Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2019-12-11, 04:37 WE ARE RECRUITING
Sign in to follow this  
Blake

Regarding 2.3

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Crimson_Tiger said:

Shit talking alone, no matter how many times it happens, doesn't justify constant raids and attacks. You are simply feeding into what the other person wants. Now if they keep shooting at you or attacking in retaliation then fuck them. Go at them. But just verbal insults? That's giving in to their wishes. When my people were raided once, all the attackers did was call us the N-word a lot and play music through their mics. We just ignored them. Be the bigger man. 

This thread and the conversation up to here was about 2.3 reports, and I was referring to the party starting the 2.3 report. The people being oppressed. Not attackers shit-talking defenders.

 

I would still disagree with you however. If you are shit-talking someone, and they raid you and win then you continue to shit talk them, you are inviting that. People need to eat some humble pie when they lose, and not run to the rules to get their victory. 2.3 reports are not and should not be used for people that are provoking IC hostilities and unable to handle the consequences of that. It should be for people that have actually actively taken steps to deescalate the situation, and have been unable to remedy it with IC actions, or with an OOC face to face to talk it out. 

 

If people are ICly goading and poking the bear, they deserve getting bit. Hiding behind the rules is not okay.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the point of 2.3 is to discourage people from witch-hunting other groups constantly. If a small group A angers a much bigger group B, it shouldn't ruin the roleplay of group A at all times, meaning that hostility can be provided and encouraged, but without the need for constant initiation or killing. At the end of the day, it gets tiresome to keep explaining over and over how your character managed to survive fifty bullets to the chest. I see why people are annoyed by 2.3, since people like to PvP, but I think that there is a necessity to keep some sort of rule like that in the rules, just as a reminder of sorts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Rover said:

If people are ICly goading and poking the bear, they deserve getting bit. Hiding behind the rules is not okay.

Fair enough. With how you explained it, I can agree with that. 

Edited by Crimson_Tiger

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Rover said:

People need to eat some humble pie when they lose, and not run to the rules to get their victory. 2.3 reports are not and should not be used for people that are provoking IC hostilities and unable to handle the consequences of that.

Hear, Hear. Best way to say it.

 

  Handle shit ic if you just got shot the fuck up after shit talking figure out a new way to roleplay the situation other then shit talking a bunch more. If you do keep shit talking a bunch more, you shouldn't hide behind the rules if you get attacked constantly. I don't give a fuck if it's just ''hurting someones ego''. In what realistic scenario is a survivor group going to be radioing in, or in person talking shit to another group of bandits, trained military, or god knows what else after already being shot up by them. ???

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Rover said:

If people are ICly goading and poking the bear, they deserve getting bit. Hiding behind the rules is not okay.

This is the issue, the main issue. They hide behind it and refuse to sleep in the bed they made for themselves. They don't want to come to terms with the fact that their characters aren't the main antagonist or protagonist for the whole servers roleplay. They don't want to accept the fact that they can't handle what they've started and refuse to admit that to avoid damaging their ego.

Edited by General Rickets

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, General Rickets said:

This is the issue, the main issue. They hide behind it and refuse to sleep in the bed they made for themselves. They don't want to come to terms with the fact that their characters aren't the main antagonist for the whole servers roleplay. They don't want to accept the fact that they can't handle what they've started and refuse to admit that to avoid damaging their ego.

 

I agree that players with this mentality are indeed a problem. But they aren't the only problem, and they aren't using the rule as its intended. This shouldn't lead to the removal of the rule, just those abusing it.

 

It doesn't touch on the issue that there are more then a few players in this community who get online for PVP, and just prefer doing that. I hung around a couple of camps being subjected to this sort of behaviour, and its very easy for a hostile player to make demands that aren't reasonable and 'force' a fight out of people. If this is done repeatedly day in and day out, that behaviour shouldn't be tolerated either.

