Jump to content
Server time: 2017-10-20, 16:11
Safe Zone: OPEN

Rolle

Minor rule changes - 2017-10-12

Recommended Posts

Rolle    2952

The recent thread pointed out to me how a hostage rule wasn't written quite the way we wanted it to be, so I went through all our rules and made several adjustments. These are no big changes, mostly just rewording to reflect our current stance on how these rules should be enforced.

 

Rule 1.4: Added that it's both off topic forums and status updates that are exempt from this rule.

Rule 1.9: Clarified that you may not imitate official Premium perks through graphics on your profile, avatars etc.

Rule 1.10: Now that we have video background perk, changed the phrasing so that it is clear that you're not allowed to have gifs as background, videos are fine if you have access to them, duh.

Rule 1.11: Removed the part that you can't mention banned players, since we don't really enforce it anyway and usernames get recycled which could cause a problem in the future.

Rule 1.12: Removed the part where "character page must comply with all rules", that's kind of self-explanatory. Reworded the requirement for the characters background to be compatible with our lore.

Rule 2.3: Reworded, since VAC blacklists are now set to automatically expire.

Rule 3 explanation: Fixed broken newcomer guide link, thanks @Loscham

Rule 5.2: Reworded the requirement for characters to be compatible with our lore. Added part where you should keep in mind the state of the world and context of post-apocalyptic world when choosing a backstory.

Rule 5.3: Specifically added improper use of kill rights as an example of rule play, since this is the most common occurrence.

Rule 5.5: Reworded and simplified the impersonation rule

Rule 5.6: Added additional NVFL example, specifically one of most common "knowingly running into an area of active hostile engagement"

Rules 5.7 (abusive RP) and 5.8 (dying for spawn point - NVFL) switches places, so that now 5.6 (NVFL) and 5.7 (dying for spawn point - NVFL) are next to each other since they're both about NVFL.

Rule 6.6 has been replaced with rule 6.2 which goes more in depth into what is expected of hostile role play on both sides <--- THIS IS COMPLETELY NEW, FEEDBACK?

Rule 7.5: Added reference to rule 5.3

Rule 8.2: Reworded slightly, executions should only be done if the guy to be executed has killed your allies in the past, aka eye for an eye. Preventing executions for "not singing while jumping on one foot".

Rule 8.3 (requirement for reasonable hostage demands) removed and merged with rule 6.3 (demands during hostile situations)

Rule 8.4.1: Added "repeated requests" to requirement for killing for not complying. Also added that attempting to escape is a valid reason to kill the hostage.

Rule 8.4.2: Added example that picking up a weapon as a hostage when not allowed to is something that puts the hostage takers at risk and thus should allow the hostage takers to kill the hostage

Rule 8.4.3: Simplified

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sylva    76
  • 6.2.2 As a victim you may NOT:
    - Pretend to be fearless, emotionless, not feel pain, or otherwise be unaffected by the situation where your life is at risk in a hostile situation.
    - Be passive during the hostile role play and refuse to actively participate in it. Just sitting there and not contributing to role play can make the situation very boring for the attackers.

I get where this is coming from (and furthermore fully agree) but I think it should reference something about BadRP, to show exactly why the rule is in place, and furthermore, the punishment for it. Maybe something like:

6.2.2 As a victim you may NOT:
- Pretend to be fearless, emotionless, not feel pain, or otherwise be unaffected by the situation where your life is at risk in a hostile situation, as this is unrealistic and thus BadRP.
- Be passive during the hostile role play and refuse to actively participate in it. Just sitting there and not contributing to role play
not only makes it very boring, but inviable as this is an RP server.

Most of the rules use clear-cut references to a set of 'community terms' (such as NVFL, RDM, etc, etc) and seeing as its under these same terms that punishments are handed down, it might also be helpful to keep with that trend with these new rules. 

Then again, its already fairly obvious. Anyways, just a thought.

