And I am sure you know mine as well. I am not going to bother to explain it in the chatbox because I can make the clear coherent thought here.
Do you know what is nice about rules? They are clear and concrete. If I say you can do X, then you can do X. If I say you can't do Z, you can't do Z.
Stability and having something to grab a hold of in any argument, especially on the internet, is entirely necessary and the way you are proposing to deal with this issue does not give that.
Here you have stated that abuses should be reported. Well what warrants an abuse? Is it situational? Is it a certain number? What is or is not an abuse is extremely variable. One person may think something is necessary while another may believe that it was ridiculous.
There are thousands of different scenarios in which flash steps can be used and trying to put a label on what an abuse is is nearly impossible. Each specific instance has its reasons, its results, and specific factors influencing it.
You have said that they should be used as little as possible but they are used for other things then just dodging. They could be used to run around an area trying to confuse an enemy. They could be used to catch up to a thrown weapon. They can be used to get close to your opponent for an attack.
So what about these uses. Are these allowed? Are we only restricting people on the loldodging? But that then opens the doorway for people to just use them repeatedly to get close to their opponent which can be just as frustrating as anything else.
Or here is another question. What is a loldodge? If someone could dodge an attack but chooses to do so by a flash step to get into a good position for their next attack is that a loldodge or no? What about the same scenario except they couldn't have done a regular dodge but would have taken only a little damage and didn't take a hit because they wanted to get into that good position?
Is it only a loldodge if they are dodging a really dangerous technique? But wouldn't that also be the most reasonable time to do it? I mean if you have a super dodge move, wouldn't you use it when you are in the most danger? But that is also when it looks the most like a loldodge. And if they are near death, instead of saying that it is okay to use them then, wouldn't realistically it be more difficult to have trouble using a flash step if your organs are coming out of your side?
And as briefly mentioned earlier, what about how its original use, to cross distances quickly? If you are fighting with an opponent in close range and use a flash step to increase the distance between you, that seems reasonable right? But what if you used it also because they were about to decapitate you. Is it still reasonable or is it now a problem.
Now to add some more trouble to the mix. What about specific users? Do specific individuals or groups get more leniency when it comes to flash step use? Does the lieutenant of second division get the ability to use it more often without it being considered an abuse or is he the same as everybody else since it is based on when it is more of a loldodge. But wait, even the definition of a loldodge isn't that clear anyways so it all reverts back to square one anyways.
Now that I have torn that apart, lets move on to the final problem. How do you respond to someone that has been reported as having abused flash steps? Do you take points away? Do you just tell them they are naughty and slap them on the wrist? Do I kick them off the forum for a day? Do we make it so they can't use flash steps for the rest of the fight?
Do we just tell them to change their last post and tell them to take out the flash step from it? And if we did that, what would we do from there? Would we tell them to wait a bit before using it again and if so how many posts? And if they still use it before then, what do you do in that situation?
Each of these different ways we could respond has its pros and its cons as well. There is no "right" way to respond. And then since there is no set way of deciding what is or isn't an abuse, what happens if your opinion on something changes over time?
For example what if at one point someone dodges at a certain point and we say it is okay. Then a week later someone else does it and we have decided in retrospect that we shouldn't have okayed it the first time and tell the second person it is abuse. Then how do we respond if they say they specifically did that type of dodge BECAUSE we had already approved it in the past. Do you still tell them to change, make a rule about it for future reference, or do something to the person who was originally allowed to do it?
This could also happen in reverse. What if we had at some point told someone they couldn't use a flash step in a certain situation and change our minds for a later case? How do you make it up to the person who we originally said no to? At best we seem inconsistent, at worst we could go as far as seeming to play favorites.
The problem with your argument is that to fully be used properly you have to prepare for basically any situation that comes your way, define abuse and loldodge, and set up what penalties will be used on those specific offenses. In the end the system you are trying to have set up is far more confusing, far less stable, and altogether weaker then a concrete rule.
If you already have it planned out exactly how you will respond to these questions, then I would love to hear it. But I honestly don't think you can answer all of this in the system you wish to set up without it being extremely complicated.
This is also the same reason that I have never done anything about people abusing flash steps in the first place. It creates too much of a gray area and more problems then it solves. So in my opinion we either go back to the way it was before where the staff tactufully ignores flash step spam and I will continue to get complaints.
Or we go with a more concrete rule to explain exactly what can or can't be done.
If you think you can put together a better way however, I would love to hear your response in this topic.