 

I am one of the 'comply, comply, curl up and cry' campfire roleplayers. On my last character I didn't talk shit, I didn't fight back, and I tended to just be damn near subservient. Even so, when I got scooped up in hostile RP'rs dragnets of certain camps, I would still be ridiculed and belittled and have people requesting perms to mark, scar, kill, etc my character despite having zero history. 

None of that bothers me. Once. Twice is alright. Three times is getting boring. Once it becomes the day in and day out, it just gets so tedious. I took an extended break when I was a member of Galapagos (Fairly sure we never mentioned the words 2.3, or considered a report, so not sure if its relevant) because it was all the RP I was finding. Hostile RP is great to drive and push a story, but you can't have a story that just consists of it and nothing else. There is a non-vocal minority of players that don't do anything to bring hostile RP down on their heads, yet sometimes get lumped in with others.

 

I don't want to paint all hostile roleplayers with one brush because I have received stellar hostile RP, but easily half of the times my particular character was taken hostage (complying) it was like they didn't know what to do with me. The hostile RP was somewhat memey, short, and uncomfortable. It felt like they were itching to get their trigger fingers going, not roleplay with random stranger that complied. It wasn't even a case of an ongoing firefight they needed to be at, I can understand when someone doesn't have time to deal with me and just tells me to go away so they can get back in the fight.

 

Again, the above is just my personal experiences and will color my thoughts of the requirements of 2.3. I don't want to see the community lose members who can't enjoy themselves because they keep getting initiated on/killed, and I also don't want to see the community lose members that provide competent and quality hostile RP.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Rover said:

People need to eat some humble pie when they lose.

I couldn't agree with this more, it's a sad shame that this seems only to be expected from defenders when they lose and not when attackers lose. The reality is that attackers backing off and licking their wounds just doesn't happen very often, nor do they come with terms to stop themselves from losing men. This is because (as I've posted in my previous post) the difference in mentality that includes things like roleplaying wounds, casualties or decreased manpower.

If you continue to talk smack after you've taken a beating, I wholly agree that the IC consequences of this are your own to bear (and if they threaten you with R2.3 while you're confident that you're not breaking it, you should just report it). But to say defenders do this all the time is a odd statement, more often than not I encounter people that just want to be left alone and don't talk mad shit about the people that come to kick their teeth in.

One of the problems is the lack of consequence that comes with a death. As it stands, death means next to nothing, because you can just respawn and do it all over again until you eventually win.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Rover said:

 

I agree that players with this mentality are indeed a problem. But they aren't the only problem, and they aren't using the rule as its intended. This shouldn't lead to the removal of the rule, just those abusing it.

 

It doesn't touch on the issue that there are more then a few players in this community who get online for PVP, and just prefer doing that. I hung around a couple of camps being subjected to this sort of behaviour, and its very easy for a hostile player to make demands that aren't reasonable and 'force' a fight out of people. If this is done repeatedly day in and day out, that behaviour shouldn't be tolerated either.

 

I am one of the 'comply, comply, curl up and cry' campfire roleplayers. On my last character I didn't talk shit, I didn't fight back, and I tended to just be damn near subservient. Even so, when I got scooped up in hostile RP'rs dragnets of certain camps, I would still be ridiculed and belittled and have people requesting perms to mark, scar, kill, etc my character despite having zero history. 

None of that bothers me. Once. Twice is alright. Three times is getting boring. Once it becomes the day in and day out, it just gets so tedious. I took an extended break when I was a member of Galapagos (Fairly sure we never mentioned the words 2.3, or considered a report, so not sure if its relevant) because it was all the RP I was finding. Hostile RP is great to drive and push a story, but you can't have a story that just consists of it and nothing else. There is a non-vocal minority of players that don't do anything to bring hostile RP down on their heads, yet sometimes get lumped in with others.

