For PR fenix, et al., since I said I would post my point here. And apologies in advance if i don't remember exactly who said what. A few points were made by others, not you, I'm responding to them in general, but since you seemed more genuinely interested in discussing the situation:
Here is how I saw the situation: I and Mauser walking, no hogs avail. I had opportunity to fire on him, did not, as I normally do not when pedestrian on pedestrian. after i turned around he meleed me. I agree it was legal in that context, (pedestrian on pedestrian, no hogs immediately available). My point was i didn't think it was very fair to give the impression you aren't going to attack, then do so. Seeing he is bfm, and, in my experience, most bfm's don't attack in that situation. further, doing so can raise complaints from other players, and on occasion warnings from bfm's that may have seen it a little differently, and i'd rather avoid the need to explain why i thought it was legal. Now I'm sorry I said anything, and should just take it as being an unfair situation, which is my next point:
Well, ironically, a bit later, i had the opportunity to kill (pedestrian on 2 opposing pedestrians, no hogs available in sight. note this is on (infinity?) where you do have to walk around to other side of base to see if there are hogs there, but none being in site on this side, and knowing I could easily be killed walking there against two enemy after what I just experienced, i naded and shot both as I was walking there. well, one of them was bfm, (not mauser but i've forgotten who), who says that is slaying.
I felt it was legal, as I was moving towards the other side to see if there were hogs there, and you aren't supposed to walk to navs on that map anyway, so the only way I can move is back and forth to look for hogs on either side of base)
As I recall after explaining the situation, mauser thought it legal as he understood it. I made a comment about what happens when you get aggressive, even though it's legal, and you I believe made the comment it was ok since I explained the situation.
So my other point is that, even when it's legal, if it appears it may not have been to a bfm and they warn you, then you have to stop and explain, which interrupts game play. Even if it's the same action a bfm can take, without explanation. So I guess I either accept the one-sidedness or take my chances on being kicked if I don't stop to explain. You also need to interpret this in the context that I want to be a fair player, and not even get any warnings. I know some feel it's ok up to the point of getting banned.
Regarding the comment about the range of BFM aggressiveness, in admin and gameplay:
I've had the range from one going out of their way to apologize for something that wasn't even their fault, to another that has warned me for what I was sure was legal, and wouldn't even respond to me on asking about it.
But I find many, in their game play, are good sports. I know someone said it doesn't matter as long as it's legal, and it doesn't matter if some choose not to 'be nice' and kill whenever the rules allow, but I maintain there is such a thing as sportsmanship. E.G. The rules allow me to kill even if we are ahead by 10, but I usually won't. I might shoot a few bullets to remind you I could,
but I'll let you stay alive. The rules allow me to kill pedestrian on pedestrian, or as a gunner kill as you are getting into a vehicle solo, etc., but I usually don't.
But, same as the 'nice guys finish last' syndrome, this point is lost on those (not you) who simply say, but it's legal, so what does it matter? Those that feel aggression within rules is ok, and those that want to be good sports, are wrong. With that, I disagree, and will occasionally make a point to this effect which is what started this whole discussion, and led to me getting a warning by a bfm...
oh well, i'll stop preaching to the wind now.
