Jump to content
Server time: 2017-10-22, 17:10
Safe Zone: CLOSING SOON

  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Erik

Negotiations

Question

Erik    107

This is a bit of a long question regarding the topic of negotiations and the current state they are being used. First and foremost it is my understanding that negotiations were put in to help facilitate RP by giving the party of an individual held hostage a means by which they can negotiate for the release of said hostage. However I have often seen this misused by the hostage takers as a means of creating an armor around themselves by creating a situation in which they can simply demand the opposing forces to cease fire allowing them to get away with the hostage, or even in some instances flank the rescuers and open fire on them without fear of retaliation. In a recent event a group whom I will not name even initiated with "Get on your radio and tell your boys if we get shot, you die, then put up your hands or you're dead', ensuring their much smaller force protection because by not following the demands we wouldn't be valuing the life of the hostage. My question then is in circumstances such as these, should the RP not then continue between the parties to negotiate the return of the hostage, and not simply just be a means to allow the hostage takers to get away with the hostage so they can rob, maim or even in some instances execute the hostage without fear of reprisal? And if that is the intended use of the rule, would it not be against the rules to use it simply as a means of rule armor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Bruce    0

In my opinion, anyone who does that is sort of a bitch, but hey. The negotiation rule is in place to create more rp, not give another group rule armor.

Edited by Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Roger    0

Here is the counter to negotations; when they give a demand like "Don't shoot or we will kill the hostages" you respond with, "You have five minutes to give us your demands and release the hostages or we will open fire". That gives them ample time to "Negotiate" if that is there intentions, if they are simply using them as shields to run away and beat them up without having to deal with you, then fuck them and kill them after 5. 

 

To me the whole negotiation thing has been abused for a long time to simply buy time to run away with the hostages so you can beat/kill/rob/humiliate them while their teammates can do nothing.  Only pussy boys do that sort of shit, and as we all know pussy boy don't want war.

Edited by Roger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Erik    107

@Roger Yes, but what about circumstances such as the one I mentioned where they demand the hostage use his radio to contact you, and you have no means of contacting them back in return?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Roger    0
Just now, Erik said:

@Roger Yes, but what about circumstances such as the one I mentioned where they demand the hostage use his radio to contact you, and you have no means of contacting them back in return?

You tell that to the hostage as he delivers the demands, I doubt the hostage taker included him not being able to relay demands in the initiation.

Edited by Roger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Charlo    0

Hostage negotiations are there so people negotiate, if people make demands such as 'Don't shoot or we will kill the hostage' and cut all role play there then that's really unfortunate because that's not what was intended when it was thought about, although this isn't a rule break I'd like to see some more negotiations come from having the hostages radio, it would further RP and just make it a lot more entertaining for both sides. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Roger    0

Better yet actually, just shoot the team mate that was taken hostage. There is no rulebreak for friendly fire, and sometimes you just miss your shot on the guy you were "trying" to hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Oliv    1886

Your understanding of the rule is correct, but I see your point. How can the demands be relayed to and from if there is no radio contact? I think, or at least I hope, that this is a misuse of the rule, but hopefully not intentional in order to gain said rule armor. Negotiations can be a pretty amazing thing. I've been a hostage in a negotiation situation before that led to the safe surrender of the hostage takers and the RP that came from it was amazing. People should utilize this avenue way more than they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
AndreyQ    0
1 minute ago, Roger said:

Better yet actually, just shoot the team mate that was taken hostage. There is no rulebreak for friendly fire, and sometimes you just miss your shot on the guy you were "trying" to hit.

 

That is an amazing way to roleplay and possibly get a ban for not taking care of the hostage's life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Roger    0
Just now, Andrey said:

That is an amazing way to roleplay and possibly get a ban for not taking care of the hostage's life.

Taking a hostage and giving simple demands before cutting all contact is also "excellent" roleplay. As for bans, I don't see friendly fire in the rule set and I can't see how you can prove the shot was with intent to kill the hostage. Plenty of times where hostages have been friendly fired without any verdicts for No value for hostage life. As a GM you should probably know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Charlo    0
21 minutes ago, Erik said:

@Roger Yes, but what about circumstances such as the one I mentioned where they demand the hostage use his radio to contact you, and you have no means of contacting them back in return?

It's scummy for sure and cuts any role play that could come out of the negotiations, the only thing you can do is find out who they are ICly and hope one of your members has there radio frequency or like Roger said while the hostage is giving the demands give him demands back to them. 

Edited by Charlie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Fenrir    42

Negotiations is no more than a means to an ends from what i have seen. This perspective is based off the perpetual harassment from the horsemen to 101 and all the way back to the savage war. Each and every time "negotiations" happened it ended in a swift execution of the hostages.

Hostage taking and negotiation is no more than a gimmick that people have to go through when the person/people they want to kill surrender. As soon as an attacker has a hostage, the first thing they are looking for is execution rights, the second thing is the ability to flank/maneuver to better kill the people they want to kill. Not once have I seen an hostage negotiation end with both parties getting what they want. Hell I've never even heard a story about a hostage negotiation that didn't end in one party fucking over the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
AndreyQ    0
Just now, Roger said:

Taking a hostage and giving simple demands before cutting all contact is also "excellent" roleplay. As for bans, I don't see friendly fire in the rule set and I can't see how you can prove the shot was with intent to kill the hostage. Plenty of times where hostages have been friendly fired without any verdicts for No value for hostage life. As a GM you should probably know that.

