Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2019-09-19, 12:01
Sign in to follow this  
Camo

Use of Third-party communication During HostileRP

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I have a two-part question, and I need this cleared up because it's been bothering me for a while. Especially with the amount of reports I have observed and noticed no staff-member points out a rule-violation that seems to not be enforced.

Before I ask the question, I want to go over the fact, the last time this was brought up, was back in February 2019, and never really was acknowledged by staff as a problem. I however, think it needs to be re-enacted as a rule to get the message across that this is inappropriate behavior in this community, lest this rule was removed for other reasons. A majority of the comments supported the concept of double-miccing, and there were very few counter-arguments that make any logical sense to think it is okay to use telepathic communication during roleplay.

 

Here's the first part of the question. In regards to being initiated upon. As a hostage, at what point is it considered meta-gaming to provide third-party communication to your allies about in-game character activities?

 For example in this scenario... Billy is walking down the street, and Jeff and Kevin walk up to him and raise their guns at Billy, they begin to scream at him to put his hands up. Billy verbally and visibly shows he's complying, and raises both his hands up. However, during this moment, Billy tells his allies on Discord, without speaking in-game; that he is being held up, and notifies his allies of the location and the description of the guys committing hostile acts against him.

Here's the second part of the question. As a player who commited a hostile act, and taken a hostage, or encounters a fire-fight, when is it considered meta-gaming to provide in-game character information about your enemies in the following scenario? For example, from the perspective of a hostile initiator(s). As a HostileRPer, you're out looking for trouble, perhaps you want to rob the next person you see. You and your buddies spot someone and decide to walk up to them. Without any prior plans, you guys begin to have a VOIP in-game conversation with the person. During this time you're speaking to your buddies on Discord, without speaking in-game, to notify them to get into position and that you want to rob this guy.

Now, right here, I see a rule violation, but let's continue the scenario.

Your buddies rob the guy, and the plan goes south. Now you find yourself getting shot at by your target's allies, and you and your buddies are scrambling to get to cover and provide proper tactical communication. However, no one is still not speaking with VOIP in-game, even though you're within ear-shot of your enemies on the otherside of a fence. You provide the tactical information to your buddy over Discord that's in a building 100m away, and he flanks them. However, this is unfair, as the enemies should of heard the callouts from their enemy from behind the fence, as they were within ear-shot.

From my understanding, as I am a player who joined in 2017 when the rules were throughly detailed and didn't leave anything room to debate regarding a verdict. To my knowledge, at during any time prior, or during a hostile activity, all parties are not allowed to use third-party communication, without also double-miccing by speaking in-game as well. The whole purpose of this was to enforce rules to prevent players from playing unfairly, by using "telepathic communication" during roleplay. This also prevents players who place anything else above roleplay, by staying in-character with the person(s) they are interacting with, whether it's in the middle of the road, or walking around a player-hub in the triangle.

I spoke to @Zilly (a former GM), they said, in a hostage scenario, you are allowed to use third-party communication, up until the point your radio is confinscated, or when you raise both hands up (or restrained). Which frankly I find stupid. I believe the second any person is has an hostile action taken against them, while they have guns pointed at them, shouldn't be allowed to communicate without also stating what's happening in-game infront of their perpetrators. If this occured in a real-life scenario, you would be shot dead on the spot, for calling in for backup. Which essentially in my opinion is a NVFL rule infraction..

After this thread is answered by a staff member, I was wanting to propose a suggestion by creating a poll to require double-miccing again.

Edited by CamoRP

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

From what I remember, the occurrence of this happening was low enough that when the rules were redone, it was thought that this specific rule wasn't needed, but that it could fall under BadRP if someone kept ignoring IG communication to the detriment of OOC communication in an obvious manner. There's also the problem that proving that OOC communication is indeed being done is almost impossible. If I'm wrong someone please correct me.

