Let us kill hostages for lying.

[Elmo]

The premise is simple, if a hostage is caught in an obvious lie and doesn't come clean, it should be considered non-compliance akin to the back-talking stipulation and allow them to be killed.

Roland has said before that hostages cannot be killed for lying, hence this suggestion.

Edit since people can't scroll before typing, here is an example of how I see this playing out, ideally:

Yes, for the record, to clarify, I'm suggesting that, after all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted, such as interrogation, beatings, coercion, bribery etc, hostages should not be able to get away with lying their tits off to stonewall their captors.

Spoiler

Example:

PvPer @OldSchool has taken me hostage:

OldSchool: Tell me your name.

Me: My name is Robert O'Brian (My name is actually Ondrej Zima.)

OldSchool: *Pats me down for ID, finds my passport indicating my name*

Me: Uh, that's not mine.

OldSchool: *Examines the picture* //does it match the man?

Me: Its still not me //yes it matches
Me: I have no idea how that got there. Its not my passport, my name is Robert O'Brian.

OldSchool: I know you're lying, let's move on. Are you with Johnny over there? *Examines both of your radios to see if they're attuned to the same frequency* //are they?

Me: No we're not together //yes they are

OldSchool, that's the fourth time you've lied to me. *Bang*

Me: X_X

Once again, I must have the following:

• ICly obtained information indicating the truth.
• Reasonable belief that my hostage would know the information (ala I am looking for their firearms stash which they have boasted about having before, in my presence.)
• Exhausted some torture and interrogation options before committing to the kill.

Otherwise, my kill cannot be valid. Its the same as taking a shot in a firefight, you have to be 100% you're right or its on your head.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Elmo

[Finn]

+1

Yes, if they should risk lying they should be willing to put their life on the line for it.

Tired of seeing characters that offer nothing and think they're invincible.

Good suggestion.

 

It seems like the only way you can punish characters for not co-operating is by destroying their precious gear...

Edited September 29, 2020 by Finn

[Wbtrex]

I will say yes, on the caveat that there needs to be a specific list of 'gotchas' that allow for it. A witness to prove them lying, or a reasonable deduction, etc. Also, the severity of the lie should be taken into account. If I lie about how many bottles of water I have on hand, might be a bit much.

Otherwise, I could see people half-metagaming to just get to execute people.

[groovy blisna]

Honestly you should be allowed to kill a hostage for anything you want since its roleplay and anything can happen and you shouldnt be protected by these rights things. but then again thats not the server we play on and it unfortunately never will. in the current state of the server -1. if the server were to change +1

[Para]

My answer is ye...sss.....?

Basically i think they should be able to be killed for blatantly lying to you, but it's very easily abused and "lying" isn't always clear. I more think if somebody's outright lying to you, and you knoiw they are, and you continue through the RP and they are unyielding, they should be hit with BadRP instead to discourage people endlessly lying to you.

[Elmo]

2 minutes ago, groovy blisna said:

-snip-

Nice meme, report section would solve that. If you can't prove that your character would reasonably know it was a lie, then the kill is invalid.

[groovy blisna]

1 minute ago, Elmo said:

Nice meme, report section would solve that. If you can't prove that your character would reasonably know it was a lie, then the kill is invalid.

Im not disagreeing with you but with the current state of the server and people finding any reason to report this would just open up an avenue of more salty metagaming reports. I just dont trust the playerbase currently with this power.

[GreenySmiley]

I would have to say No, simply because try and define an obvious lie. Obvious to one is not obvious to the other. Plus one can argue the character didn't know in that moment for one or the other reason. One could argue he knew the truth OOC but IC his character went by the information he/she had and therefore their information/facts were wrong but lying is giving knowingly wrong facts. Would, not answering out of fear, to possibly be wrong, count as lying too?.... Sadly just to many variables in lying. Which is why I had made that previous staff question about when does it count as lying and when could you be executed for it. Proofing a lie is difficult... you have a color blind person and ask them "what color is that?" and they say "grey" when its green but they see grey. Obvious to you its green now you shoot them.... Did you have rights on that obvious lie? Now in the report they argue but my character didn't know better. So before you shoot them you ask //Did your character lie about the color? … and so on... If obvious was something one could use as a common known fact sure but with too many variables... I have to say No.

 

Edited September 29, 2020 by GreenySmiley

[Marik]

Proving meta as it is is quite hard. I like the idea of it. But meta gaming stands in the way severely

[Rover]

14 minutes ago, Elmo said:

The premise is simple, if a hostage is caught in an obvious lie and doesn't come clean, it should be considered non-compliance akin to the back-talking stipulation and allow them to be killed.

Roland has said before that hostages cannot be killed for lying, hence this suggestion.

I am pro this.

I also wrote The Popular Verdict this happened in, where most of the entirety of the staff team interpreted the rule wrong and got corrected.

 

I would like people that lie about important things, or things that are obviously weighty, to risk being killed. But there is no real way to easily balance that with the type of hostage takers that are going to blow peoples head off for saying the barest thing that could be a lie. Penning that line in a clear way is risky.