 

I don't want to paint all hostile roleplayers with one brush because I have received stellar hostile RP, but easily half of the times my particular character was taken hostage (complying) it was like they didn't know what to do with me. The hostile RP was somewhat memey, short, and uncomfortable. It felt like they were itching to get their trigger fingers going, not roleplay with random stranger that complied. It wasn't even a case of an ongoing firefight they needed to be at, I can understand when someone doesn't have time to deal with me and just tells me to go away so they can get back in the fight.

 

Again, the above is just my personal experiences and will color my thoughts of the requirements of 2.3. I don't want to see the community lose members who can't enjoy themselves because they keep getting initiated on/killed, and I also don't want to see the community lose members that provide competent and quality hostile RP.

Take this as an example mate, 

We have been asked for a grace period from certain groups and such in the past and more recently asked for a 7 day grace period. We accepted this on OOC grounds because despite popular belief we don't intend on ruining other peoples experience here on DayZRP. They were given their grace period to cool off, regroup and crack on with their RP. Yesterday, no more than 24 hours later, the same group took someone hostage IN CHERNO and openly admitted that they wish to attack our camp, take over . Now how are we to proceed with this? If we attack them for threatening to attack our camp and take it over wiping us out we get reported for 2.3? If we let this slide people will begin to think we are push overs and start bigdicking us again. We try and have tried to accommodate EVERY OOC agreement with all camps and people because we, like mentioned earlier, don't want to stop people enjoying the game but how do we proceed in this situation?

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, Rover said:

This thread and the conversation up to here was about 2.3 reports, and I was referring to the party starting the 2.3 report. The people being oppressed. Not attackers shit-talking defenders.

 

I would still disagree with you however. If you are shit-talking someone, and they raid you and win then you continue to shit talk them, you are inviting that. People need to eat some humble pie when they lose, and not run to the rules to get their victory. 2.3 reports are not and should not be used for people that are provoking IC hostilities and unable to handle the consequences of that. It should be for people that have actually actively taken steps to deescalate the situation, and have been unable to remedy it with IC actions, or with an OOC face to face to talk it out. 

 

If people are ICly goading and poking the bear, they deserve getting bit. Hiding behind the rules is not okay.

Say this a bit louder for the people in the back 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, General Rickets said:

Take this as an example mate, 

We have been asked for a grace period from certain groups and such in the past and more recently asked for a 7 day grace period. We accepted this on OOC grounds because despite popular belief we don't intend on ruining other peoples experience here on DayZRP. They were given their grace period to cool off, regroup and crack on with their RP. Yesterday, no more than 24 hours later, the same group took someone hostage IN CHERNO and openly admitted that they wish to attack our camp, take over . Now how are we to proceed with this? If we attack them for threatening to attack our camp and take it over wiping us out we get reported for 2.3? If we let this slide people will begin to think we are push overs and start bigdicking us again. We try and have tried to accommodate EVERY OOC agreement with all camps and people because we, like mentioned earlier, don't want to stop people enjoying the game but how do we proceed in this situation?

 

I have a pretty high opinion of Legion, and what I have seen of you guys ICly as well as my admittedly limited experience in the OOC side of it. 

 

If I were in the exact shoes of the situation above I'd first reach out OOCly to the person I'd discussed the grace period with and have a polite 'da fuq?' conversation, and ask if they wanted the grace period, or if that was there way of saying it was over. If they indicated they still wanted the grace period, ask them to get their group members in line and that its a two-way street; if they engage in hostilities, expect to get it back. In the heat of the moment though, if they are in your area, deal with them accordingly. They started it. But I would definitely reach out to have an OOC talk after, and figure out what was going on. Maybe it was a rogue member of the group that wasn't aware/didn't care, and the other groups leader will need to deal with that person. Its hard to say. 

 

I applaud that you guys are accommodating requests for leniency. If people take advantage of that generosity though, I would have extremely little sympathy for them. I want hostile groups to be encouraged to help other groups OOCly enjoy their roleplay, and if someone establishes an armistice just to immediately break it that is... disappointing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

People talk shit, and they get smacked, they talk shit again, they get smacked again. OOC and IC talks happen where they are told to stop talking shit to stop attacks. Guess what happens next. You guess wrong. They talk shit again and threaten with a 2.3 to the people who are attacking. This happens every time without fail. So who's the blame here? The attackers? The people who talk shit? 

