESL admin, will you apologize for my troubles in this thread...?
And for every sensible person who doesn't follow the the rules to death there are a few who will try even to report things that are perfectly fine (i've seen a few "opponent used autosniper, ban":s in my time.) Seems like this hasn't happened in any league, ever concerning _cl_righthand -1. If I get a response from an ESL admin, will you apologize for my troubles in this thread...?
2012-07-23 22:36:37
The only one bringing up opinions is you. And now even "funny" references to God. That one nearly convinced me, "seriously".
And you keep going referring to 'sensible persons', non related ban reason etc. What for?
If you receive a reply fine, as I hope it will include the clear and unrefutable listing of it in the rules set, despite being a non valid value for that cvar.
If they do, well, ESL would accept it for their leagues whereas as stated WCG did not.
And you keep going referring to 'sensible persons', non related ban reason etc. What for?
If you receive a reply fine, as I hope it will include the clear and unrefutable listing of it in the rules set, despite being a non valid value for that cvar.
If they do, well, ESL would accept it for their leagues whereas as stated WCG did not.
2012-07-23 22:45:28
I was calling people who don't follow rules to death, ie the people who you mentioned, sensible.
And then I pointed out that there are just as many people who will do anything to win through the rules, and presented an example. That is why I brought it up. Thought it was pretty clear already...
And looking at the WCG rules http://www.wcg.com/6th/2009/games/rulePDF_NF/WCG_2.. the values for this command is not set in their list of commands with forced values. It's allowed at WCG as far as this pdf goes. Also throwing in there that clanbase has always allowed this command as confirmed by an admin. I'm not sure if you really thought you were right or if you were just arguing for the sake of it until I disproved you.
Post edited 2012-07-23 22:58:44
And then I pointed out that there are just as many people who will do anything to win through the rules, and presented an example. That is why I brought it up. Thought it was pretty clear already...
And looking at the WCG rules http://www.wcg.com/6th/2009/games/rulePDF_NF/WCG_2.. the values for this command is not set in their list of commands with forced values. It's allowed at WCG as far as this pdf goes. Also throwing in there that clanbase has always allowed this command as confirmed by an admin. I'm not sure if you really thought you were right or if you were just arguing for the sake of it until I disproved you.
Post edited 2012-07-23 22:58:44
2012-07-23 22:53:00
Pretty clear for what purpose? To add circles to those you already have walked so far?
WCG did not allow the use of console which is the only way of setting the -1 value. Quite understandable as pointed out in #105.
WCG did not allow the use of console which is the only way of setting the -1 value. Quite understandable as pointed out in #105.
2012-07-23 23:02:50
No, to point out that paragraphs two and three #118 are do not mean much.
Was this in all events? If they had any without this policy, it was allowed at wcg, with the exception of this umbrella ruling. If not, then the rules I posted do not make much sense, since most of those are not accessible through the WCG gui.
So it would seem like a few odd wcg events didn't allow it because of the umbrella console ruling. Doesn't justify announcing that it's highly unlikely allowed in genreral.
Post edited 2012-07-23 23:16:15
Was this in all events? If they had any without this policy, it was allowed at wcg, with the exception of this umbrella ruling. If not, then the rules I posted do not make much sense, since most of those are not accessible through the WCG gui.
So it would seem like a few odd wcg events didn't allow it because of the umbrella console ruling. Doesn't justify announcing that it's highly unlikely allowed in genreral.
Post edited 2012-07-23 23:16:15
2012-07-23 23:10:43
I told you that even things that are clearly against the rules aren't necessarily reported. It seems that they do indeed "mean" much taking that into account.
All recent WCG did use this policy which would invalidate any previous one, if there ever was, without it.
All recent WCG did use this policy which would invalidate any previous one, if there ever was, without it.
2012-07-23 23:28:42
And I told you that many people also do report stuff.
"invalidate any previous one"? It happened to not be allowed because of the umbrella rule and you know it. But I give up.
You win. _cl_righthand -1 is not allowed. See ya.
"invalidate any previous one"? It happened to not be allowed because of the umbrella rule and you know it. But I give up.
You win. _cl_righthand -1 is not allowed. See ya.
2012-07-23 23:35:31
Reports that actually do not add anything to the discussion. If someone had reported this setting by now it would be known how it was considered and one could or not agree to it.
Call it umbrella rule or whatever you prefer, the things is that it wasn't allowed. If you are able to understand this, taking into account your "furious" resistance it is quite a progress.
If you thought that this discussion was about winning you shouldn't have started it in the first place. I took a stand regarding the doubts I expressed and exposed the reasons to do so whereas most of the time you spent your time twisting things to your favour to invalidate them, apparently, at all costs more than trying to understand them. It might be helpful to improve your focus the next time.
Post edited 2012-07-24 00:09:46
Call it umbrella rule or whatever you prefer, the things is that it wasn't allowed. If you are able to understand this, taking into account your "furious" resistance it is quite a progress.
If you thought that this discussion was about winning you shouldn't have started it in the first place. I took a stand regarding the doubts I expressed and exposed the reasons to do so whereas most of the time you spent your time twisting things to your favour to invalidate them, apparently, at all costs more than trying to understand them. It might be helpful to improve your focus the next time.