[Guest Generic Name]

Killing a hostage achieves nothing but inflate your e-peen and munitions for lit PVP RP montages.

 

 

 

[rp]

When you catch someone on obvious lies, you should definetly be able to execute him.

1+

[Guest]

By all means if someone is blatantly lying then they should be shot, it's essentially non-compliance.

But I can just see anyone going "He said this but I was told what I know is the truth so technically he is lying!"

[GreenySmiley]

What if someone just hit their head and had temporary memory loss.. so the person says they don't know an answer, but you were around when they were given that answer before? Does this now count as obvious lie? How many personal circumstances do you have to know, before you can use kill rights?

[Kordruga]

3 minutes ago, OldSchool said:

Killing a hostage achieves nothing but inflate your e-peen and munitions for lit PVP RP montages.

 

 

 

Or if the hostage deserved it and died in front of friends or with substantial RP behind the death, would achieve a perma kill and the progression of story for the hostage takers, the characters involved with the dead hostage etc. pushing story lines with that character's death. Instead of the character being alive with a *graze* from a 7.62 to the dome piece so they can continue juicing an e-toy by a campfire on the Berezhki pier.

Get caught out in a lie where you've been told "If this isn't the truth you're gonna die" with, for example, 12 S-GRU soldiers pointing AKs at you and you still lie, shooting them should be fine

+1

[Elmo]

Yes, for the record, to clarify, I'm suggesting that, after all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted, such as interrogation, beatings, coercion, bribery etc, hostages should not be able to get away with lying their tits off to stonewall their captors.

Quote

 

Example:

PvPer @OldSchool has taken me hostage:

OldSchool: Tell me your name.

Me: My name is Robert O'Brian (My name is actually Ondrej Zima.)

OldSchool: *Pats me down for ID, finds my passport indicating my name*

Me: Uh, that's not mine.

OldSchool: *Examines the picture* //does it match the man?

Me: Its still not me //yes it matches
Me: I have no idea how that got there. Its not my passport, my name is Robert O'Brian.

OldSchool: I know you're lying, let's move on. Are you with Johnny over there? *Examines both of your radios to see if they're attuned to the same frequency* //are they?

Me: No we're not together //yes they are

OldSchool, that's the fourth time you've lied to me. *Bang*

Me: X_X

 

Once again, I must have the following:

• ICly obtained information indicating the truth.
• Reasonable belief that my hostage would know the information (ala I am looking for their firearms stash which they have boasted about having before, in my presence.)
• Exhausted some torture and interrogation options before committing to the kill.

Otherwise, my kill cannot be valid. Its the same as taking a shot in a firefight, you have to be 100% you're right or its on your head.

Edit: 

@Rover I agree, that's why we have ruleplay as a punishment.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Elmo

[Misho]

+1 Sounds resonable, I'd say it would fall under BadRP to continously lie and probably NVFL if you ignore the consequences of your lies. But instead of reports I'd much more support a pop to the head.

[Murdercool]

As much as I can see the RP sense in this I can see how this can be such a grey area. It will really need to be proved that your characters know they are lying IC. Which can be quite a hard thing to prove sometimes. So I am in quite a a yes and no with this situation. So I think definitely if the situation arose where you suspected someone was lying and you had quite a few previously hostile situations with said character it could pass. 

[rp]

Constantly lying and not valueing your life should be either BadRP or NVFl.

 

Ruins roleplay and makes the executor not progress any RP at all.

[GreenySmiley]

2 minutes ago, Misho said:

+1 Sounds resonable, I'd say it would fall under BadRP to continously lie and probably NVFL if you ignore the consequences of your lies. But instead of reports I'd much more support a pop to the head.

In your case actually I would really suggest to go with the bad rp report... rather then putting every report on the dead if you were wrong to kill.. don't kill but check first if they were in the wrong if bad RP? IF not then no harm done to anyone...

[Guest]

I've always thought it was something you could do if you have the right reasons RP wise. If a hostage keeps blatantly lying or whatever it could be called BadRP or even Ruleplay because the Hostage 'knows' he can just do BS since the Aggressor can't do much.

[Elmo]

2 minutes ago, Murdercool said:

-snip-

I agree. If you want to use the rights, put in the legwork. Executions should mean something.

[Millie]

-1. It seems to me like this would result in a lot of he said she said situations. It's hard enough to know if someone's right about a situation or not, let alone whether they actually believe what they're saying.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Millie said:

-1. It seems to me like this would result in a lot of he said she said situations. It's hard enough to know if someone's right about a situation or not, let alone whether they actually believe what they're saying.

Fair point but it needs to be an actual possible solution if not the hostage will just ruleplay knowing nothing will be done to him and it's hard to prove that as a ruleplay in a report.

Not to mention how petty it'd look if you're reporting just for that.

[Oryx]

Voted yes. Love the concept. But concerned a bit about how it would work in practice because "back-talk"  and "obvious lie" is subjective. Still, I vote for a trial of it.

Edit: read rest of thread and saw that these concerns are addressed. Big yes to this idea.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Oryx