 

People make decisions and they go wrong and their actions are met with force that's how it used to be. But now people make awful actions and they can keep making these awful actions because they can hide behind 2.3.

 

Anytime I've seen a 2.3 go around its the same circle without fail. 

 

 

Edited by FalkRP

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Roland said:

So this thread must mean that OP knows his group has broken or is borderlining the rule

Pretty big accusation, I wanted to get more thoughts from people regarding 2.3. Thought that was the reason we had the community discussion in the first place. 
Also, I am not worried about us getting 2.3'd, we are good boys. 

Share this post


Link to post

I would just like to make something clear in regards to 2.3

Staff will look into context if a 2.3 report is put up.
People may use this rule as a weapon, but it might not go their way unless staff see 2.3 was indeed broken. If they have been provoking hostilities ingame, it's their own damn fault at the end of the day if they're being attacked. If they are attacked multiple times a day continuously, yeah, maybe it is a 2.3 violation but again it always depends on case by case judgement.

Again, they can threaten as much as they want but staff aren't stupid, we do play ingame and we do know what groups have done what in the past. Threaten as much as you want, but if there's no concrete evidence to you actually being harassed, we're not gonna just punish without context and evidence.

Share this post


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

I would just like to make something clear in regards to 2.3

Staff will look into context if a 2.3 report is put up.
People may use this rule as a weapon, but it might not go their way unless staff see 2.3 was indeed broken. If they have been provoking hostilities ingame, it's their own damn fault at the end of the day if they're being attacked. If they are attacked multiple times a day continuously, yeah, maybe it is a 2.3 violation but again it always depends on case by case judgement.

Again, they can threaten as much as they want but staff aren't stupid, we do play ingame and we do know what groups have done what in the past. Threaten as much as you want, but if there's no concrete evidence to you actually being harassed, we're not gonna just punish without context and evidence.

But the last 2.3 report was approved even though it was their doing that they were attacked and also in retaliation for them attacking us? So you have to understand why we are paranoid about further false accusations.

 

Edited by General Rickets

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Blake said:

Pretty big accusation, I wanted to get more thoughts from people regarding 2.3. Thought that was the reason we had the community discussion in the first place. 
Also, I am not worried about us getting 2.3'd, we are good boys. 

Not an accusation, just a possible explanation for the thread. If you are not the one being blacklisted for 2.3 which you haven't commited, why create a thread? I know from my seven years around here that people VERY VERY rarely ever create suggestions to rule changes if it's not something benefiting them in one way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Roland said:

Not an accusation, just a possible explanation for the thread. If you are not the one being blacklisted for 2.3 which you haven't commited, why create a thread? I know from my seven years around here that people VERY VERY rarely ever create suggestions to rule changes if it's not something benefiting them in one way or another.

I did not create this thread to get the rule changed, I know for a fact it most likely never will. I wanted to explain where I was coming from and get a feeling if some people agreed with me/or didn't and why. I'm guessing this is just one of the very very rare threads then. Also, I did not directly suggest the rule to be changed, I simply asked If people thought there were room for improvements and if it was even possible that the rule itself could be changed/re-written. 

Anyways, thx. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Blake said:

I did not create this thread to get the rule changed, I know for a fact it most likely never will. I wanted to explain where I was coming from and get a feeling if some people agreed with me/or didn't and why. I'm guessing this is just one of the very very rare threads then. Also, I did not directly suggest the rule to be changed, I simply asked If people thought there were room for improvements and if it was even possible that the rule itself could be changed/re-written. 

Anyways, thx. 

