Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2019-10-14, 19:09

Roland

El Presidente

"ON BREAK"

  • Content Count

    13335
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    158
  • Country

    Sweden

Roland last won the day on September 23

Roland had the most liked content!

TIME PLAYED

171 h Cherno Russian

Community Reputation

9195 Godlike

Account information

  • Whitelisted YES
  • Last played 2 days ago

About Roland

Personal Information

  • Sex
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Roland

    Hostage Rules | Groups/Allies

    That's correct. Since you're not in a group, your actions shouldn't result in the other person getting killed.
  2. Roland

    What is "Your Play Bonus?"

    It is a prototype of an idea that I had. I forgot to remove it
  3. Roland

    DayZRP Item Shop Updates

    2019-10-14 New items: Poncho Face shemagh Military sweater Leggings Layered shirt New variants: Gas mask (PNK 5A)
  4. Roland

    G19 Ban Appeal

    The hostage who was killed is classed as not affiliated because he is not a member of the attacker approved group, nor an approved group that is marked as an ally of that group. Random people who are not a part of any group cannot be allies. The rule states "Approved group of the hostage or their allies refuse to negotiate or open fire on hostage takers." and those "allies" also need to be an approved group. It's pretty self explanatory since random people who just play together sometimes and are not in a group cannot have alliances. Well not quite. The loophole is not possible because only approved allied groups have that possibility. The rule is there in the first place to prevent hostages getting killed because some random unaffiliated John Rambo decides to play hero and tries to kill the "bad guys", resulting in your death. We don't want compliant hostages to be killed because some random person whom hostage doesn't even know tries to rescue him. That's why hostages may only be killed only when it is their approved group or ally who attack and that's what the rule enforces. The loophole you are talking about is still covered with that definition. The rule is written correctly. Alliances (and wars) are only possible between approved groups. It is not necessary to state the obvious at every single point in the rules. If the rule applied to "random people who hang out with the group" then the rule would say so. I don't think it's our fault for your misunderstanding of importance and meaning meaning behind "an ally" or "alliance". I don't see how that is relevant? If they thought some random is is not a member of their group is expendable, then that is on them. Nobody is not forced to rescue random unaffiliated players taken hostage. I think what you could have done better is to properly identify the hostage, which would inform you that he is not a member of any approved group and then you would know that rule 4.6 point 4 does not apply in the situation. You need to check the persons roster and group affiliation here on the website unfortunately. A lot of rules which involve kill rights and hostages rely on group affiliation. If you are unable to get that information then it is best to be on the safe side and not use any kill rights that may not apply in the situation. Affiliated in the meaning of "he hangs out with them a lot" means nothing when it comes to rules. Also, I would suggest stop being so trigger happy. The hostage posed no threat to the group and there was no reason to kill him, even if he would have been affiliated with the group. Using kill rights when not necessary can be seen as rule break under rule 4.3. You take a person hostage, you fail to properly identify the hostage, you assume he is in approved group of the enemy or allied approved group based on his previous interactions with these groups, based on that assumption you kill him using kill rights you don't have since rule 4.6 point 4 doesn't apply to non-affiliated characters = IK(RP). Appeal denied. Signed with @Voodoo, @Rover, @Peril, @Saunders
  5. Roland

    Logging on in the middle of active firefight?

    As long as you are in an approved group and you log in outside the immediate area that is being attacked (so not inside or right outside the base being attacked in your example - that would be ghosting) you can log in to reinforce your group since kill rights for approved groups are always shared between members.
  6. Roland

    Hostage and Kill rights.

    If your approved group members attempted to kill hostage takers who took you hostage then hostage takers were in full right to kill you. Rule 4.6 point 4.
  7. Roland

    Racism in game.

    This answers any and all questions regarding racism. Overcome the need to try and get hurt or offended by words. Fight this urge and remember to separate IC and OOC. These two simple things will allow you to enjoy role play on DayZRP much more.
  8. Roland

    Question Regarding Verdict

    The only reason there is IK (FF) is because we wanted to give slightly lesser punishment for accidental mis-ID kills that may happen during active firefights. Accidents happen after all. Just because invalid kill happens during or after a firefight doesn't automatically qualify it for that lesser punishment. The person killed was a hostage. That's not a situation that qualifies for the above. Hostage takers failed to identify the hostage, assumed he was with the enemy, based on that assumption they used kill rights they didn't have when they were fired upon = IK (RP). I don't really see any mistake here.
  9. Roland

    Wierd server connections today

    That's my best guess - someone builds/places a thing in a bugged state/position that causes the server to freak out and over time run out of memory which makes it crash. Rollback usually fixes these issues. Server seems to be fine now with 3 hour rollback backup.
  10. Roland

    Wierd server connections today

    Fixed with 2 hour rollback
  11. Roland

    Coolman-Invalid Character Page - Powergaming

    There are no rules on having to keep character pages updated. Since information is missing, it is not being powergamed. It could be powergaming if statements in game would conflict existing information on the character page, but that's not the case here.
  12. Roland

    How many points can a group get before being force-archived?

