Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2019-12-15, 06:30 WE ARE RECRUITING
Sign in to follow this  
AndreyQ

Executions.

Recommended Posts

If I know somebody is lying about shit but they continue to give me "I literally got to this region like 2 hours ago" why shouldn't I execute them? They're not valuing their lives, I've made it clear I know he's lying, I've made it clear I know he's making it up and he's choosing to actively not give in to the RP at all. There are genuinely some people who you can torture relentlessly and will still give 0 information at all. There are some people that actively opt to have as little input in the RP as possible because they do not like the party who has taken them

Bottom line, you get caught lying repeatedly you face the consequences. If you're consistently lying to me and I know  you are how are you being compliant to my demand of "give me factual and accurate information." The answer: You're not. If you choose to lie constantly and I know you're making it up, you're not complying with my demand ergo I will execute you for it if  you keep it up. I completely value the roleplay at hand and I will never execute a hostage who gives me stellar roleplay and actively engages with the storyline. But if you choose to be a lying sack of shit, not comply with my demand of "give me factual information" then you deserve the bullet coming your way. 

As a side note, I get it sometimes hostages may not know the answer to a question but we have always worked with hostages and worked around that. We have never executed for somebody not knowing an answer and will always give the benefit of the doubt until further notice. I'm sure @Franny, @Scarlettand @RedSky can all attest that we give the benefit of the doubt at first. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, AndreyQ said:

snip

 

I can agree with some of the concerns above. However I'd like to ask how you feel the best way to handle the concerns Roland brought up in the overturning of the verdict: People being asked ridiculous things that will kill groups.

 

It has come up more then once in game that people have been taken hostage and ordered to take you to your group bases location, turn over information, etc. This pretty much railroads and forces stories into poor arcs where its 'die or snake' that will end stories and groups before they can have fun. I agree that in some situations hostages really should just reveal the information after an extended torturing, but the issue is never about the people using the rule as intended, but always about the people trying to stretch it that extra mile. 

 

When would it be asking too much? 

Can you ask a hostage to turn over every stash location of your group?

Can you ask a hostage to turn over every base of their group?

Can you ask a hostage to turn over the names and details of every single member of the group?

Their allies? Plans? Etc?

 

Where would you draw the line with things you can interrogate out of a hostage?

Share this post


Link to post

Nice beanz farm Andrey.

I agree with your points, hostages seem to have interactions stacked more and more in their favour. Maybe they can't get the optimal outcome but they're sure as shit not going to lose anything precious like life, limb or group security because the rules allow it currently. 

2 minutes ago, Rover said:

-snip-

The issue addresses hostages lying when their captors have a reasonable belief that they may be holding out; for example: I capture a gun-runner in-game and I know he never keeps all of his merchandise on him. I interrogate him and ask him to lead me to the location of his merch or I'll torture then kill him. With our current ruleset, I can't make good on my threat as most torture that has a lasting impact requires permission and an execution doesn't really further RP. As a hostile RPer I get no progression whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Rover said:

Can you ask a hostage to turn over every stash location of your group?

Yes. And as such I will mark 5 random locations that have nothing to do with where my stashes actually are. Words are lies when you can prove them as such. If the hostage takers don't know where my stashes are they can't execute me for giving them false info.

5 minutes ago, Rover said:

Can you ask a hostage to turn over every base of their group?

Yes. Same applies as above.

 

5 minutes ago, Rover said:

Can you ask a hostage to turn over the names and details of every single member of the group?

Yes. Again same applies as above.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Rover said:

-snip-

When would it be asking too much? 

Can you ask a hostage to turn over every stash location of your group?

Can you ask a hostage to turn over every base of their group?

Can you ask a hostage to turn over the names and details of every single member of the group?

Their allies? Plans? Etc?

 

Where would you draw the line with things you can interrogate out of a hostage?

If a hostage gives me even one stash location i'm usually satisfied and will not press on constantly, nor will i execute him for only giving me 1 stash location. They gave me something to work with. 

Bases are difficult. If we're talking base codes for something like Wolfpack why shouldn't I be able to get codes from him? It could be a sneaky way into their settlement if we're shut out, a way for us to raid a group we're hostile with that isn't attrition. 

