Jump to content
Server time: 2017-10-23, 17:12
Safe Zone: CLOSING SOON

  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
MatthewFC

Executing hostages

Question

MatthewFC    43

According to the current rules:

6e337d9840.png

Yet, in a current report's veredict, I have found the following:

We feel that both sides had an poor understanding of the hostage rule and that the acts comited werent enough to warrent a ban. Cicero Hazar and Terry Batiski, You acted irrationally when the attack started, yes you can make demands however the timeframe you gave for the demand could be considered to short, yes you can kill your hostage when the people you are negociating with dont meet your demands but in this case it was an invalid demand.

My bold. The problem is this quote, at least in appearance, goes against some of the assumptions I had over how the hostage rule works. Specifically, I thought the only "valid" demand was a ceasefire, and nothing else... let me explain myself:

I was under the impression that the current hostage rules allow for two things:

  1. Hostage rescuers MUST cease fire after being demanded so by hostage takers or the hostages may be killed even while being compliant.
  2. Conversely, hostages can be killed while being compliant ONLY if the hostage rescuers do not cease fire.

Thus, hostages become a tool to force cease fires and not much else. You can set an exchange of hostage(s) for gear or whatever else of value you want afterwards, but hostage takers can't really gain execution rights if these demands are not met: you only gain them if the hostage rescuers resume their attack after being demanded to cease and desist.

So, how is it? Is the only demand you can make against the live of your hostage that of an immediate cease fire, or other demands can be made and execution rights gained upon compliant hostages if they are not met? In that report I see things as absurd as "close the door or I shoot the hostage" demands, so I'm quite concerned as a player and potential hostage myself.

I understand the rule was up for trial and it might evolve over time, but if it did change its meaning, it should be reflected upon its wording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
MatthewFC    43

I was totally expecting an immediate "your assumptions are wrong" answer, but I guess not? Anyways, still expecting ANY answer :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Jm Von Cat    154

If you are in possession of a hostage and his friends are attempting to rescue him, you can state to the rescuers (So long as they defiantly receive it) that you will kill the hostage should they continue the attack. Following this demand and once you are 110% sure that the rescuers received it you must wait for a reasonable amount of time to allow the gunfire to halt.

Once gunfire has halted and it is clear that if the rescuers attempt to save their friend he will die negotiations for his release can take place, either via radio or direct communication. The hostage taker may only give reasonable demands, do not demand the surrender of the rescuers or body parts or any such things. You may place demands for equipment or vehicles or information perhaps even safe passage to escape use your imagination but keep it within reason.

Demands such as "close the door or I shoot the hostage" are plain stupid, not only can you not be entirely sure that the demand is received it goes against common sense of the rescuers. Whom to close the door must expose themselves to attack, not a risk they would want to take. However, stating if you come through the door the hostage dies, that would be fine. The reason for this is in the difference, closing the door puts the rescuer in a position against his will that could kill him, where as don't come through the door makes it entirely his choice. In a sense you turn the hostage into your door.

I hope this makes sense and answers your question.

Regards ~ The Cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
MatthewFC    43

I understand pretty much all of that, but I want to be extra cautious, and request something you might have had left implicit, to be clearly said:

Once gunfire has halted and it is clear that if the rescuers attempt to save their friend he will die negotiations for his release can take place, either via radio or direct communication. The hostage taker may only give reasonable demands, do not demand the surrender of the rescuers or body parts or any such things. You may place demands for equipment or vehicles or information perhaps even safe passage to escape use your imagination but keep it within reason.

Those ostensibly reasonable demands with an ostensibly reasonable time span to accomplish them... can they carry the condition of "if you don't met them the hostage dies"?

If that's the intention, the current rule's wording reflect this very poorly or not at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Goku    63

I see where you are coming from with this, however, at this point in time the hostage rule is broken in my opinion because of the simple fact that when I was a hostage and my friends where trying to negotiate my release they were told by my captors that if they did not stop firing I would be killed, they did, but the captors group kept firing on my friends even when they knew about the cease fire and they used me as a captive to stop my friends returning fire and killing them.

To sum it up. The hostage rule doesn't work unless when a cease fire is called all parities involved are forced to cease fire.

Does this answer your question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Pussy    382

Those ostensibly reasonable demands with an ostensibly reasonable time span to accomplish them... can they carry the condition of "if you don't met them the hostage dies"?

If that's the intention, the current rule's wording reflect this very poorly or not at all.

If you are concerned about the time allotted between the call for ceasefire, and the actual ceasefire being implemented... I believe that one way you can combat the confusion is to bring the "timer" into game. If you feel like 5 minutes is a reasonable amount of time for the rescuers to contact the hostage --and for the rescuers to tell their members to stop firing against you and comply to your demands-- then bring that timer into game. 

I don't see a problem with specifying to the hostage, "Tell your rescuers they have five minutes to stop what they are doing, or you're going to die." I think that if you're worried about what an acceptable amount of time is, then give them the time that you will allow them as long as it seems reasonable. Five minutes, in my opinion, is more than enough time and would likely be a good parameter to use in game. 

I think that the matter of what an acceptable amount of time is can sometimes depend on the situation, so I'd suggest to gauge each encounter with a case-by-case basis and determine the proper amount of time, dealing with variables that are occurring at that time.

Hopefully the answers given here provide enough clarification for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Jm Von Cat    154

The reasonable Time span is dependent on the situation at hand, I would however never give less than a minute. Kattica covered this rather nicely.