<< >>

I will say though that I LOVE that this had been added - I'll admit I had a situation just yesterday where I bashed a man's head with an M4 buttstock, then used it as a club and hit him in the gut, and his reply was to talk shit. It really breaks immersion and fortifies that whole "supersoldier complex" that's coming up in characters more and more these days.

 

Edited by Sylva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RogueSolace    455

Question about 

  • 6.2.2 As a victim you may NOT:
    - Pretend to be fearless, emotionless, not feel pain, or otherwise be unaffected by the situation where your life is at risk in a hostile situation.
    - Be passive during the hostile role play and refuse to actively participate in it. Just sitting there and not contributing to role play can make the situation very boring for the attackers.

This goes to my argument of - 'you can be so easily 'desensitized' to killing, I can be 'desensitized' to people putting a gun in my face' argument.

Quote

The problem with this is what happened pre-lore wipe. It was nearly constant. People talk about becoming desensitized to killing so quickly like its nothing, but then pitch a huge fit as soon as someone just blinks at the gun in their faces, looks at them and goes 'really?'.  

"Well I'm desensitized to killing because of all the things I've seen/done! You're not acting right, you should be terrified!"

Well... I'm desensitized to guns in my face and people screaming at me because it happens nearly daily to at least a few times a week. I've lost count at how many times its happened and just gave up trying to count. Then the torture, then all the crap just because they want to and I'm the helpless little victim. You're either going to shoot me and life is going to suck for me, or you're not. Pick one and let me get on with my day.

That was literally me and I know a lot of others, pre-lore wipe.  You can't expect someone to become so easily desensitized to killing. Its going to take a MASSIVE toll psychologically. After awhile do you become used to it? I'm sure for people who have no emotions like sociopaths probably. I'm sure for most people it eats away at them inside. Everyone wants to be the huge bad ass but doesn't realize how unrealistic the portrayal is. Guns are mostly used for intimidation factor. Most people carrying them probably have not shot anyone and want to keep it that way. It should take a lot, but yes you could become desensitized to killing/gunshot/noise etc.

At the same time, to me its complete bs that someone can tell me the above, and then that I can't not become desensitized to being the victim. Everyone nearly was the same- point gun- initiation- yelling- threats- give me your shit- threaten to torture- follow up on torture or not- dehumanize victim- leave/hurt/kill. At that point, where it's that frequent, you sort of a get a peace about it. Well the asshole in front of me is either going to pull that trigger, or they're not. Because that's why they're doing this. They already HAVE the intention that they're going to hurt me or not, and it's out of my hands. If I die, I die. Am I SUPPOSED to be able to sway this by rp? Yes. Did it happen the majority of the time? No. My mental thought was usually- "Oh shit, this again? For fucks sake, really?!" *groan* "okay, I get it, you need to feel all powerful and whatever. Can I just go about my day now?" 

What about if this is the case? If bandit RP gets this bad again? I don't think its fair for people to use the excuse of 'I've seen horrible things, I've done horrible things, I've turned off my emotions, I learned to enjoy it, etc' when it comes to killing/torture. It's an excuse. If they get an 'off' button that allows them to become sociopathic killers, its not fair for the people who get stuck having to deal with them over and over again, to not get utterly sick of it. I literally became desensitized to it ic. Now, so soon in, this should totally not be a thing. If it gets like it did before though down the line, I don't see it being fair as people will use it to an advantage.

 

Also- my ch when confronted tends to get in peoples faces, even with weapons drawn occasionally.  It's a defensive reaction though, especially if innocents are there, she's trying to draw the anger/violence to her and hope they'll forget/ignore the others. It's not smart, but its an adaptive method that is a real one psychologically.  Its not NVFL, its drawing attention to distract then try to work out the problem, or be the punching bag and keep others from being hurt. As said, its not SMART, and its not always her reaction, but it can be. Also people use sarcasm to deal with fear a lot of the time. Will she still do what shes told? Yes. Will she give them lip? possibly. 