Names? Yeah sure. I never execute somebody for failing to give me every single member of their group, but if you give me 6 names I've never heard AT ALL of I'm going to question the validity of your "information". 

Ultimately you can interrogate everything out of your hostage, the thing that should matter is the roleplay that follows after getting that information. Does having base codes mean i'm going to dogbrain a camp? No. It means I have an in. In means I have a way in should I need or want to attack. Does failing to give up all group members mean you should be executed? Of course not. Ultimately if you give me something to work with I will always be satisfied. The problem here lies with the fact a hostage "can" lie constantly and give me nothing but bullshit throughout, which i know is bullshit, and with Roland's verdict i physically cannot do anything to stop him. It's a dead end to hostile RP. You've made hostages invulnerable because they do not "have" to give anything remotely useful up. It's over-protection of hostages.

Share this post


Link to post

In response to you @Rover:

 

When would it be asking too much? 

There wouldn't be a limit, the hostages should comply within value for their own lives, the hostage takers can ask what they please. This is the cornerstone of hostile roleplay and the roles can easily be reversed at any time. 

Can you ask a hostage to turn over every stash location of your group?

Yes, of course you can. They're welcome to lie however.

Can you ask a hostage to turn over every base of their group?

Same as above.

Can you ask a hostage to turn over the names and details of every single member of the group? Their allies? Plans? Etc?

Same as above.

-

Essentially what you find is true from the OP's perspective, there are too many OOC rules in place to protect hostages when it really isn't needed to this degree. Hostage takers should be able to call out someone they know is lying and use that as a matter of non-compliance, which it is. Hostage takers should be able to ask for anything they please, after all they are now in the vulnerable position of defending themselves, their hostage and their best interests all while maintaining RP and questioning. Just because a hostage lies and chooses to never break the lie indicates far more to me a lack of value for their lives and an OOC knowledge that in some, now proven, way they'll not be punished for it. 

There are outlying contexts, exceptions to the rule of course, but this was an identifiable threat with identifiable repercussions. If it falls outside of that the same rulebreaks apply that usually do anyway, why provide more defence of the already heavily defended OOC? 

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, AndreyQ said:

Yes. And as such I will mark 5 random locations that have nothing to do with where my stashes actually are. Words are lies when you can prove them as such. If the hostage takers don't know where my stashes are they can't execute me for giving them false info.

Yes. Same applies as above.

Yes. Again same applies as above.

 

This will likely prevent any change in being made to how the rules are handled.

It puts people in that 'pick your poison' situation Roland mentioned, which removes all enjoyment for the hostage in the situation, as they are presented with two options: Break their characters moral compass, or have their character executed and get hit with an NVFL ban.

 

Personally, my fix to your dilemma presented in the OP would be to remove NVFL bans for lying, but thats not a perfect solution or perfect fix. It would allow people to at the least not face as dire a 'pick your poison' scenario. 

 

19 minutes ago, APositivePara said:

If a hostage gives me even one stash location i'm usually satisfied and will not press on constantly, nor will i execute him for only giving me 1 stash location. They gave me something to work with. 

Bases are difficult. If we're talking base codes for something like Wolfpack why shouldn't I be able to get codes from him? It could be a sneaky way into their settlement if we're shut out, a way for us to raid a group we're hostile with that isn't attrition. 

Names? Yeah sure. I never execute somebody for failing to give me every single member of their group, but if you give me 6 names I've never heard AT ALL of I'm going to question the validity of your "information". 

Ultimately you can interrogate everything out of your hostage, the thing that should matter is the roleplay that follows after getting that information. Does having base codes mean i'm going to dogbrain a camp? No. It means I have an in. In means I have a way in should I need or want to attack. Does failing to give up all group members mean you should be executed? Of course not. Ultimately if you give me something to work with I will always be satisfied. The problem here lies with the fact a hostage "can" lie constantly and give me nothing but bullshit throughout, which i know is bullshit, and with Roland's verdict i physically cannot do anything to stop him. It's a dead end to hostile RP. You've made hostages invulnerable because they do not "have" to give anything remotely useful up. It's over-protection of hostages.

