Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2019-08-23, 18:40
Sign in to follow this  
Dustup

Help me understand kill rights please

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Pretty much who ever aims a gun first can be shot on sight without a word being spoken is what I've gathered and staff can just make up things to fit as they go along.
What the rights should be is the attacker is the one that does dmg or puts your life in danger such as I'll kill you if you do that etc, Defender is the one well defending him and his friends and the only once who gains rights from the attacking side are the people who joined in with the attacker to attack other then that they should not be allowed to act on anything even seeing there best bud getting shot down unless they are in an approved group.
What I got from asking a staff member was that Samti was not the best at explaining things and that the wording was off but yet even after asking the member to get it sorted out it still stays up leaving me to think that you just gain rights from anything a staff member says gives you rights.

Edited by Eagle

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Honestly I guess I’ve been seeing kill rights all wrong because if I kill someone and a guy runs up in his group and ik this guy is part of his group. I can’t kill him but he could kill me or have his gun out and reinitiate on me and gun me down 

Edited by aJoogie

Share this post


Link to post

This is what I gathered from these reports and your post.

- Punching someone without any previous hostilities is not an initiation. (even though it deals damage)

- Raising your weapon without saying a word is an initiation. (even though is doesn't deal damage)

That seems very backwards and will most probably end up biting a lot of newcomers in the ass, especially if staff comes here and says it's "situational" and that these are not always the case. How can you follow rules that are this ambiguous?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Thats what I understand about kill rights:

Rolle wrote here:

Spoiler

 

"In some situations, yes. In others, no. It depends.

So, I understand:

In some situations you can kill. In others, not.

It depends in which mood the staff team is or how the staff member dealing with the report understands the rules, or what name you have.

It all depend on who writes the verdict.

Edited by Terra

Share this post


Link to post

Rules depend on whoever writes the verdict. I tried to contact @Samti about the situation in question but he didn't respond to me so I guess I won't get any proper explanation as to how this shockingly verdict came about. But like I said there are no rules set in stone, they change based on who handles things.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

@Dustup I am "A".

I think that you are bringing a very interesting discussion.

However, it makes me feel weird that people are attacking each other because of this report... Look at these!

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

And @Eagle asked the question here, and people gave him tons of BeanZ! XD!

Spoiler

 

 

I would like to insist on this: I did not want "B" to die. I did not intend to bait. And I did not want to get kill rights over him. My punch was intended as RP... probably inappropriate RP 😞

And yes, probably a different day a different staff team would have given a different verdict.

I would like to stay out of this. I did not want him to get shot.

Edited by William89

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, William89 said:

@Dustup I am "A".

I think that you are bringing a very interesting discussion.

However, it makes me feel weird that people are attacking each other because of this report... Look at these!

  Reveal hidden contents

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

And @Eagle asked the question here, and people gave him tons of BeanZ! XD!

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I would like to insist on this: I did not want "B" to die. I did not intend to bait. And I did not want to get kill rights over him. My punch was intended as RP... probably inappropriate RP 😞

And yes, probably a different day a different staff team would have given a different verdict.

I would like to stay out of this. I did not want him to get shot.

It was clearly not any form of "attacking" as you put, given all three punishments were initially withdrawn. Though to reiterate there was and is no upset with the staff member themselves, only a verdict.

That being said, it brings up the question at hand.

All staff members should be able to come up with the same verdict, yet there is such distinguishable inconsistency with their outcomes in verdicts. This stems mainly from the overall vagueness of the rules as they can be interpreted in too many ways.

This is what this thread and many "Ask the Staff" threads have tried to point out, and are trying to fix.

Share this post


Link to post

First of all, you must stop assuming that report verdicts on DayZRP create precedents for rules or future reports. That is not and has never been the case. Rules are defined on the rule page, not in report verdicts. It's cool to see how a situation is handled by staff, but don't count on it being the same 6 months later in another report. As Terra mentioned, every report is unique and handled by different staff members and may have different outcomes for very similar situations depending on staff members, who is involved, what kind of background they have, the history between two groups or the RP that has lead to the situation. There's too many factors that may affect a situation to create a specific list on the rule page that says "this and this and this is allowed, this and this isn't". That's why we intentionally keep the rules ambiguous and let you the players use commons sense to make sure these rules are not broken. Considering the number of reports per active player on the server it works just fine most of the time if you're not completely braindead and don't run around pointing guns at people for no reason or initiate on everything that moves.

 

Now to your questions:

WAS IT ACTUALLY A VALID INITIATION BY A?: No, just punching is not an initiation, it's a hostile action, just like shooting someone. And as we all know, you can't shoot someone without initiation. So this is more like attempted invalid kill more than anything, however since it's just a single punch it's usually not enough to kill so it wouldn't warrant that kind of verdict.

WHO WAS ACTUALLY THE "ATTACKER" IN THIS SITUATION AND WHO ACTUALLY GAINED "DEFENSIVE RIGHTS"?: Whoever was the first one to initiate,  attack or otherwise provoke the hostile situation. Since the punch came first, the guy punching is the attacker and the guy being punched the defender. It's all explained on the rules page.