Edited by OldSchool

Share this post


Link to post

to answer the 1st question giving out your location and information that you are being help up is also a rule break so if there going to break that rule whats to stop them from using a third-party voice coms like discord if it was removed.

when in rp with people if your going to use the radio you should speak ig as well as discord/teamspeak as well no matter the situation from my pov.

when i am say just chilling at my camp and its just me and a friend and no one else around third-party coms are nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, OldSchool said:

From what I remember, the occurrence of this happening was low enough that when the rules were redone, it was thought that this specific rule wasn't needed, but that it could fall under BadRP if someone kept ignoring IG communication to the detriment of OOC communication in an obvious manner. There's also the problem that proving that OOC communication is indeed being done is almost impossible. If I'm wrong someone please correct me.

This is the issue.

 

Someone recently posted a report where they got killed by two people, and during the video of the accused defending themselves (The op had a gun out, and just didn't put their hands up) you can hear during the in-game initiation the accused** shouting back over discord/teamspeak that they misidentified the target as someone in the red shirt (him) not the target (white armband). Its not terribly realistic that he only did that in third party software, not in game, but honestly?

 

Unless someone posts a video incriminating themselves, you will -never- get a guilty verdict for this. People already clip their videos an excessive amount despite the rule that all videos must be unedited. I can't count the number of times people have posted short 15-30 second clips of videos, and strangely no one decides to ask for a longer video, or the unedited version when it has clearly been edited down.

 

I do agree, communiciation should be hot-micced, and whenever I am on a radio talking ICly and talking in discord, I personally ONLY relay communications that I am speaking in game, and do hot-mic. But I don't think its realistic for this to be added as a rule, as it'd be a farce of a rule only able to be used when someone pretty much throws them self down on their sword and admits to it.

Edited by Rover
changed OP to accused

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Pretty sure there a report recently where the GM team slapped someone with bad RP because they said he was talking in team speak but they had no proof. Their “proof” was that he was sitting in the back of a crowd and not saying anything during a hostage situation despite him not even being addressed in the situation. 

I’ve been told it’s bad RP. Why they removed it I don’t know. Made no sense to remove that particular rule and people now abuse the fact that it’s not addressed in the rule section. Just like how as a hostage after being released you can’t log out because of a combat timer. Shits been going downhill in terms of the white list and rules for awhile now. I’ve just began to ignore the dumpster fire at this point. 

Edited by Zero

Share this post


Link to post

The matter of proof isn't the point. That's like saying, just because you can't prove murder all the time, it shouldn't be bothered to be a written law.

It's a matter of concept. And what made me bring this up, was because I keep seeing reports of players who defend themselves in a report, and they provide all the video/audio evidence needed to convict them for using third-party communication unfairly during a hostile situation.

Want me to make a list of reports? I wouldn't mind spending an hour, pulling out 10 reports from the last 90 days to prove this happens and staff doesn't acknowledge it.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, CamoRP said:

The matter of proof isn't the point. That's like saying, just because you can't prove murder all the time, it shouldn't be bothered to be a written law.

It's a matter of concept. And what made me bring this up, was because I keep seeing reports of players who defend themselves in a report, and they provide all the video/audio evidence needed to convict them for using third-party communication unfairly during a hostile situation.

Want me to make a list of reports? I wouldn't mind spending an hour, pulling out 10 reports from the last 90 days to prove this happens and staff doesn't acknowledge it.

 

It might be unfair, but its not against the rules. 

 

The moment you make it against the rules, surprise, all those videos won't be posted because people 'won't be recording'. 

 

There is no point in making a rule that can't really be enforced. A better analogy would be saying making it illegal to think inappropriate thoughts about someone. You can't prove anyone does it, everyone knows it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Rover said:

--- The moment you make it against the rules, surprise, all those videos won't be posted because people 'won't be recording'. ---

I can live with that. The staff's ability to "subpoena" a player's written POV, and any further evidence, can only extend so far. 

The staff team has done well to come to a verdict by written POVs and admin logs alone. There's not that many good liars in this community, there will always be one little detail a malicious player will forget to state when defending themselves in a report. Lying in a report, or failing to provide evidence is a much worse punishment over anything else a person can do here.

A great example of a rule that was re-enacted, is the Griefing rule. I brought it up many times that it needed to be added back after Settlement Rules section was removed in 2017. Finally, the staff decided to do so. Now for nearly 2 years, there was no way to enforce this, without a person catching a player in the act. However, it still was added back into the rules. (Thankfully there's better admin logs and admin tools now in 2019 to deal with this.)