That is fair enough, I apologize for making such an assumption for your motives, it was not my intention. I must have misunderstood the meaning behind your first post as I went through the comments which suggested rule removal. Carry on sir 🙇‍♂️

Share this post


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

Not an accusation, just a possible explanation for the thread. If you are not the one being blacklisted for 2.3 which you haven't commited, why create a thread? I know from my seven years around here that people VERY VERY rarely ever create suggestions to rule changes if it's not something benefiting them in one way or another.

Because we don't necessarily agree with the rule, let me clarify what happened in the past. We are told that a group wants an ooc grace period after they accuse us of attacking constantly with and absurd number. But at the time, I was not getting in game as much and not many others in the group were so I was not sure if they were coming at us with the truth because if members from our group actually did restrict the rp that they were having then you bet we want to get the fixed. But since I couldn't talk to everyone and get their side of the story at the time of us talking to the group that wanted to throw a report if we didn't agree on the ooc grace period. But it turned out as I felt but we had already agreed to the ooc agreement to resolve the issue and move on,  that the group was being constantly attacked by so many different people that they lumped them all and claimed it was us doing the attacks while that was simply not true.

The groups spirits went down along with the lack of interest from the current state of rp on the server, some started to lose interest in getting ingame because of this possible 2.3 report + ooc agreements that put a big ass pause on the RP, it throws everyone off and leaves a bad taste in the entire groups mouth.

We're not saying remove the rule, just give the rule more explanation and let the consequence be known for a false 2.3 claim in the hopes of deterring people from wanting to waive around the power to possibly force archive a group because of an attack that is heavily justified IC'ly, because after 2.3 is 2.4 and that's to not be a sore loser and not to hold grudges which is usually where these reports stem from.

I don't understand the rule quite well, in the past there have been groups that were constantly pressurized to do what they were told by aggressors, for example take Jaysh Allah and the constant pressure we had on wolf pack & co., regardless of what anyone says Jaysh Allah's constant pressure changed the way people roleplay on the entire server, groups that would not of in the past worked together started to work towards a common enemy, women throughout the server would cover up when they saw the Jihadis. What im going for is that with constant pressure it can lead to people getting upset about losing the gear they had moments after they would talk a big game and insult the hostile group which would lead them to attack then they would blackmail "stop harrasing us or we will put the report up" or it can create great roleplay for groups to unite and make coalitions. Which is what happened, at one point there was a cool 60+ people looking for Jaysh Allah which was crazy to witness and led to some of the best RP i've had since I been back.

I do have a question about the rule though, so hypothetically if group A keeps constantly going to group B that has in the past taken members of group A captive or tried on numerous situations then when group A goes to group B and fights them and gives them an out, then group B goes back and ends up breaking the deal I would assume this would give reason to another meeting, so group A goes back to group B to try and figure out why the deal was broken but they are welcomed with constant shit talk from group B behind their base walls so group A initiates on the base trying to get them out, but they don't comply and a firefight ensues and members of both groups are killed but group B is wiped, there's no roleplay to be had if there's no one there so group A would come back the next day with the intentions of talking but are met with more of the same shit talk and base hiding. Is this 2.3 worthy or would that be a false 2.3 claimed report, because I see ways IC to handle the IC aggression. So if a group has obvious IC reasoning to go and talk with said group and that leads to another attack and a 2.3 report is thrown up is it a valid 2.3 claim or not?

I understand the use of 2.3 when it gets the point where its too overbearing and group A only goes to group B and the second they hear one shit talk they initiate on a day-to-day basis for a week then I understand why the rule is here but when a group can easily fix the situation they are in if they swallow their pride and go on the with the RP, it definitely can lead to some great roleplay to be had. 

 

Edited by Apollo

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Apollo said:

Because we don't necessarily agree with the rule, let me clarify what happened in the past. We are told that a group wants an ooc grace period after they accuse us of attacking constantly with and absurd number. But at the time, I was not getting in game as much and not many others in the group were so I was not sure if they were coming at us with the truth because if members from our group actually did restrict the rp that they were having then you bet we want to get the fixed. But since I couldn't talk to everyone and get their side of the story at the time of us talking to the group that wanted to throw a report if we didn't agree on the ooc grace period. But it turned out as I felt but we had already agreed to the ooc agreement to resolve the issue and move on,  that the group was being constantly attacked by so many different people that they lumped them all and claimed it was us doing the attacks while that was simply not true.