I appreciate thats how you will go about it! I'm glad to hear you would let people slide without turning over all the things.

 The issue becomes though we need a way to have rules that protect the hostages from X or Die, rules that allow the hostile roleplayers to be able to have teeth in a hostage situation, but doing this in such a way that its not open to interpretation or being stretched/bent. Its a very difficult balance, and one that can't really be accomplished by just trusting people to know better, as sorry as that is to say. 

 

14 minutes ago, Baron said:

In response to you @Rover:

 

When would it be asking too much? 

There wouldn't be a limit, the hostages should comply within value for their own lives, the hostage takers can ask what they please. This is the cornerstone of hostile roleplay and the roles can easily be reversed at any time. 

Can you ask a hostage to turn over every stash location of your group?

Yes, of course you can. They're welcome to lie however.

Can you ask a hostage to turn over every base of their group?

Same as above.

Can you ask a hostage to turn over the names and details of every single member of the group? Their allies? Plans? Etc?

Same as above.

-

Essentially what you find is true from the OP's perspective, there are too many OOC rules in place to protect hostages when it really isn't needed to this degree. Hostage takers should be able to call out someone they know is lying and use that as a matter of non-compliance, which it is. Hostage takers should be able to ask for anything they please, after all they are now in the vulnerable position of defending themselves, their hostage and their best interests all while maintaining RP and questioning. Just because a hostage lies and chooses to never break the lie indicates far more to me a lack of value for their lives and an OOC knowledge that in some, now proven, way they'll not be punished for it. 

There are outlying contexts, exceptions to the rule of course, but this was an identifiable threat with identifiable repercussions. If it falls outside of that the same rulebreaks apply that usually do anyway, why provide more defence of the already heavily defended OOC? 

The reason those OOC rules are in place is to forwards the enjoyment of RP for everyone. If any hostile player can just grab someone and order them to spill their whole life story, on penalty of having your character executed and shelved, I can guarantee you very few hostages would ever find that fun, and the community population will decline as groups that aren't the dominant PVP-skilled group will fail to be able to do anything to stop this behavior. It would be the 'loophole' to force either an NVFL, or to force someone into snaking. Neither of which are entirely enjoyable.

 

 

It was made clear in how Roland overturned the verdict what his expectation is, and the best suggestion I have to change it is to find a compromise that fits within the spirit of what he is looking for, and offer that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Rover said:

-snip-

I appreciate thats how you will go about it! I'm glad to hear you would let people slide without turning over all the things.

 The issue becomes though we need a way to have rules that protect the hostages from X or Die, rules that allow the hostile roleplayers to be able to have teeth in a hostage situation, but doing this in such a way that its not open to interpretation or being stretched/bent. Its a very difficult balance, and one that can't really be accomplished by just trusting people to know better, as sorry as that is to say. 

-snip-

You already had the necessary tools available: Ruleplay. If i give up 5 accurate names but not anymore yet i'm executed for not giving up every single name... you had a rule in place to stop RP abruptly ending the roleplay. Use it.

Right now you've gone WAY too far in the other direction. We're slowly narrowing the tools available to all roleplayers, not just those that focus more on hostile themes. Think about it, the conversation is as follows:

"Okay, we know you're with group I want names."
"I don't know what you're on about, I just got to South Zagoria"

The result to the above: cyclical conversation that gets nowhere. The RP is halted, we cannot progress our characters stories, the hostage can get away with acting like a dumbass. Even through torture, even through bodily harm and us showing 'Hey, we know you're lying, give us something to work with and you'll easily survive this,' they can completely ignore than and cannot be punished for it. I get it, you want to prevent abuse of it. But you should be targeting the abuse of the rule and the liberal interpretation that focuses more on killing than roleplay. What you should not be doing is casting out bizarre new verdicts that destroy ALL RP for all types of roleplayers. 

Imagine if @RiZ took me hostage, knowing full well who I am. 

"Radek we know you took Ellie, where is she? We want her back."
"Who?"
"Ellie... the person you kidnapped?"
"Who? I don't know who you are."

