Jump to content
Server time: 2017-10-17, 17:09
Safe Zone: CLOSING SOON

Sign in to follow this  
Para

Clarification of invalid demands.

Recommended Posts

Para    295

So, I've been told by staff members that a demand i'm going to bring up is not allowed, however in this appeal this seems that the opinion is otherwise.

Appeal: http://www.dayzrp.com/forums/topic/80833-ban-appeal-ruleplay/#comment-1482042

The situation where I asked for clarification was a while ago. Quite simply it was that you cannot take somebody hostage and immediately tell the hostage to tell his friends if any shots are taken that the hostage will die. But this appeal just states that whilst transporting they received fire but had told the hostage's friends if they take any shots the hostage will die.

In my situation, I was initiated on by 3 people, who all took me hostage and immediately made demands for me to tell my friends to not fire or i'd be killed. They moved me 200m down the road and about 10 Coldwater were nearby who all had KoS rights, however because the demand had been made, none of them could shoot or try to rescue me. They also then immediately made me run for about 3-4km just to escape. Coldwater, despite having 3x their number could not do anything.

 

Rule interpretation to back it: 

  • 8.5.3 The rescue party continues an attack after they have been notified that hostages may be killed if the attack continues and a reasonable time has elapsed to allow them to fall back.

So, to continue an attack basically means you are continuing an attack that has already happened, thus initial shots would not count towards this rule. And speaking from personal experience, being able to demand instantly that if shots are taken the hostage dies kills all forms of RP later on between the hostages friends and the initiators. The initiators just run off and are now untouchable because the hostage dies if they receive any shots. Plus the initiators do not really make demands at all either, they just run, do their business with the hostage and release him or execute him anyway. 

I'm pretty sure the Admin I spoke to about it was @Terra, basically stating that you cannot kill a hostage straight away when the first shots are taken. There had to be shots, and then demands made to cease fire for the execution rights / demands to be valid. 

SO, quite simply, which rule is it? Are we allowed to execute a hostage for the first shots we take if we have instantly made demands, or do we have to wait until we receive shots and then make demands? 

Edited by Para

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terra    1449

For your example, because I dont remember talking to you but that is because I talk to a lot of people everyday, was there a report made by you which can bring back my memory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Para    295

No, I did not report it as i had no video evidence and at the time was unaware that these demands were invalid. It was only after speaking to staff that I knew these demands were invalid, which basically came around because I was annoyed at the whole situation due to 9-10 allies being visible but none being able to do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diamond    0

Yesterday we took a guy hostage and made a demand for his 4 other friends to come get him. It took a while but they came and the rp was fucking great. It was like some terrorist shit. Tbh no demand is in reasonable unless you kill the people that are new to the situation when you tell them to come IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Para    295
2 minutes ago, Diamond said:

Yesterday we took a guy hostage and made a demand for his 4 other friends to come get him. It took a while but they came and the rp was fucking great. It was like some terrorist shit. Tbh no demand is in reasonable unless you kill the people that are new to the situation when you tell them to come IMO. 

I mean, if you told his friends to come get him that's fantastic rp, i really commend you for that. But the situation I was in was "Tell your friends if we take shots you die," "Right lets start running," they then see my friends all approaching slowly and pretty much hand me my radio again and say "tell them to stay away or we kill you" whilst pointing a gun at my head (the last part was ALL in open fields between Stary clinic and lonely house). it was just not fun at all to be a hostage in that situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terra    1449

So, they did not let your friends try to have any hostage negotiation to get you free, by cutting it off completely - Do I understand you correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diamond    0

Yeah a lot of people use rule armor when taking people hostage. Takes the fun out of it tbh. I never do that shit, it makes taking a hostage actually adrenaline pumping and interesting. I think it's rule play to just blast right off the bat tbh. But irl if someone had a hostage and got shot or shot at YOURE not gonna blast your bargain chip unless you wanna die haha. Plus if they do not allow negotiations or allow rp that just sounds like garb and you should tell them in ts or report. I hate when people are shitty bandits. It triggers me haha

Edited by Diamond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Para    295
2 minutes ago, Terra said:

So, they did not let your friends try to have any hostage negotiation to get you free, by cutting it off completely - Do I understand you correct?

Well, yes. But that first arose because of the initial demand that I would've been killed. My guys were all within 100-200m of the situation, some of them ready to shoot as the demand had been made. I suppose half of the problem is that they made ME make the demands and then took my radio thus they were not trying to negotiate with my guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sasha    0

This is an issue that has come back again the last week or two as a particular group has the M.O of initiating with "hands up, tell your friends if they shoot we kill everyone".
As has been stated previously throughout the time this rule has been in existance it was almost never correctly used. It was put in, and people instantly started abusing the shit out of it. It's been openly stated this is not how the rule is supposed to have been used and it's time that gets put into practice. An official statement whether or not this use is acceptable or not needs to be made and enforced as per that decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Para    295
Just now, Sasha said:

This is an issue that has come back again the last week or two as a particular group has the M.O of initiating with "hands up, tell your friends if they shoot we kill everyone".
As has been stated previously throughout the time this rule has been in existance it was almost never correctly used. It was put in, and people instantly started abusing the shit out of it. It's been openly stated this is not how the rule is supposed to have been used and it's time that gets put into practice. An official statement whether or not this use is acceptable or not needs to be made and enforced as per that decision.