 

As a GM I also know that we punished people for killing their hostage friend, reason why I said it's possible. I'd love to link you the report but with the website change, it's not easy to find it. But tl;dr the rescuers threw a grenade and killed the hostage that they tried to save and they got hit with no care for hostage. So, yes friendly fire can be a thing.

But, I agree with you that just telling people to leave you alone or you'll kill the hostage is just a horrible use of the rule we have. It should be used to extend RP not to end it. I'll try to think of a possible fix. As for you "accidentally" shooting the hostage, all I am gonna say is that 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Roger    0
21 minutes ago, Fenrir said:

Negotiations is no more than a means to an ends from what i have seen. This perspective is based off the perpetual harassment from the horsemen to 101 and all the way back to the savage war. Each and every time "negotiations" happened it ended in a swift execution of the hostages.

Hostage taking and negotiation is no more than a gimmick that people have to go through when the person/people they want to kill surrender. As soon as an attacker has a hostage, the first thing they are looking for is execution rights, the second thing is the ability to flank/maneuver to better kill the people they want to kill. Not once have I seen an hostage negotiation end with both parties getting what they want. Hell I've never even heard a story about a hostage negotiation that didn't end in one party fucking over the other.

If i remember in the savages war we negotiated when we had Alex Volkov. We were simply told he was worthless and meant nothing to the NA thus was no use to us as a bargaining chip. Furthermore your negotiator refused to budge on his position of we never come north again and they win the war  so it made it impossible for negotiations. 

 

Negotiations are a two way street, you are correct in sayimg they never work out because no one ever wants to lose.

24 minutes ago, Andrey said:

As a GM I also know that we punished people for killing their hostage friend, reason why I said it's possible. I'd love to link you the report but with the website change, it's not easy to find it. But tl;dr the rescuers threw a grenade and killed the hostage that they tried to save and they got hit with no care for hostage. So, yes friendly fire can be a thing.

But, I agree with you that just telling people to leave you alone or you'll kill the hostage is just a horrible use of the rule we have. It should be used to extend RP not to end it. I'll try to think of a possible fix. As for you "accidentally" shooting the hostage, all I am gonna say is that 2 wrongs don't make a right.

I can probably find  the report where a clown friendly fired and killed Todd as a hostage before he was about to be whisked away, no ban for not valueing the hostage life. Difference with a grenade is you cant argue it was accidental as your clearly aware of the threat to the hostage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Para    313

I mean, one way to solve this problem is enforce that a hostage cannot be the one to say the demands, that way the initiators have to take his radio and actually talk to the hostage's friends if they want to make demands. Sure it's a bit harder to do but it's definitely better than the lazy alternative that cuts out ALL rp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Fenrir    42
1 minute ago, Roger said:

If i remember in the savages war we negotiated when we had Alex Volkov. We were simply told he was worthless and meant nothing to the NA thus was no use to us as a bargaining chip. Furthermore your negotiator refused to budge on his position of we never come north again and they win the war  so it made it impossible for negotiations. 

 

Negotiations are a two way street, you are correct in sayimg they never work out because no one ever wants to lose.

Well I can see negotiating like that being a problem, your right it is a two way street. I was not the one negotiating I was the one rolling a joint in the treeline during said negotiations and cease fire. During this ceasefire/negotiation I was flanked and killed leading me to believe the whole hostage situation was no more than a means to an ends for y'all to win. I wasn't the only one thinking this either.

Infact that whole situation had a big effect on how the NA in general would respond to you guys thereafter. It was basically decided after that instance that once a initiation drops we fight to the death, aslong as it didn't conflict with the NVFL rule.

And honestly in that situation, I was waiting for demands to be relayed back to us for a vote. I didnt know that it was infact "us" making the demands. Which I consider a stupid move since you guys had leverage and we didnt. At that point I would of voted for paying tribute since Alex was a councilman it would of made sense.

But like I said i was just a black cowboy that got lit up for rolling a cheeky joint in a treeline during firefight/hostage situation. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Sasha    0
9 minutes ago, Fenrir said:

Well I can see negotiating like that being a problem, your right it is a two way street. I was not the one negotiating I was the one rolling a joint in the treeline during said negotiations and cease fire. During this ceasefire/negotiation I was flanked and killed leading me to believe the whole hostage situation was no more than a means to an ends for y'all to win. I wasn't the only one thinking this either.

Infact that whole situation had a big effect on how the NA in general would respond to you guys thereafter. It was basically decided after that instance that once a initiation drops we fight to the death, aslong as it didn't conflict with the NVFL rule.

And honestly in that situation, I was waiting for demands to be relayed back to us for a vote. I didnt know that it was infact "us" making the demands. Which I consider a stupid move since you guys had leverage and we didnt. At that point I would of voted for paying tribute since Alex was a councilman it would of made sense.

But like I said i was just a black cowboy that got lit up for rolling a cheeky joint in a treeline during firefight/hostage situation. :D

It's never as black and white as you think when it comes to in-game interactions. There's a lot of assumptions and misunderstandings about the other side. And generally most people will only pick up on the negatives. We're all guilty of that.

Edited by Sasha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Diamond    0
1 hour ago, Bruce said:

In my opinion, anyone who does that is sort of a bitch, but hey. The negotiation rule is in place to create more rp, not give another group rule armor.

Agreed, a lot of people are lazy when they negotiate and say shoot and he dies. That's dumb. A lot of people that play bandits blow at it. But you're right butch move to do it like that

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.

×