Please tell me you see this dead end to the roleplay @Rover

Edited by APositivePara

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Rover said:

It puts people in that 'pick your poison' situation Roland mentioned, which removes all enjoyment for the hostage in the situation, as they are prevented with two options: Break their characters moral compass, or have their character executed and get hit with an NVFL ban.

Don't see how this brakes anyone's moral compass, nor how breaking someone's moral compass is now off limits. Like stated above you can lie about things like stashes or information about your group.

I'll give you a short example. I take you hostage because I know you hang around Kordruga and I wish to capture him. I ask you about his whereabouts and you don't want to tell me. TortureRP happens. You then tell me he moves around Vybor, which is a lie as he is filthy and hangs around debug. I go "Oh ok." and leave.

What I am trying to get at is people can be executed for lying when they can actually prove that he is lying.

And as for the breaking of moral compasses, I find your reply rather problematic. I understand that people have feelings and believes that they will stand by. But at some point they will have to break. If there is no character progression/development to these characters then everyone is a sitting stone. Literally all our storylines that I have ever been a part of have had in their core us making people tell the truth or work alongside us to capture our targets. Some of these characters cared about those that they were putting in danger. But in the end they had to do it because their life was on the line. And when it comes to those that play characters with unchangeable ideals and believes, would it not be fitting for these characters to stand there and die for the thing they believe in? 

Edited by AndreyQ

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, APositivePara said:

You already had the necessary tools available: Ruleplay. If i give up 5 accurate names but not anymore yet i'm executed for not giving up every single name... you had a rule in place to stop RP abruptly ending. Use it.

Right now you've gone WAY too far in the other direction. We're slowly narrowing the tools available to all roleplayers, not just those that focus more on hostile themes. Think about it, the conversation is as follows:

"Okay, we know you're with group I want names."
"I don't know what you're on about, I just got to South Zagoria"

The result to the above: cyclical conversation that gets nowhere. The RP is halted, we cannot progress our characters stories, the hostage can get away with acting like a dumbass. Even through torture, even through bodily harm and us showing 'Hey, we know you're lying, give us something to work with and you'll easily survive this,' they can completely ignore than and cannot be punished for it. I get it, you want to prevent abuse of it. But you should be targeting the abuse of the rule and the liberal interpretation that focuses more on killing than roleplay. What you should not be doing is casting out bizarre new verdicts that destroy ALL RP for all types of roleplayers. 

Imagine if @RiZ took me hostage, knowing full well who I am. 

"Radek we know you took Ellie, where is she? We want her back."
"Who?"
"Ellie... the person you kidnapped?"
"Who? I don't know who you are."

Please tell me you see this dead end to the roleplay @Rover

 

I mean, I wrote the verdict that was overturned. 😄 I don't disagree with why it was overturned, but I would never have written it if I didn't agree with it at the time it was written. But seeing the direction and clarity from Roland on the spirit of the rule and how he wants it to be, I will be adjusting how I view the situations and acting on that going forwards. But I wholeheartedly understand and get behind the issue you are presenting. I do not have a golden bullet answer for you, or the simple one rule tweak that will make it all better. I just know that if changes needs to be done, it needs to be a compromise since it has been made abundantly clear that the rule will not be you can kill a hostage just for lying. 

 

Its the same that I don't agree with hostages that just /no everything and refuse to RP our torture. But the reason that rule is in place is because of the number of people that don't have any RP-reason to be cutting off fingers or perm-scarring people that do it just for a lark. I do not know of a way to 'fix' this so that people that deserve it ICly get their perm punishments, while allowing those that don't OOC deserve it to refuse. Thats the problem. It has to have a happy balance that everyone can find enjoyable. For the longest time before I became a staff member my opinion was always to just trust the other side of the roleplay and hope they will guide it somewhere fun, even if I'm on the torture side of things. For the most part it had worked well for me.

Unfortunately with the way OOC animosity can frequently impact these issues, the rules need to address them clearly to prevent abuse. 

 

Just now, AndreyQ said:

Don't see how this brakes anyone's moral compass, nor how breaking someone's moral compass is now off limits. Like stated above you can lie about things like stashes or information about your group.