IF "A" WAS THE ATTACKER AND "B HAD DEFENSIVE RIGHTS, DID "C" HAVE ANY RIGHTS WHICH WOULD ALLOW THEM TO KILL "A"?: Why would C kill A, I thought they were together 😄 Since C is a friend of A who is the attacker and they are not in an official group together, C cannot do anything in this situation but initiate on his own. on B if he wants to get involved.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THIS VERDICT?: None, see my statement above about verdicts not creating precedents.

Share this post


Link to post

If someone punches you, you need to/should be able to gun his ass down straight away. Any hostile action towards myself should be counted as an attempt to kill me.
If that's now how it is then it should be...
If A comes and punches B out of nowhere, B and C who are together should gain the defensive rights and be allowed to gun A down.
In case A survives and kills B or C without initiation, it should be KoS/Rdm in-case he still hasnt engaged. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, xanx said:

If someone punches you, you need to/should be able to gun his ass down straight away. Any hostile action towards myself should be counted as an attempt to kill me.
If that's now how it is then it should be...
If A comes and punches B out of nowhere, B and C who are together should gain the defensive rights and be allowed to gun A down.
In case A survives and kills B or C without initiation, it should be KoS/Rdm in-case he still hasnt engaged. 

See, the newbie gets it 🙂 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Roland said:

 That's why we intentionally keep the rules ambiguous and let you the players use commons sense to make sure these rules are not broken. Considering the number of reports per active player on the server it works just fine most of the time if you're not completely braindead and don't run around pointing guns at people for no reason or initiate on everything that moves.

Personally I don't think having ambiguous rules is the best way because it certainly has caused a confusion within the community and I personally have been trying to understand what would warrant an initiation or not, I understand that it's based off of common sense to act ig but common sense is not the same within everyone, i think having base rules that would explain the nature of an initiation, if someone points a gun and gives you an hostile demands was always the core of the rule and what i count an initiation, but if someone punches someone i dont understand why their friend would get rights to gun them down. I think the rules should be clearer to let everyone know what is considered a hostile action, having the rules be loose will lead to people falling within the grey area and possibly break a rule by accident.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Roland said:

See, the newbie gets it 🙂 

M8 I spoent 8k hours of my life playing Altis life, so servers like these and their rules are quite easy to understand once you spend loads of time playing them 🙂 

Share this post


Link to post

As rolle just said, it doesn’t matter, hope you have a competent GM handling the report, and hope they see it in your favor, because If both of those aren’t going for you, enjoy the vacation.

 

See, people can and will abuse any chance they get to shoot you, even if it remotely sniffs or kill rights, they can and will use them. Hence why hostile RP is primarily reserved for bigger groups of people who can PvP their way out of any situation- hence my previous statement.

 

Hope this clears it up!

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, xanx said:

M8 I spoent 8k hours of my life playing Altis life, so servers like these and their rules are quite easy to understand once you spend loads of time playing them 🙂 

I think that you may have just offended him... XD! (comparing DayZRP and and Altis life I mean 😉 )

Edited by William89

Share this post


Link to post

To add onto my point, a single punch shouldn’t be considered valid kill rights for your friend, and honestly not to you either. Now if he comes down swinging and stun locking you with punch after punch ya sure, but a single hit = getting gunned down? Jokes mate

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Roland said:

First of all, you must stop assuming that report verdicts on DayZRP create precedents for rules or future reports. That is not and has never been the case. Rules are defined on the rule page, not in report verdicts. It's cool to see how a situation is handled by staff, but don't count on it being the same 6 months later in another report. As Terra mentioned, every report is unique and handled by different staff members and may have different outcomes for very similar situations depending on staff members, who is involved, what kind of background they have, the history between two groups or the RP that has lead to the situation. There's too many factors that may affect a situation to create a specific list on the rule page that says "this and this and this is allowed, this and this isn't". That's why we intentionally keep the rules ambiguous and let you the players use commons sense to make sure these rules are not broken. Considering the number of reports per active player on the server it works just fine most of the time if you're not completely braindead and don't run around pointing guns at people for no reason or initiate on everything that moves.

 

Now to your questions:

WAS IT ACTUALLY A VALID INITIATION BY A?: No, just punching is not an initiation, it's a hostile action, just like shooting someone. And as we all know, you can't shoot someone without initiation. So this is more like attempted invalid kill more than anything, however since it's just a single punch it's usually not enough to kill so it wouldn't warrant that kind of verdict.

WHO WAS ACTUALLY THE "ATTACKER" IN THIS SITUATION AND WHO ACTUALLY GAINED "DEFENSIVE RIGHTS"?: Whoever was the first one to initiate,  attack or otherwise provoke the hostile situation. Since the punch came first, the guy punching is the attacker and the guy being punched the defender. It's all explained on the rules page.

IF "A" WAS THE ATTACKER AND "B HAD DEFENSIVE RIGHTS, DID "C" HAVE ANY RIGHTS WHICH WOULD ALLOW THEM TO KILL "A"?: Why would C kill A, I thought they were together 😄 Since C is a friend of A who is the attacker and they are not in an official group together, C cannot do anything in this situation but initiate on his own. on B if he wants to get involved.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THIS VERDICT?: None, see my statement above about verdicts not creating precedents.