Completely agree. it can even be something as simple as an invalid demand is one that comes from the hostage himself (if said hostage is forced to).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terra    1449

Or simply as ruleplay - Trying to hide behind the rule. I agree here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Para    295
2 minutes ago, Terra said:

Or simply as ruleplay - Trying to hide behind the rule. I agree here.

I have a feeling that if it becomes ruleplay then it will stir a lot of problems up again, though adding in a small part to the rules that states the demand is invalid if it comes from a hostage would likely result in initiators actually having to talk to the hostage's friends in order to make demands. Consequently the rp would most likely continue and negotiations for the return of the hostage could actually be made.

In other words, changing this so this shit doesn't happen at all would fix my problem and any future problems. Anyhow I'll mark this with a tick, seems like nothing further can come from this thread.

Edited by Para

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sasha    0
5 minutes ago, Terra said:

Or simply as ruleplay - Trying to hide behind the rule. I agree here.

However a definite statement should be made somewhere before that, so that there's a point of reference to show "Hey, look. A decision was made on how this rule can and can not be used." instead of relying on the memories and recollection of the staff team and community members. It shouldn't be like lawyers digging through a bunch of old case files to find a ruling back in 96 that corresponds with their case.

It shouldn't take much space to add a couple examples under the hostage negotiation rule as to what can be consider reasonable and unreasonable.

Edited by Sasha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terra    1449

I was just thinking out loud  and writing it down...still thinking about it ;) But I agree and understand what you and @Sasha mean.

Let's brainstorm together if you dont mind:

Current rules:

8.4 When attempting to rescue a hostage you must be able to contact the hostage takers on the DayZRP TeamSpeak for negotiations.

8.5 Hostages may only be killed in the following scenarios:

  • 8.5.1 Hostages do not comply with your demands or pose a direct threat to you or your group.
  • 8.5.2 Hostages do not value their life, for example they talk back or insult you despite being told to keep quiet (see rule 8.1).
  • 8.5.3 The rescue party continues an attack after they have been notified that hostages may be killed if the attack continues and a reasonable time has elapsed to allow them to fall back.
  • 8.5.4 Demands from negotiations have not been met after a reasonable time has elapsed.

 

I struggle to word it differently (bold text) to bring the point across we want to make.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diamond    0
10 minutes ago, Para said:

I have a feeling that if it becomes ruleplay then it will stir a lot of problems up again, though adding in a small part to the rules that states the demand is invalid if it comes from a hostage would likely result in initiators actually having to talk to the hostage's friends in order to make demands. Consequently the rp would most likely continue and negotiations for the return of the hostage could actually be made.

In other words, changing this so this shit doesn't happen at all would fix my problem and any future problems. Anyhow I'll mark this with a tick, seems like nothing further can come from this thread.

I like that. We I went into the team speak and talked with them 3 different times negotiating with the people who's friend we talk. I never just say oh tell your friends. I take the radio and go and talk to them, not sure why everyone wants to be lazy when they rob people

1 minute ago, Terra said:

I was just thinking out loud  and writing it down...still thinking about it ;) But I agree and understand what you and @Sasha mean.

Let's brainstorm together if you dont mind:

Current rules:

8.4 When attempting to rescue a hostage you must be able to contact the hostage takers on the DayZRP TeamSpeak for negotiations.

8.5 Hostages may only be killed in the following scenarios:

  • 8.5.1 Hostages do not comply with your demands or pose a direct threat to you or your group.
  • 8.5.2 Hostages do not value their life, for example they talk back or insult you despite being told to keep quiet (see rule 8.1).
  • 8.5.3 The rescue party continues an attack after they have been notified that hostages may be killed if the attack continues and a reasonable time has elapsed to allow them to fall back.
  • 8.5.4 Demands from negotiations have not been met after a reasonable time has elapsed.

 

I struggle to word it differently (bold text) to bring the point across we want to make.

 

 

Honestly I like what para said. The hostage takers make the demands, no more oh tell your friends if they shoot you die.. like you yourself have to roleplay that out with the other group of people 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AndreyQ    0

I rewrote the rule and brought it up within staff. We are gonna discuss it and hopefully find a perfect fix.

Share this post


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

I rewrote the rule and brought it up within staff. We are gonna discuss it and hopefully find a perfect fix.

Got a preview of the rewrite for us to see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sasha    0
15 minutes ago, Terra said:

I was just thinking out loud  and writing it down...still thinking about it ;) But I agree and understand what you and @Sasha mean.

Let's brainstorm together if you dont mind:

Current rules:

8.4 When attempting to rescue a hostage you must be able to contact the hostage takers on the DayZRP TeamSpeak for negotiations.

