Rules - for griefing
Discarded report reasons
THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT CONSIDERED BANNABLE OFFENSES - PLEASE DO NOT REPORT:
Camping
Slugging
Tunneling
Streamsniping
Teabagging
Bodyblocking
Looping
GRIEFING: INTENTIONAL GAMEPLAY ABUSE
- Working with the opposite team to gain an advantage or grief teammates
- Targeting specific users repeatedly in order to ruin their game experience
- Holding the game hostage
Now my problem is that under the 2nd part of griefing - "Targeting" (babysitting /tunneling) specific users repeatedly in order to ruin gameplay not the definition of tunneling babysitting?
Tagged:
Mod
Comments
Only if you doing it to the same player over multiple matches
This
Although I'm not sure how someone could follow you game to game (and then how do you prove it) but tunneling in an individual game is not what that line is referring to.
Its more about someone remembering specific player, and trying to destroy their gaming experience everytime they play against them. It doesn't have to be in a row. But yes its probably hard to prove unless you saving clips from those games
Fair I suppose. I just feel like unless they're dumb and come out and say "I'm going to harass you every game I play you in my ha ha haaaa" it'd be damn near impossible to prove but I suppose BHVR has it in there to cover the base.
That is reading into it. That is what they are trying to state but not what it reads. Reword it. Cause how it reads and stands is not meaning if you read it straight.
If you can prove the intention is to grief the player then yes, it is an offense. But targeting a survivor to help you win is allowed.
Can we appreciate that slugging and looping are on there? 😂
I'm confused as to what it is that you don't quite understand?
It clearly says, targeting specific players repeatedly, that's definitely not the definition of tunneling and in fact tunneling is specifically listed as a non-reportable offence within the game.
"Repeatedly" means over the span of several games, not within one game. And things that provide a tactical advantage always have plausible deniability. Griefing typically requires postgame chat evidence to prove intent.
you would have to prove the killer is singling out one player repeatedly as I understanding ... over several games.. very tough and you need evidence.
Splitting hairs. If you read the sentence as it stands. Tunneling is defined as a grief offence. You are reading into the sentence adding context. No where does it state more than one game. Targeting a specific person repeatedly (repeatedly is defined more than once...(tunneling)) in order to ruin their game experience. As people are aware tunneling is a toxic move (yes I agree it is a strategy that some use). Babysitting can defined in this section too cause killer is causing grief ruining their game experience. Tunneling and babysitting do cause grief and are ban-able offences but we won't do anything about it.
No you are purposefully ignoring context and intentions of the developers to say tunneling should be bannable.
It's right there stated tunneling is not bannable. Sure the developers may have worded it wrong. Don't go putting words in the devs mouths, tunneling is still not bannable.
Adding context is "Not" the job of the reader. Simple example the dog jumped? Which way did the dog jump? Further on: The dog jumped away? Again did the jump up, down, left or right? Now go back and read grief 2nd amendment. Targeting - aiming at one person - tunneling. Repeatedly - defined more than once, twice, or more. Then if you are unhooked and then re-targeted (again) and hit there is repeat and rebooked. You just defined the 2nd amendment to grief. Then further on causing to ruin game experience. Tunneling and babysitting then do ruin game experience. All summed up in that sentence. Then it is a contradiction of terms. Tunneling and babysitting do cause grief and are ban-able offences but we won't do anything about it. Is the contradiction they chose to ignore.
Repeatedly is the word that I think you are having trouble with...repeatedly is not tunneling. Especially when we specifically state tunneling is not reportable.
This is nothing that we've chosen to ignore - the killer is free to tunnel and camp in a match, it's considered to be part of the game.
What becomes an issue, is if someone is specifically targeted over the course of several matches and the target is them and them only - hence the word repeatedly.
You're being overly pedantic. This isn't a legal document, it's quite clear what they mean.
I'm just curious, can slugging be reportable if the killer wastes your time? Essentially, taking the game hostage is when you cannot progress the game, but if the killer keeps slugging me then picks me up, nevering hooking me, wouldn't that be considered taking the game hostage? Like sure, I'm eventually going to bleed out, but I'm losing 2-5 seconds of my bleed-out meter everytime he does this. I don't have hours to spare trying to wait for me to bleed out after hundreds of cycles.