    Anywhere between 0 points to infinite points. There is no magical limit beyond which we archive a group. Group archival is usually caused by long term inability or refusal to follow rules, not single isolated incident.
  13. Roland

    S1: Metagaming/BadRp/Possible Invalid Execution/Possible Power gaming - VMC outskirts 07:00 am EST

    Executions are regulated by rule 4.6 which has a list of conditions required to execute a hostage. The reasoning used by the hostage takers in this situation was non-compliance of the hostage because they claim he repeatedly lied and refused to reveal his real identity. The definition of non-compliance we use goes something like "refusal to complete a command or demand during a hostile situation where failure to do so would put the attacker at risk". The risk part is important because we don't want people who get initiated on or taken hostage executed for simple, irrelevant actions or mistakes that players often do. Therefore things like turning the wrong way, accidentally crouching, not being to access inventory due to a bug, moving slightly due to accidental key press, pressing wrong F2 button, etc are NOT considered non-compliance. So for example during an initiation, non-compliance would be refusing to drop weapon when asked to. Why is it a risk? Because a weapon in hands of a person who has been initiated on can lead to severe health issues for the attacker. Similarly, during a hostage situation, hostages may be asked things like put your hands up, stay here, sit down, go this way, get in the car, etc. Why is it a risk? Because it prevents hostage takers from freely moving and having control over the situation, as well as minimizes the hostages ability to escape, stall the situation or pick up a weapon. That's why refusal to follow commands like these is called non-compliance and non-compliance gives hostage takers right to kill the hostage. Now, the act of claimed "non-compliance" where hostage fails to give up information meets none of that criteria. You do not put any of the hostage takers at risk or change the balance of the situation by not giving up information. Especially when this information is not even of any greater value, strategic or imminent importance and is just "who are you?". Obviously you make it worse for your character and as such you can be tortured and the whole situation gets prolonged, but it is still not "non-compliance" that would grant execution or kill rights. That doesn't mean that you can't role play "I will kill you if you don't tell us about X", but without valid execution rights you can't actually go through with this threat. Simply put, you can't force someone to tell you the truth or give up valuable IC information and kill their character if they refuse. That would put far too much power into hostage takers hands as they would essentially have universal reason to execute someone as well as be able to gain any and all internal group information or else threaten hostages with getting PKd. Take this situation for example: Take enemy member group hostage Demand him to give up their base and any stash locations, numbers, member names, usual places to hang out, allies, etc or else he will be killed The hostage has now a choice of either giving up all information he has which seriously impacts his group and would probably shut it down OR risk getting his character killed for "non-compliance" and later PKd through a NVFL report because he didn't give up the true information. Pick your poison motherfucker. That's not how hostage executions are supposed to work. What is most troublesome out of all of this though is that NONE of the GMs handling this report even hinted at this obvious fallacy when issuing NVFL verdict. We will need to work on that. Since lying is in my opinion not a valid reason to execute someone, the kill on the hostage is invalid and NVFL will be removed. @G19RP Invalid kill (RP) - 3 day ban, 10 warning points @coolman23 NVFL - removed, character resurrected On the sidenote, if you already know the real identity of the hostage because you recognized him from before, why not just go through with whatever you wanted to do with him based on his real identity. Why all the hoops to jump through and stupid questions and dragging out the situation to make him to admit his identity if you already know it? I catch X because he is a bad guy, X claims he is Y, I know he is lying, I treat X as X and do whatever I would have done to X and release him. I don't continue into digging why he claims to be Y and have him to admit he is X if I already know that and go as far as to kill him for it. I really don't get it.
  14. Roland

    Amount of reports against your group

    There's no hard set limit, it's all subjective. Otherwise one could just create a bunch of petty/false reports against a group one doesn't like and get them in trouble.
  15. Roland

    Executed for Not complying to the demand not to lie, Execution rights

    First of all, you can't just execute someone because they lie. Executions are regulated by the rule 4.6 and require that a person has actively participating in death of your ally in the past, or are otherwise non-compliant. You can see the details on the rule page. Majority of these questions are answered by this statement alone. Edit your thread if you have actual questions that take the above into consideration.
×
×
  • Create New...