Just asking for some clarification to these two gray zones :) Thanks!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oliv    1882
1 hour ago, RogueSolace said:

Snip 2 good questions

Both of the questions and examples you have given are things that can not be cleared up here. NVFL, BadRP, they are both very situational and circumstantial things. It's not that we want there to be a "grey zone" but minute little changes from one situation to another can change the outcome so much. With any of these punishments, it is up to the reviewing staff team to play close attention to the details and the RP of that specific situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RogueSolace    455
2 hours ago, Oliv said:

Both of the questions and examples you have given are things that can not be cleared up here. NVFL, BadRP, they are both very situational and circumstantial things. It's not that we want there to be a "grey zone" but minute little changes from one situation to another can change the outcome so much. With any of these punishments, it is up to the reviewing staff team to play close attention to the details and the RP of that specific situation.

Thank you :) 

thats what I'm honestly worried about though. Situations like the above, as well as, I'm afraid to fight back when initiated upon, for fear of bad rp or rule break of some kind.

I totally understand the situational thing. I just would like to see more ground rules for these type of things, because say I let them take me. Be compliant, then at an opportune moment, pull an auto gun out and shoot 3 of my attackers.

So then, I get accused pf NVFL and no hostage compliance. At the same time, I had an advantage they didnt know about, and when I had a moment, I used it. A debate like that could fully go either way, depending on pov of judges. 

That, does not make me feel very safe as a player to try to do things. Because I dont want to be perma banned for making a mistake or 2 that was never clearly defined to begin with.  

I promise, I'm not trying to be difficult. Things like this are a major concern to me.  Just trying to get it pointed out for possible future notice. 

I'm glad a lot of the rules are being better explained :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oliv    1882
9 minutes ago, RogueSolace said:

snip

I can understand that. I'll use the example you gave here briefly.

Quote

 I just would like to see more ground rules for these type of things, because say I let them take me. Be compliant, then at an opportune moment, pull an auto gun out and shoot 3 of my attackers.

How many attackers? What's their position in accordance to you? Do they have weapons out? What kind of weapons? Are there like 6 people all intently focused on you? Is one person watching you, doing a poor job of it, and everyone else is occupied with something else?

That's 6 questions I just asked that could change the outcome very drastically. That's just a bit of the things we look at when it comes to something like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RogueSolace    455

All good points :) appreciate it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joffrey    893

6.2 is a brilliant rule, bravo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spartan    1231

I like the rewording, it will come in handy when quoted in verdicts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coreena    95
8 hours ago, Rolle said:

Rule 8.3 (requirement for reasonable hostage demands) removed and merged with rule 6.3 (demands during hostile situations)

Even if the hostage takers were only doing it as a fear tactic because rights were denied and to keep the roleplay going? Realistically, you can always stop them from actually committing harm to themselves at the very last second.

Edited by Coreena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rainey    22
8 minutes ago, Coreena said:

Even if the hostage takers were only doing it as a fear tactic because rights were denied and to keep the roleplay going? Realistically, you can always stop them from actually committing harm to themselves at the very last second.

Problem is, if there is no rule saying "Don't make unreasonable demands" and everybody knows they can't actually act on them, people will know they are protected by the rules, knowing the hostage takers can't actually act on their threats. Having a rule saying you can't make unreasonable demands defeats that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweetJoe    390

Umm, 8.4.4 states that if fired upon while we have hostage we can kill them? The hostages....is this true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spartan    1231
15 minutes ago, SweetJoe said:

Umm, 8.4.4 states that if fired upon while we have hostage we can kill them? The hostages....is this true?

No. 8.4.4:

Quote

 

  • 8.4.4 The rescue party refuses to negotiate and opens fire on hostage takers.

 

It says that if the rescue party refuses to negotiate (says no to the given demands or says they don't want to negotiate) and then start opening fire on you, you gain kill rights on the hostage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alex Vivian    189
12 minutes ago, Spartan said:

No. 8.4.4:

It says that if the rescue party refuses to negotiate (says no to the given demands or says they don't want to negotiate) and then start opening fire on you, you gain kill rights on the hostage.