As for demands, think what is reasonable compared to whom it is and what kind of demand it is. For example, the rescuers are a group of three, therefore demanding five AKMs is unreasonable where as one or two would be fine. But always take into consideration what the rescuers say during negotiations, that can be a good indicator of what is reasonable compared to the rescuers group.

~Snip~

What you have described here is an abuse of the hostage rule, or rule play.

The cease fire demand is not one sided and is in place to promote negotiations and role play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
MatthewFC    43

Those ostensibly reasonable demands with an ostensibly reasonable time span to accomplish them... can they carry the condition of "if you don't met them the hostage dies"?

If that's the intention, the current rule's wording reflect this very poorly or not at all.

If you are concerned about the time allotted between the call for ceasefire, and the actual ceasefire being implemented... I believe that one way you can combat the confusion is to bring the "timer" into game. If you feel like 5 minutes is a reasonable amount of time for the rescuers to contact the hostage --and for the rescuers to tell their members to stop firing against you and comply to your demands-- then bring that timer into game. 

I don't see a problem with specifying to the hostage, "Tell your rescuers they have five minutes to stop what they are doing, or you're going to die." I think that if you're worried about what an acceptable amount of time is, then give them the time that you will allow them as long as it seems reasonable. Five minutes, in my opinion, is more than enough time and would likely be a good parameter to use in game. 

I think that the matter of what an acceptable amount of time is can sometimes depend on the situation, so I'd suggest to gauge each encounter with a case-by-case basis and determine the proper amount of time, dealing with variables that are occurring at that time.

Hopefully the answers given here provide enough clarification for you.

I'm not worried about the allotted time. I'll reformulate the question I made there: Given that the demands are reasonable and the time given to comply with those demands is reasonable as well, can a complying hostage be killed over non-compliance with the demands from the hostage rescuers, if those demans are DIFFERENT than "cease fire"?

The reasonable Time span is dependent on the situation at hand, I would however never give less than a minute. Kattica covered this rather nicely.

As for demands, think what is reasonable compared to whom it is and what kind of demand it is. For example, the rescuers are a group of three, therefore demanding five AKMs is unreasonable where as one or two would be fine. But always take into consideration what the rescuers say during negotiations, that can be a good indicator of what is reasonable compared to the rescuers group.

~Snip~

What you have described here is an abuse of the hostage rule, or rule play.

The cease fire demand is not one sided and is in place to promote negotiations and role play.

Yes, what Dans suffered was ruleplaying. Rules are not "broken"; in any case, they might favor a side of the fray more heavily than another, but certainly they are workable and glitches are meant to be corrected with time.

And again, what I am asking is NOT about time span. I know what a reasonable time span is and any player can figure that out on their own. That is not an issue. My original question still stands:

So, how is it? Is the only demand you can make against the live of your hostage that of an immediate cease fire, or other demands can be made and execution rights gained upon compliant hostages if they are not met?

Example: Group A takes a member of group B hostage. Group B tries to recover the hostage but are asked over the radio for a cease fire according to rules. They comply, and the hostage is momentarily spared. Group A now demands an exchange of the hostage for a reasonable amount of supplies. Group B does NOT comply, but keeps the cease fire in effect. Group A proceeds to kill the hostage for Group B's non-compliance with their exchange conditions. Is this kill legitimate?

It is clear enough that if B doesn't agree to the initial cease fire, the hostage can be killed legitimately. The rules are clear about that. However, they do not seem to allow the killing of the hostage for any demands other than "cease fire". Or do they?

THAT is my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Pussy    382

I'm not worried about the allotted time. I'll reformulate the question I made there: Given that the demands are reasonable and the time given to comply with those demands is reasonable as well, can a complying hostage be killed over non-compliance with the demands from the hostage rescuers, if those demans are DIFFERENT than "cease fire"?

The "ceasefire" part to the rule is there to ensure a pathway for conversation and more role play. I believe that the intent of the rule was to demand a ceasefire so that the the demands could be laid out without the constant hail of bullets, and the two groups could meet and exchange the hostage for the payment. Ultimately, the ceasefire was something implemented to restart the role play between the two groups.

This being said, the staff team is currently discussing the concerns in regards to this rule and are working towards clarifying it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
MatthewFC    43

-Snip-

The "ceasefire" part to the rule is there to ensure a pathway for conversation and more role play. I believe that the intent of the rule was to demand a ceasefire so that the the demands could be laid out without the constant hail of bullets, and the two groups could meet and exchange the hostage for the payment. Ultimately, the ceasefire was something implemented to restart the role play between the two groups.

This being said, the staff team is currently discussing the concerns in regards to this rule and are working towards clarifying it. 

Thanks a lot! The wording may mean the difference between being shot as a compliant hostage because your triger-happy "saviors" didn't stop firing, or being shot as a compliant hostage because they did stop firing but couldn't met some other random condition that might not be so easy or safe to met.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Pussy    382

Thanks a lot! The wording may mean the difference between being shot as a compliant hostage because your triger-happy "saviors" didn't stop firing, or being shot as a compliant hostage because they did stop firing but couldn't met some other random condition that might not be so easy or safe to met.

Alright, well since it sounds as if you have your answer for the time being, I'm going to mark this as /solved! Thank you very much for your input on the matter, Matthew! It definitely has provoked some interesting thought with the DayZRP Staff and we're looking into the matter more and we'll be sure to let the community know of any and all changes to the current rule.

Thanks once again, Matthew! c: If you want to discuss it further, please feel free to come into the TeamSpeak and talk it out with us! And we'll work hard to clarify that rule for you and other community members!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×