 

 

So I say "bullshit", to saying that because it "can't be really enforced" it shouldn't be in the rules. 

I get what you're saying in regards to "damage control", such as if there's more pros and cons to adding back such a rule. But ask yourself, what is right; what is fair?

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, CamoRP said:

Here's the first part of the question. In regards to being initiated upon. As a hostage, at what point is it considered meta-gaming to provide third-party communication to your allies about in-game character activities?

Here's the second part of the question. As a player who commited a hostile act, and taken a hostage, or encounters a fire-fight, when is it considered meta-gaming to provide in-game character information about your enemies in the following scenario? For example, from the perspective of a hostile initiator(s). As a HostileRPer, you're out looking for trouble, perhaps you want to rob the next person you see. You and your buddies spot someone and decide to walk up to them. Without any prior plans, you guys begin to have a VOIP in-game conversation with the person. During this time you're speaking to your buddies on Discord, without speaking in-game, to notify them to get into position and that you want to rob this guy. Your buddies rob the guy, and the plan goes south. Now you find yourself getting shot at by your target's allies, and you and your buddies are scrambling to get to cover and provide proper tactical communication. However, no one is still not speaking with VOIP in-game, even though you're within ear-shot of your enemies on the otherside of a fence. You provide the tactical information to your buddy over Discord that's in a building 100m away, and he flanks them. However, this is unfair, as the enemies should of heard the callouts from their enemy from behind the fence, as they were within ear-shot.

 To my knowledge, at during any time prior, or during a hostile activity, all parties are not allowed to use third-party communication, without also double-miccing by speaking in-game as well. The whole purpose of this was to enforce rules to prevent players from playing unfairly, by using "telepathic communication" during roleplay.

 you are allowed to use third-party communication, up until the point your radio is confinscated, or when you raise both hands up (or restrained). Which frankly I find stupid. I believe the second any person is has an hostile action taken against them, while they have guns pointed at them, shouldn't be allowed to communicate without also stating what's happening in-game infront of their perpetrators.

If the player tells them on discord before putting up his hands, it is not considered metagaming. Nor just having one hand up. If both hands are raised and he communicates on discord or another third party communication platform then this is considered metagaming such as were they're taking said person etc. Being restrained also restricts you from using communication.

Again, with this rule it is the same as I stated in the yellow response. As much as I'd appreciate seeing this implemented in game - we cannot force people to do so unless it is a rule remade.

The radio double mic rule was removed a long while ago - whilst it does suck all I can suggest is making a suggestion thread of implementing this rule back in. Therefore not only non-hostile roleplayers have to double mic where they are but hostile RPers will need to double mic them building a position on their prey.

Putting aside the hands up like I previously stated in the green text. If you have your radio confiscated then you need to block all communications from any third party communication. You don't need to state the communication as double mic anymore as this rule is not implemented anymore. However it would create more immersion.

Share this post


Link to post

In terms of tactical information being sent in firefight, I think it's dumb that I can't whisper quietly into my radio to mark targets without everyone within a ten meter distance knowing exactly where I am. 

The other examples I'm all for though.

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, Veryniceperson said:

In terms of tactical information being sent in firefight, I think it's dumb that I can't whisper quietly into my radio to mark targets without everyone within a ten meter distance knowing exactly where I am. 

The other examples I'm all for though.

I can compromise with this concept, we all know the VOIP in-game is unrealistic in-regards to voice-distance, and the methods of modes of the "radio". I liked Arma 2 - Side, Direct, Vehicle, Group chat better. 

I am however, concerned with people who use third party communication unfairly to get an advantage in-game over their enemies.

Share this post


Link to post

I personally use radio to the moment my hands are above my head. And I personally prefer to hot mic everything I say IC into radio, because why not. It's apparently enjoyable listening man argue over the radio in close vicinity. But this should be in the rules. Because it's just that people start circling around and preparing to initiate while in silence. Or preparing to defend in silence. I have managed to defuse so many hostile situations with speaking into the radio, telling friends that "Heey, there are three people approaching at place X. Guns out? You people? No? Ok." And continue to hot mic the conversation. It's a direct threat and reminder to people that others know what is happening. I hate silent moments.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...