I'm not sure I see the difference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spartan    1231
4 minutes ago, Alex Vivian said:

I'm not sure I see the difference

Let's say you initiate on me, take me hostage and before you can even try to negotiate my allies open fire on you. You can then not shoot me since I am a complying hostage.

Let's now say that you initiate on me, take me hostage and move me into a building. You take my radio and my allies surround the building. You want to negotiate over the radio but my allies refuse to and continue to keep shooting at you. You can then shoot me for my allies being idiots.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweetJoe    390
37 minutes ago, Spartan said:

Let's say you initiate on me, take me hostage and before you can even try to negotiate my allies open fire on you. You can then not shoot me since I am a complying hostage.

Let's now say that you initiate on me, take me hostage and move me into a building. You take my radio and my allies surround the building. You want to negotiate over the radio but my allies refuse to and continue to keep shooting at you. You can then shoot me for my allies being idiots.

 

But it says refuses to negotiate, not if negotiations fail.  so according to the wording and when we look at 8.4, you @Spartan are incorrect. according to this ruleset if your friend refuse to negotiate (Not if the negotiations fail) then I am allowed to kill you once they fire. here let me show you again.

8.4 Hostages may only be killed in the following scenarios:

  • 8.4.4 The rescue party refuses to negotiate and opens fire on hostage takers.

And if your friends don't answer the demands via radio or in person, the next rule states that given reasonable time I can also kill you.

8.4.5 Demands from negotiations have not been met after a reasonable time has elapsed.

 

So if your friends fire I can kill you, and if your friends don't give me what I want I can kill you once it is 100% certain they will not comply to the demands.

 

if this is not how it was intended then reword it.

 

 

Ima call in the boss type dude for his POV.  @Rolle

Edited by SweetJoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spartan    1231
27 minutes ago, SweetJoe said:

But it says refuses to negotiate, not if negotiations fail.  so according to the wording and when we look at 8.4, you @Spartan are incorrect. according to this ruleset if your friend refuse to negotiate (Not if the negotiations fail) then I am allowed to kill you once they fire. here let me show you again.

8.4 Hostages may only be killed in the following scenarios:

  • 8.4.4 The rescue party refuses to negotiate and opens fire on hostage takers.

And if your friends don't answer the demands via radio or in person, the next rule states that given reasonable time I can also kill you.

8.4.5 Demands from negotiations have not been met after a reasonable time has elapsed.

 

So if your friends fire I can kill you, and if your friends don't give me what I want I can kill you once it is 100% certain they will not comply to the demands.

 

if this is not how it was intended then reword it.

 

 

Ima call in the boss type dude for his POV.  @Rolle

I'm not sure if you maybe missed it but I said it here & here:

1 hour ago, Spartan said:

 

It says that if the rescue party refuses to negotiate (says no to the given demands or says they don't want to negotiate) and then start opening fire on you, you gain kill rights on the hostage.

 

1 hour ago, Spartan said:

Let's say you initiate on me, take me hostage and before you can even try to negotiate my allies open fire on you. You can then not shoot me since I am a complying hostage.

Let's now say that you initiate on me, take me hostage and move me into a building. You take my radio and my allies surround the building. You want to negotiate over the radio but my allies refuse to and continue to keep shooting at you. You can then shoot me for my allies being idiots.

 

I highlighted it in yellow for you :). I no where talk about failing negotiations, if my friends refuse to negotiate and just keep shooting after my captors attempted to negotiate, the captors can execute me by rule 8.4.4.

 

An example for 8.4.5 is demanding a gun for the life of the hostage and you give the allies a reasonable amount of time to deliver you a gun and they simply do not do it. For you being able to demand a gun in the first place, negotiations between the 2 parties must have been had. 8.4.4 is for the case that people refuse to negotiate in the first place. I hope I worded it better now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweetJoe    390
14 minutes ago, Spartan said:

I'm not sure if you maybe missed it but I said it here & here:

 

I highlighted it in yellow for you :). I no where talk about failing negotiations, if my friends refuse to negotiate and just keep shooting after my captors attempted to negotiate, the captors can execute me by rule 8.4.4.

