Jump to content

Server time (UTC): 2023-06-07 18:47

Dynamic Events
STARTING SOON | 2023-06-07 19:30:00 (server time) | Starts in 42 minutes

Change to Execution Rights

Recommended Posts

4.6 If you successfully capture a player through a hostile action and then take him into your custody, he is now considered your hostage. You must do everything in your power to keep your hostages alive and in a relatively good health. That includes protecting them from external threats like zombies and leaving them with a realistic chance of survival when they are released. A character that is taken hostage may be executed once for a hostile incident that happened in the past where the hostage was personally responsible for a death of your ally. In any other circumstances, hostages may only be executed in the following scenarios:

"For the record, the phrase "or participated in the death of your ally" has been removed from the ruling, due to the way it can be misunderstood." - Rover

This brings up a few questions from me

1. Why is it being changed? I understand what you mean it can be a bit confusing the way it is currently written. Why not just rewrite the rule in a more clear and concise manner?

2. Does this mean for someone to obtain execution rights it is only valid for the killing blow? If so most of us that play in the community don't have access to the logs. In most firefights you can tell who some of the people are but to know exactly who put the last bullet in who is going to be impossible for most people to know.
3. If number 2 is correct. Why does it matter who got the last shot? If someone does 90% of my health but someone else does the last 10% who is more responsible for my death and who can my allies execute?

4. For someone to know exactly who did damage to who and who is responsible for that persons death is nearly impossible. I kind of feel like this just makes the rule more difficult to use for executions and many lead to more invalids.

5. Can you make an announcement or something like that so people are informed that the rule has changed?

Link to comment
  • El Presidente

1. Because it makes the meaning behind the rule less ambiguous.

2. That's always been the case. The rule is a typical "kill for a kill" scenario. You can only kill hostages who have personally killed someone else. If you're gonna execute anyone you must be sure about it. How you acquire that knowledge is up to you.

3. Because someone can shoot you once and then half an hour later you get shot and killed. Person number one shouldn't be facing execution for that outcome.

4. I don't see how it would lead to more invalids? If you are executing someone you should be 100% certain what you're doing and know who is responsible for what. The information who killed whom isn't supposed to be widely available and/or metagamed.

5. The rule hasn't changed, it has exactly the same meaning as before, only two words that were misleading were removed.

Link to comment
  • Legend

1. Because there is no set criteria for what "participated in" means. Unless you have an extremely long list of what would be valid under that, that would then further require explanation, there is no easy way to define it. So the basis is on confusion and I believe what @Roland intended the rule to mean was "Kill for a kill" i.e. you kill somebody, expect to be killed. Anything outside of that is insufficient for execution.

2. No... and yes., see reasoning below (question 3) for why. This effectively means "properly identifying people" is especially important for future executions.

3. One could argue that, if Person A and Person B both shoot Person C at the same time they are both "personally responsible" for the death. You both were personally killing the individual. 

4. See explanation to 3. Also executions should be a last resort thing anyway as they are an end to roleplay and leave the victim with nothing to progress any further. The emphasis should be on the RP and what they can get out of the situation than just executing.

5. That's an @Roland thing.


Take these answers with a grain of salt, they are just my interpretation and what I would enforce in a report situation (though context / circumstances are always relevant and these are merely surface level).

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...