I'll give you a short example. I take you hostage because I know you hang around Kordruga and I wish to capture him. I ask you about his whereabouts and you don't want to tell me. TortureRP happens. You then tell me he moves around Vybor, which is a lie as he is filthy and hangs around debug. I go "Oh ok." and leave.

What I am trying to get at is people can be executed for lying when the can actually prove that he is lying.

And as for the breaking of moral compasses, I find your reply rather problematic. I understand that people have feelings and believes that they will stand by. But at some point they will have to break. If there is no character progression/development to these characters then everyone is a sitting stone. Literally all our storylines that I have ever been a part of have had in their core us making people tell the truth or work alongside us to capture our targets. Some of these characters cared about those that they were putting in danger. But in the end they had to do it because their life was on the line. And when it comes to those that play characters with unchangeable ideals and believes, would it not be fitting for these characters to stand there and die for the thing they believe in? 

I didn't mean to imply it was off limits, or that the view of the staff team was it was off limits. Forcing someone to snake on their group can ostracize them from their group, cutting off all the roleplay they would have had on that front, and leaving them isolated. Ending story arcs, ending ongoing roleplay,. While it does open the potential of new arcs based off of it, its something that I personally feel a player should be choosing to happen, not have forced on them. Thats my personal stance, not reflective of what the rest of the staff team think. I want people to enjoy their time and enjoy themselves, and not everyone would enjoy RP'ing out being a paraiah because a hostile scenario was forced on them like that. 

For example, I've had characters PK'd because they wouldn't break their moral compass, and held true to the end. It was the culmination of months of roleplay, and was fantastic. But had the hostile group in question that was driving that plot not been as wonderful as they were OOCly, they might have just decided, based on the prior rule set, to execute me and NVFL-report me after the first encounter, ending what was months of fun. I'm a big fan of corroborative story telling. (Not scripted, just mutually ensuring fun amidst the drama). 

 

To draw things back towards what Roland said in the verdict, this is the important quote:

Quote

The hostage has now a choice of either giving up all information he has which seriously impacts his group and would probably shut it down OR risk getting his character killed for "non-compliance" and later PKd through a NVFL report because he didn't give up the true information. Pick your poison motherfucker.

I can't disagree with what is said here, and in my eyes you won't find things changing unless you can present a viable option that soothes the concerns raised in the rest of what Roland said. I'll be dwelling on this to see what I can come up with, but... The tl;dr is you need to find a balance between crippling hostile roleplayers who have a hostage that OOCly refuses to cooperate, and then protecting hostages that are dealing with players motivated to kill off their character/ruin their story/ruin their fun. This is not me saying that any example given above in this thread, any of the players in this thread, or any of the people in the verdicted thread that was overturned are actively out to ruin fun, I'm just stating thats the worst case the rules need to protect against.

 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Rover said:

-Snip-

I would agree Rover, except it wasn't always that way and the server was fine.

You have the option as a hostage to tell a quarter-truth, half-truth or any amount of truth you please as long as it conveys a reasonable amount of information to the request of the hostage takers. It is unfair to remove any form of available roleplay hooks in terms of obtaining sensitive information by force, there is evidently a middle ground that exists here that is not being addressed, regardless of Roland's decision which I do not 100% agree with. Such is the discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post

A hostage is still supposed to act realistically so if you find that superhuman that survives all maybe talk to the player about their reasoning or report it? 

So far the main thing changed here is that you can't threaten them with a visit to the coast and forgetting the experience and possible NVFL if reported. 

You can still drive them to the coast. Doubt that is the point though. You can also on the way to said coast slowly make them give up more of their stuff for not telling the truth till they end up on said coast with nothing like a fresh spawn and beaten up like crazy. 

You can still threaten them with the same stuff as before and they should still consider their situation just that where before you would have send them to the coast you know beat the hell out of them and end it there.... if before they would have rather visited the coast then telling the truth (which they might actually be telling and you may just think they know something. Unless you asked //is your character lying? no clue if that question would have to be answered either way) 

and If you actually watched someone unlock a gate code just before and capture them it would seem you could still force them to just open said gate as long as it is still in their ability to do so.... (locks could still be changed)

given the options of lying about certain answers of locations... hostage takers have long outsmarted that system by having the hostage show them said locations in person... so not like you could tell them a location and they would not know...