8.5 Hostages may only be killed in the following scenarios:

  • 8.5.1 Hostages do not comply with your demands or pose a direct threat to you or your group.
  • 8.5.2 Hostages do not value their life, for example they talk back or insult you despite being told to keep quiet (see rule 8.1).
  • 8.5.3 The rescue party continues an attack after they have been notified that hostages may be killed if the attack continues and a reasonable time has elapsed to allow them to fall back.
  • 8.5.4 Demands from negotiations have not been met after a reasonable time has elapsed.

 

I struggle to word it differently (bold text) to bring the point across we want to make.

 

 

The bolded line simply affirms what we do not want it to. It means that they can kill the hostage if the attackers have been notified they may be killed if they open fire, just the same as it's currently.

"The hostage may only be killed if the rescuing party refuses attempts at negotiations."
Add a line about the demands needing to be reasonable underneath. 
"Demands that can be made to the rescuing party must be reasonable and not put either the hostage or the rescuing party in direct danger."

As in the past demands for the rescuing party to surrender has not been deemed a reasonable demand. This would also mean that the demand can't be "let us leave with the hostage or we'll kill the hostage." as that would put the hostage in direct danger. As that'd end negotiations and only risk the life of the hostage further. I think that's fair.

Could also add a fairly long "cool down" time for the demand to stop shooting to take effect, that would mean that it'd only be practical if they're in a defensible position, which is just where these kind of negotiations should be done. Not when one side decides to initiate on a hostage in an open field, surrounded by enemies and only use "hands up, tell your friends if they shoot you're dead" as a way of shielding them from a horrible decision. They shouldn't have much leverage in that situation.

Edited by Sasha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Para    295

Terra it could be a case of leave that one as it is and change 8.4 to:

"8.4.1 When attempting to make demands or rescue a hostage you must be able to contact the other party in the DayZRP teamspeak for negotiations. 

8.4.2 A demand cannot be made by a hostage in any circumstance."

Something along those lines, anybody got thoughts on this idea?

Edited by Para

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AndreyQ    0
6 minutes ago, Valkerion said:

Got a preview of the rewrite for us to see?

8.5 Hostages may only be killed in the following scenarios:

  • 8.5.3 The rescue refuses to negotiate and open fire, after the hostage takers contacted them on the radio. The negotiations must be done directly between the two parties. The hostage may not be used as a way to contact the rescuers.

This will achieve the following:

  1. No more demanding the hostage to tell his friends not to fire as soon as the situation starts.
  2. The hostage takers will have to get in contact with the rescue party directly, which will further the roleplay and force actual negotiations.
  3. Fix the loophole people have found within the rule.

I am open to feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Para    295
2 minutes ago, Andrey said:

8.5 Hostages may only be killed in the following scenarios:

  • 8.5.3 The rescue refuses to negotiate and returns fire, after the hostage takers contacted them on the radio. The negotiations must be done directly between the two parties. The hostage may not be used as a way to contact the rescuers.

I am open to feedback.

Maybe change returns fire to "opens fire or continues firing, after...", it's a small change but returns can imply other things. We do not want this rule to be open to interpretation as then that could leave room for abuse.

Diamond is right, if they've made demands and have received shots even for the first time they'd just kill the hostage realistically. Having to take fire first before making a demand just makes it difficult for hostage takers.

Edited by Para

Share this post


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

Maybe change returns fire to "opens fire or continues firing, after...", it's a small change but returns can imply other things.

 

changed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sasha    0
18 minutes ago, Andrey said:

8.5 Hostages may only be killed in the following scenarios:

  • 8.5.3 The rescue refuses to negotiate and open fire, after the hostage takers contacted them on the radio. The negotiations must be done directly between the two parties. The hostage may not be used as a way to contact the rescuers.

This will achieve the following:

  1. No more demanding the hostage to tell his friends not to fire as soon as the situation starts.
  2. The hostage takers will have to get in contact with the rescue party directly, which will further the roleplay and force actual negotiations.
  3. Fix the loophole people have found within the rule.

I am open to feedback.

Add a section about reasonable and unreasonable demands. Ie. No demands that would put the hostage or the rescuers in direct danger.
It's previously been consider unreasonable to demand the rescuing party surrenders or the hostage dies. 
It should also state that the demand to let them escape with the hostage should be unreasonable as that would put him in danger and negotiations would be cut out completely.

Edited by Sasha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AndreyQ    0
6 minutes ago, Sasha said:

Add a section about reasonable and unreasonable demands. Ie. No demands that would put the hostage or the rescuers in direct danger.
It's previously been consider unreasonable to demand the rescuing party surrenders or the hostage dies. 
It should also state that the demand to let them escape with the hostage should be unreasonable as that would put him in danger and negotiations would be cut out completely.

 
 
 

We can add it to rule 8.5.4: Demands from negotiations have not been met after a reasonable time has elapsed. *Demands must be realistic and reasonable, without putting the rescue party in direct danger.*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sasha    0
2 minutes ago, Andrey said:

We can add it to rule 8.5.4: Demands from negotiations have not been met after a reasonable time has elapsed. *Demands must be realistic and reasonable.*

The direct danger part should be added as well as that should hint at what can be considered reasonable and not reasonable.

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.

×