Post edited 2012-07-24 00:09:46
2012-07-24 00:09:01
cl_righthand -1 makes the knife on the right and the weapons on left
Post edited 2012-07-13 23:27:08
Post edited 2012-07-13 23:27:08
2012-07-13 23:27:01
No, the values for the cvar commands are 0 or 1!
2012-07-13 23:29:45
yet it does work... :D
2012-07-13 23:32:34
its legal
2012-07-13 23:35:35
According to...?
2012-07-13 23:52:01
it doesnt give any advantage, logically its legal
2012-07-14 01:14:12
Not giving any advantage does not make it automatically legal in terms of rules.
2012-07-14 01:23:28
on esl is legal?
2012-07-14 09:38:28
Check their set of rules to know.
2012-07-14 23:06:43
Funny you changed your mind on whether the rules actually stating the matter matters or not so quickly.
Post edited 2012-07-22 21:52:59
Post edited 2012-07-22 21:52:59
2012-07-22 21:52:43
I did not change my mind at all. I hinted the user the first step, to check the rules set. But it is the user who has to take the second one, if not listed instead of happily assuming it to be legal contact ESL staff in order to be sure.
And do not replicate this discussion. Thank you.
Post edited 2012-07-23 01:40:03
And do not replicate this discussion. Thank you.
Post edited 2012-07-23 01:40:03
2012-07-23 01:39:02
cl_righthand: If it's set to -1, you'll have your guns on left hand and your knife on right hand. If it's set to 0, all weapons are on left hand. If it's set to 1, all weapons are on right hand.
source:http://elxdraco.net/scripting/cvarlist/
source:http://elxdraco.net/scripting/cvarlist/
2012-07-13 23:42:13
You already stated this in #8. Why do you repeat it?
2012-07-13 23:53:23
feelix:
its like asking if an aimbot is legal -.-
i explain better what cl_righthand -1 do.
Post edited 2012-07-13 23:58:22
its like asking if an aimbot is legal -.-
i explain better what cl_righthand -1 do.
Post edited 2012-07-13 23:58:22
2012-07-13 23:57:27
As said, you already explained it in #8 in case the user you address/quote (and you did not reply to) did not already know.
2012-07-14 00:08:00
I dont see any unfair advantage. It should be legal.
2012-07-14 00:03:17
same here
2012-07-14 00:16:13
+1
2012-07-14 09:45:33
cl_bob 0 is legal?
2012-07-14 11:22:26
illegal
2012-07-14 11:27:29
why cl_bob 0 is illegal ?
Post edited 2012-07-14 19:40:43
Post edited 2012-07-14 19:40:43
2012-07-14 19:40:22
yes
2012-07-14 21:05:35
he asked you why, not if it is or not!
2012-07-14 23:23:44
ahahahahahha
2012-07-15 02:00:49
if im not wrong it affects your recoil
2012-07-15 08:44:47
coz u cant see gun. for example ur hiding beh wall. and in some situations u can see gun of enemy. in that case u cant see it :D i hope u understood even with my shit english
2012-07-15 12:46:57
yes
2012-07-23 22:16:08
As far as i know it's not illegal. I dont think any rules specify that it is legal however. If you are really worried ask the event admin beforehand.
There is literally hundreds of commands in CS, not all of them are mentioned in rulebooks.
There is literally hundreds of commands in CS, not all of them are mentioned in rulebooks.
2012-07-14 11:46:51
in esl and for online gathers,and public is legal? thanks for your time.
2012-07-14 12:08:32
If there's no mention about it the rulebook -> legal, simple as that
2012-07-14 13:14:42
is there any rulebook which u can suggest for use or help???
or
is there any book which can give the explanation of all the commands???
pls suggest or give link if u have.....
or
is there any book which can give the explanation of all the commands???
pls suggest or give link if u have.....
2012-07-15 11:50:33
ofc its legal why shouldn't it be legal? you dont use any sort of program that is not from valve
2012-07-14 17:35:34
cl_bob 0 - is illegal
2012-07-14 18:30:53
Why it shouldn't be? I've always used it.
Post edited 2012-07-15 02:01:29
Post edited 2012-07-15 02:01:29
2012-07-15 02:01:13
I guess it's legal because it doesn't help you ingame
You just have the knife in the opposite hand of the gun.. this doesn't mean you'll be able to throw the knife in your enemy :P
You just have the knife in the opposite hand of the gun.. this doesn't mean you'll be able to throw the knife in your enemy :P
2012-07-15 09:14:00
Looking just at the visual part, it's the same as cl_righthand 0 and cl_lw 0. But I don't know if it has the same side effects('cause we know cl_lw 0 is illegal)
Post edited 2012-07-16 17:26:52
Post edited 2012-07-16 17:26:52
2012-07-16 17:26:36
it doesn't have any effect
the knife just stays in the righthand and the weapon in the lefthand
it doesn't affect the player movements etc
the knife just stays in the righthand and the weapon in the lefthand
it doesn't affect the player movements etc
2012-07-16 19:59:06
hacker
2012-07-20 03:11:00
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.