I screwed up the headings, it's been a long day, but thte contents put under the headings made sense. 

Headings were supposed to be (and have since been fixed) "WAS IT ACTUALLY A VALID INITIATION BY B" i.e. B simply raising a weapon after being punched, the point being that he did not initiate according to the rules (and very recent verdicts) so how was it deemed a valid initiation which granted rights to C?  And yeah you caught the second one, the point being how the hell did staff find C's kill as valid when C did not initiate yet was deemed to have gained kill rights against B simply because B raised their weapon in response to being punched by A, especially when you yourself seem to be saying it doesn't grant kill rights.

Does that provide better context for my questions?  Do you see my confusion now given the verdict and your own clearing up of the rules (which seem to support what I had thought was how the rules were supposed to work) which seem to be at polar opposites of each other?

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Dustup said:

I screwed up the headings, it's been a long day, but thte contents put under the headings made sense. 

 Headings were supposed to be (and have since been fixed) "WAS IT ACTUALLY A VALID INITIATION BY B" i.e. B simply raising a weapon after being punched, the point being that he did not initiate according to the rules (and very recent verdicts) so how was it deemed a valid initiation which granted rights to C?  And yeah you caught the second one, the point being how the hell did staff find C's kill as valid when C did not initiate yet was deemed to have gained kill rights against B simply because B raised their weapon in response to being punched by A, especially when you yourself seem to be saying it doesn't grant kill rights.

 Does that provide better context for my questions?  Do you see my confusion now given the verdict and your own clearing up of the rules (which seem to support what I had thought was how the rules were supposed to work) which seem to be at polar opposites of each other?

That leaves me even more confused 😄 Why would B have to initiate, he has already been attacked (punched) which means he has defensive rights, he doesn't need to initiate. With whom is C a friend again, since now you've completely messed it up 😄 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Roland said:

That leaves me even more confused 😄 Why would B have to initiate, he has already been attacked (punched) which means he has defensive rights, he doesn't need to initiate. With whom is C a friend again, since now you've completely messed it up 😄 

"A" and "C" are friends (who are in a dynamic)

I know "B" doesn't HAVE to initiate, but the report verdict says that "B" DID INITIATE by simply raising his weapon in response to being punched by "A", and that therefore "C" gained rights to immediately gun down "B".  Nothing was said by "B", no demand was made by them, just a simple raising of the weapon, he didn't even get a chance to talk.  This is why I am confused as everything I thought I knew about the rules says that the only one with rights to kill in the situation was "B" and he only had rights on "A", even if he killed "A", "C" should have either initiated or stated out of it, not gunned down "B".  This is the exact reason people asked about initiations in the "Ask the Staff" posts I linked.  Maybe if they would have been given more of an explanation they would have received a different answer and there wouldn't be so much confusion.

Honestly, as confused as you and I appear to be making each other, I don't think we are as confused as some of the members of your Staff team at the moment about the rules and how they are supposed to be interpreted and applied.  I acknowledge that they are all volunteers, they probably get a lot of undeserved shit and are unnecessarily put under a microscope by the community at times.  I also really do appreciate the work they all do for this community, but IF the interpretation of the rules in the verdict was wrong, hopefully this at least can be a learning experience for us all (or just me if I am waaaay off in my understanding of how the rules work).

Edited by Dustup

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Dustup said:

I know "B" doesn't HAVE to initiate, but the report verdict says that "B" DID INITIATE by simply raising his weapon in response to being punched by "A", and that therefore "C" gained rights to immediately gun down "B".  Nothing was said by "B", no demand was made by them, just a simple raising of the weapon, he didn't even get a chance to talk. 

Ah, I understand now. Yeah, in that case it does sound wrong, C shouldn't have been able to act on this. I will fix.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Roland said:

Ah, I understand now. Yeah, in that case it does sound wrong, C shouldn't have been able to act on this. I will fix.

Thanks for taking the time out to clarify, I can only imagine how busy you must be with IRL and this community especially with all that flying around spawning wolves and shit on people IG

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, William89 said:

I think that you may have just offended him... XD! (comparing DayZRP and and Altis life I mean 😉 )

Im saying that both things have similar rules so idk what you're on about 🤨

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I believe that the current rules surrounding kill rights  need to be updated.

Edited by SassyRP

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, SassyRP said:

I believe that the current rules surrounding kill rights  need to be updated.

Do you have a suggestion as to how to update it? Or what parts specifically that you feel need to be changed?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rover said:

Do you have a suggestion as to how to update it? Or what parts specifically that you feel need to be changed?

I think a large part of the people posting in this thread want the kill rights from 2016-17. Those rights were perfectly understood and were pretty clear and unambiguous. 

Leaving rules complicated and ambiguous leads to the situation we have now; a majority of people are confused and don’t like the rule, while not even all the staff members understand the rule. Seems like the staff members are not on the same page when it comes to how certain rules are understood and enforced.

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...