The groups spirits went down along with the lack of interest from the current state of rp on the server, some started to lose interest in getting ingame because of this possible 2.3 report + ooc agreements that put a big ass pause on the RP, it throws everyone off and leaves a bad taste in the entire groups mouth.

We're not saying remove the rule, just give the rule more explanation and let the consequence be known for a false 2.3 claim in the hopes of deterring people from wanting to waive around the power to possibly force archive a group because of an attack that is heavily justified IC'ly, because after 2.3 is 2.4 and that's to not be a sore loser and not to hold grudges which is usually where these reports stem from.

I don't understand the rule quite well, in the past there have been groups that were constantly pressurized to do what they were told by aggressors, for example take Jaysh Allah and the constant pressure we had on wolf pack & co., regardless of what anyone says Jaysh Allah's constant pressure changed the way people roleplay on the entire server, groups that would not of in the past worked together started to work towards a common enemy, women throughout the server would cover up when they saw the Jihadis. What im going for is that with constant pressure it can lead to people getting upset about losing the gear they had moments after they would talk a big game and insult the hostile group which would lead them to attack then they would blackmail "stop harrasing us or we will put the report up" or it can create great roleplay for groups to unite and make coalitions. Which is what happened, at one point there was a cool 60+ people looking for Jaysh Allah which was crazy to witness and led to some of the best RP i've had since I been back.

I do have a question about the rule though, so hypothetically if group A keeps constantly going to group B that has in the past taken members of group A captive or tried on numerous situations then when group A goes to group B and fights them and gives them an out, then group B goes back and ends up breaking the deal I would assume this would give reason to another meeting, so group A goes back to group B to try and figure out why the deal was broken but they are welcomed with constant shit talk from group B behind their base walls so group A initiates on the base trying to get them out, but they don't comply and a firefight ensues and members of both groups are killed but group B is wiped, there's no roleplay to be had if there's no one there so group A would come back the next day with the intentions of talking but are met with more of the same shit talk and base hiding. Is this 2.3 worthy or would that be a false 2.3 claimed report, because I see ways IC to handle the IC aggression. So if a group has obvious IC reasoning to go and talk with said group and that leads to another attack and a 2.3 report is thrown up is it a valid 2.3 claim or not?

I understand the use of 2.3 when it gets the point where its too overbearing and group A only goes to group B and the second they hear one shit talk they initiate on a day-to-day basis for a week then I understand why the rule is here but when a group can easily fix the situation they are in if they swallow their pride and go on the with the RP, it definitely can lead to some great roleplay to be had. 

 

what about when group A makes demands of group B, group B agrees to them then after a while group A gets bored of group B always complying and out of nowhere changes the already agreed to demands so group B will not comply as it was not part of the deal, so group A attacks group B for not complying and group B starts to fight back. group A then attacks again and again forcing group B to hide behind walls then after a while group A comes back with more demands to comply but group B having been burned in the past refuses to comply. then group A attacks again and again stating that they tried to make a deal but group B is just being unreasonable and should just comply.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, marauder1838 said:

what about when group A makes demands of group B, group B agrees to them then after a while group A gets bored of group B always complying and out of nowhere changes the already agreed to demands so group B will not comply as it was not part of the deal, so group A attacks group B for not complying and group B starts to fight back. group A then attacks again and again forcing group B to hide behind walls then after a while group A comes back with more demands to comply but group B having been burned in the past refuses to comply. then group A attacks again and again stating that they tried to make a deal but group B is just being unreasonable and should just comply.

That's a valid point. I have seen that going on lately. My guess is at that point, Group A would end up breaking Rule 2.3 after the first few constant attacks. 

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...