You state these are not bannable offenses Camping, tunneling, and slugging. Yet state "Grief" offences then describe the offences that are not bannable??? If these cause grief during game play. If survivors disconnect due to camping, slugging, and tunneling: you contradict yourself. Obviously this caused the player grief and poor gaming experience. Wouldn't they have stayed on then? Then furthermore the game penalizes them for having a grief issue. Now tell me how grief is defined if not all right there as described???
Camping - causes grief due to poor gaming experience and is targeted by killer by not letting them be rescued.
Tunneling : causes grief due to poor gaming experience due to being being targeted and repeatedly downed/hooked.
Slugging : causes poor gaming experience due to unsportsmanlike conduct. Refusing to hook the player and move on. Targeted for being upright in a moveable position and not on ground.
Yet these offences are bannable buy we at dbd choose to ignore them for whatever reasons.
I have a question about tunneling. I've seen it said that tunneling is not reportable / bannable unless it happens repeatedly, I think specifically across several matches. How often does one ever actually go against the same player across multiple matches in a single month, let alone a single day? The math is almost completely against it.
I don't have a dog in the fight, I generally don't feel tunneled in the vast majority of my games. I'm just wondering how the line is drawn regarding the frequency of perceived tunneling. It seems so subjective.
Believe the term "babysitting" would be more synonymous with farming than tunneling.
Either that or I should never hire a babysitter.
I honestly wouldn't mind being slugged if the entire time I was down there was a running counter increasing my survival score. Say 25 or 50 points per second? Then there would at least be a buffer to soften the blow of just sitting there being deprived of playing the game. Increase that accumulating score for each survivor that is removed from the match. That way when you're the last person alive being slugged and sitting there for four minutes is getting you 100 points a second. That wold make being completely removed of your agency much more tolerable in my opinion.
no, I will tell you again that camping, tunelling & slugging are not bannable, or reportable or griefing. They are actually mechanics that can be used in the game.
^ from the game rules, for examples of griefing. Which is targetting a specific user over several matches (as it says repeatedly, this is not repeatedly in the same match!), or working with the opposing team in order to grief team mates. Those are what is considered griefing in game, camping/tunelling/slugging is not!
Dude, a mod is literally telling you that isn't bannable. Do you want BHVR to get a lawyer to draft up the rules in legalese so they're incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't have a thesaurus nearby?
I got "D's" in basic English for this exact reason. You say one thing then demand another. Right there I agree you state not "BANNABLE OFFENCES" but then state "GRIEF" and describe bannable offences. How can you say not bannable then describe bannable and then dismiss it? Your logics is flawed.
Just as you read something doesn't mean it means the same to me. No where does it state time frame. If you got time frame out of grief section, good for you. I don't see it. If you like forked tongue people that is on you. I like it written out right not in contradictory terms.
Her logic is fine. If it helps, think of the "not bannable" part to be exceptions.
It's not contradictory, it only seems that way to you because your starting point is "all these things are griefing". Everyone else understood the implication (that the devs - the people whose opinions matter in determining what is or isn't bannable - don't consider tunneling, slugging, camping, etc., to be griefing), you didn't.
With that logic you can make the argument for any slight thing that can annoy a player.
Teabagging
Flashlight clicking
Looping
Gen rushing
None of these are bannable nor should they be
In theory a player can disconnect over the slightest little thing: not liking a perk then not liking a killer using your logic all of these should be considered griefing.
Can you see how ridiculous it sounds when you apply logic
I'm locking this as it keeps going back and forth, but MandyTalk has described it perfectly.
Tunneling is listed as a non bannable offense as it isn't one. If you tunnel people in one game, you most likely tunnel multiple people or maybe for this one game one person.
However, the griefing part refers to repeated and targeted harassment. Those are NOT just tunneling. This is the sentence in the rules:
Two keywords: Targeting and repeatedly. It's when you intentionally ruin the experience for one user only and only them, repeatedly. Not just once. Not just twice, but multiple times.
It is very clear that tunneling itself is not bannable, but griefing someone and repeatedly targeting them to ruin their game experience each time you face them, that is clearly bannable.