Share this post


Link to post

I do understand the frustration some may have with this and I understand your reasoning. I think that in my point of view that execution should not have been the first thought, if you knew he was lying and still kept up with the lie which he did and you all knew he did, you could have got out the car and tortured him to give the information specially as you knew it was him from past interactions, if he still did it then yeah I believe execution would be the option but there wasn't any torture it was straight off the bat execution.

it's a difficult one I have to admit, putting yourself in both the hostage and the hostage takers shoes.

For the hostages perspective - the pick your poison scenario I don't know if I would find it fun if I was told basically snake on anything and everyone you know or die, as a hostage I would not find that fun specially if it was not my choice cause then I have to go through the repercussions of snaking on the group I am with they find out  and they get pissed and then hunt me down to torture or try and Perm me so your basically telling the hostage they have two choices die by us or die by them completely ruining there experience

but  I also understand the hostage takers shoes

that the hostage is repeatedly lying to you, you have all the evidence IC and have everything to show you know exactly who they are they still lie and you torture him and still he won't relent then yeah I believe then and only then to execute them and then file a report for badrp

It's a tough one I personally if I can get away with it which is hard cause for example I was taken by Radek and he straight off the bat knew who I was from past interactions, I told myself ok yeah I cant lie about my identity cause they know exactly who I am, they wanted that information, I gave that information that I knew they already knew about and I just confirmed it but I held out on key information that I knew people would get into trouble for and told half truths giving them just enough to keep them happy.

What I am trying to say is there needs to be  a sort of compromise and both sides need to think is what I am saying or making them do realistic, the hostage needs to decide when lying stops being realistic if for example if they are being repeatedly  tortured to the point that they are almost unconscious realistically, no one will keep that lie up for long after they are severely tortured same with the hostage takers they can't force a player to forcefully go down a story that would not be fun to them this is a game that should be fun for both side.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Couple thoughts from me:

Main problem i see with this is not how the rules are worded ect ect... Its the ends justify the means mentality.

Let me explain an example for how it gets used right now.

I roll up on a person i know OOC info about, I ask them questions i OOCly know the answer too. They craft a decent and cohesive lie...

I pretend i think they are lying and make some random shit up about how they are lying and threaten to kill them

They continue to lie, I kill them. The end.

This literally happened to me the other day, and i was told by staff that if i actually was lying then there isnt much point of making a report regardless of the context the ends justify the means.

So ya'll want to improve the standard of RP regarding hostages and executions and stamp out abuse for both sides - Get rid of the ends justify the means mentality being applied to reports and regard situational context instead. I think this would be deterrent enough for those that need rules and regulations to govern how much they take the piss in RP

Edited by Fenrir

Share this post


Link to post

I personally think there should be fatal consequences for anything. People hide behind the rules too much.

Steal something you know isnt yours and isnt free to take? You die.

Run away from a large group know you'll be initiated on and abusing VoIP range? You die.

Lie about something constantly and even after torture and beating? You die.

Running around a dangerous area, firefight lacking any fear or care for your own life? You die.

But obviously that's not how it works here, everyone wants to RP without fear of anything happening to them. But without something to be afraid of people act unrealistic.

 

Share this post


Link to post

People should definitely not get executed for not giving up information. It opens a lot of doors to creative torture roleplay.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Fenrir said:

Couple thoughts from me:

Main problem i see with this is not how the rules are worded ect ect... Its the ends justify the means mentality.

Let me explain an example for how it gets used right now.

I roll up on a person i know OOC info about, I ask them questions i OOCly know the answer too. They craft a decent and cohesive lie...

I pretend i think they are lying and make some random shit up about how they are lying and threaten to kill them

They continue to lie, I kill them. The end.

This literally happened to me the other day, and i was told by staff that if i actually was lying then there isnt much point of making a report regardless of the context the ends justify the means.