 

An example for 8.4.5 is demanding a gun for the life of the hostage and you give the allies a reasonable amount of time to deliver you a gun and they simply do not do it. For you being able to demand a gun in the first place, negotiations between the 2 parties must have been had. 8.4.4 is for the case that people refuse to negotiate in the first place. I hope I worded it better now.

So as long as an attempt to communicate goes  unanswered I can gun you down like a dog?  cause if they don't respond and keep shooting, they obviously don't care about you.

 

is this correct?

Edited by SweetJoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alex Vivian    189
1 hour ago, SweetJoe said:

So as long as an attempt to communicate goes  unanswered I can gun you down like a dog?  cause if they don't respond and keep shooting, they obviously don't care about you.

 

is this correct?

From what I can gather, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so by this same logic if I had yelled out in this situation,"let's talk" or "I want to negotiate" and they hadn't ceased fire my kill would have been valid, but because I didn't my kill was invalid? What constitutes a "rescue party"? This is very unclear. My idea of a rescue party is anyone seeking to rescue the hostage. Not just people I have specifically contacted over radio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spartan    1231
18 hours ago, SweetJoe said:

So as long as an attempt to communicate goes  unanswered I can gun you down like a dog?  cause if they don't respond and keep shooting, they obviously don't care about you.

 

is this correct?

Sorry for the late reply, only just remembered that you quoted me.

A reasonable amount of time has to have passed and a reasonable amount of effort to contact the other party (joining the open coms, poking several allies to hop down etc etc) has to be done before you can shoot your hostage for the allies not replying to your negotiation attempts. Keep in mind that roleplay is your number 1 priority, not how many hostages you can kill. :) 

14 hours ago, SmashingMedal said:

Ok, so by this same logic if I had yelled out in this situation,"let's talk" or "I want to negotiate" and they hadn't ceased fire my kill would have been valid, but because I didn't my kill was invalid? What constitutes a "rescue party"? This is very unclear. My idea of a rescue party is anyone seeking to rescue the hostage. Not just people I have specifically contacted over radio.

As seen in the video in that report, you shot the hostage before you were able to speak or react to the allies trying to save him. The best way to contact the allies of your hostage is by frisking your hostage for his radio and then contact the allies of the hostage over teamspeak. This way you are sure that your demands are received loud and clear. In the situation you linked there were no negotiations nor any opportunity to start negotiations as the firefight started within seconds after the first initiation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweetJoe    390
Just now, Spartan said:

Sorry for the late reply, only just remembered that you quoted me.

A reasonable amount of time has to have passed and a reasonable amount of effort to contact the other party (joining the open coms, poking several allies to hop down etc etc) has to be done before you can shoot your hostage for the allies not replying to your negotiation attempts. Keep in mind that roleplay is your number 1 priority, not how many hostages you can kill. :) 

As seen in the video in that report, you shot the hostage before you were able to speak or react to the allies trying to save him. The best way to contact the allies of your hostage is by frisking your hostage for his radio and then contact the allies of the hostage over teamspeak. This way you are sure that your demands are received loud and clear. In the situation you linked there were no negotiations nor any opportunity to start negotiations as the firefight started within seconds after the first initiation.

Actually, Roleplay being priority, shouldn't the squad of men make attempts to contact us for negotiation rather than the otherway around? Rather than them seeing how many "Bandits" they can kill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spartan    1231
1 hour ago, SweetJoe said:

Actually, Roleplay being priority, shouldn't the squad of men make attempts to contact us for negotiation rather than the otherway around? Rather than them seeing how many "Bandits" they can kill?

How can people contact you if they don't know who you are and do not have your frequency? You got a hostage, you got the hostage's radio meaning you can contact the hostages friends. 

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


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×