So ya'll want to improve the standard of RP regarding hostages and executions and stamp out abuse for both sides - Get rid of the ends justify the means mentality being applied to reports and regard situational context instead. I think this would be deterrent enough for those that need rules and regulations to govern how much they take the piss in RP

That would be because we were wrong, and were operating under the incorrect interpretation of the rule, which Roland corrected today in the link that AndreyQ has in the first post in this thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Phoenix said:

People should definitely not get executed for not giving up information. It opens a lot of doors to creative torture roleplay.

And if the torture RP still leads to "Don't know what you're talking about?"

You're talking like executions happen at first instance. Executions should always be the last resort. Always. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, APositivePara said:

And if the torture RP still leads to "Don't know what you're talking about?"

You're talking like executions happen at first instance. Executions should always be the last resort. Always. 

In the past they have unfortunately happened way too soon, that's what I am reffering to. I don't disagree with them being last resort. A hostage also must behave realistically in a torture situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Phoenix said:

In the past they have unfortunately happened way too soon, that's what I am reffering to. I don't disagree with them being last resort. A hostage also must behave realistically in a torture situation. 

But that's the point, we're on the same page and I'm saying you have the tool available to prevent that abuse / executions happening too soon: Ruleplay. 

The fix isn't to completely uno-reverse-card it and make it so that no executions can happen for a hostage lying constantly. Hostages have to behave realistically, yes, but if I killed him for not behaving realistically, under the current ruling, what you have is one case of NVFL and one case of IK-Roleplayed. It's not the solution.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, AndreyQ said:

 

So I raise you all this question. If hostages are tortured for information that the hostile party know he has and he still does not wish to give out that information, then how is he valuing his life?

I think he is not and as such an execution should be allowed.

And to quote coolman23 in the report you are referring to. 

"To be quite honest I really thought I was going to be left in the far regions of the map. As much as they said they were going to kill me it almost seemed a ruse in itself. James is a very devious man he does get away with a lot without ever being noticed. He keeps that mindset throughout his encounters because that’s the man he is. His persistence has only pushed him forward all his RP is centered around his persistence so he keeps up with it. If he makes himself believe it others will. James always tries a new accent when encountering people and that was his first “larger scale” attempt for the chernorussian accent. I really thought it was all going to lead to me being tortured to get the truth if anything were to happen."

He was never tortured. 

Had they tortured him, I'm sure the roleplay would have been amazing and that the information would come out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Jim Smokes said:

And to quote coolman23 in the report you are referring to.

And to quote myself from the thread I just wrote

1 hour ago, AndreyQ said:

Also, this is not a discussion about the verdict being correct or not. This merely focuses on the verdict alone as a statement for future hostile interactions.

I don't care what happened in the coolman's report. The thread it's about Rolle's statement that people can't be executed for lying, period.

Share this post


Link to post

So far because the hostage takers had all the power only we had most reports be on them for possible invalid executions... with this new interpretation of the rule, our future reports may go the other way of mostly being reports of unrealistic hostage bad rp.... if that is actually something you believe happened report it and you should be fine and not get hit with false report. Then maybe in the report you can find out their reasoning or maybe that they just really didn't have that answer you were seeking... obviously best would be to first ask that player and reach out to them about the problem... I think this system could lead to more talk and cooperation between the community and more care for one another to have a good experience on both sides. 

Try it for a bit and see if your hostage behavior is actually that different to before... and maybe you find out that the person you thought should have given up actually really believed differently and wasn't giving bad RP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, AndreyQ said:

And to quote myself from the thread I just wrote

I don't care what happened in the coolman's report. The thread it's about Rolle's statement that people can't be executed for lying, period.

You dont care what happened in the report, accept, for the statement, which happened in the report and was made on the context of the report?

I think the statement made by Rolle asks a great question. Do you not see the fallacy in  tell me where everything you have is or have your character killed?

Let me just start capturing people and when they refuse to tell me the combo to their base I'll just execute them and file a NVFL report on the forums.

Do you consider it powergaming to force someone to tell you their base locations, combination codes, etc or else they face NVFL, Forced PK, 3 day ban, and 10 points? Or is that acceptable gameplay?

 

Edited by Jim Smokes

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...