Multiple changes within the RC:RP rules

[Gussy]

Great additions and great updates.

 

[Karner]

Can an admin please answer these questions? I'll quote them.

What about if someone chicken runs into mpd while being shot? Do I still have to request an asay while they hide behind an ooc rule?

In a less specific way of saying it..

If the intention of the criminal was to not actually take the RP to a "restricted" area, is an asay still needed? IE. If Gang A wants to kill Gang B members in a driveby car chase and the car breaks down outside Angel Pine / Palomino Creek town hall it would technically be in breach of the rule and an asay is needed. Obviously, this isn't always RP / time appropriate as it was unintentional.

In regards to "heavily" injuring players before/after a robbery, can we please define that as it seems a little unclear to me.

Edit:
Other than my above questions I genuinely love these changes. Good work guys. I feel like players have a lot more liberty to RP without the rules necessarily -restricting- them.

 

[Earl]

If the intention of the criminal was to not actually take the RP to a "restricted" area, is an asay still needed? IE. If Gang A wants to kill Gang B members in a driveby car chase and the car breaks down outside Angel Pine / Palomino Creek town hall it would technically be in breach of the rule and an asay is needed. Obviously, this isn't always RP / time appropriate as it was unintentional.

The idea behind the rule is that those places would be monitored by CCTVs/guards 24/7, so in case any illegal activity happened within the area - the police would be immediately notified. The fact whether it was intentional or not for the RP to happen there doesn't really change anything.

In regards to "heavily" injuring players before/after a robbery, can we please define that as it seems a little unclear to me.

Heavy injuries in this case are injuries that could potentially cause death. Basically when the player is allowed to roleplay dying if they want to, and the death wouldn't be classed as non-RP. For example a gunshot wound is enough for that in my eyes, as you could simply bleed out if there's no one who could give you medical attention. Injuries from being beaten up, for example, would most likely be minor.

 

[Karner]

If the intention of the criminal was to not actually take the RP to a "restricted" area, is an asay still needed? IE. If Gang A wants to kill Gang B members in a driveby car chase and the car breaks down outside Angel Pine / Palomino Creek town hall it would technically be in breach of the rule and an asay is needed. Obviously, this isn't always RP / time appropriate as it was unintentional.

The idea behind the rule is that those places would be monitored by CCTVs/guards 24/7, so in case any illegal activity happened within the area - the police would be immediately notified. The fact whether it was intentional or not for the RP to happen there doesn't really change anything.

In regards to "heavily" injuring players before/after a robbery, can we please define that as it seems a little unclear to me.

Heavy injuries in this case are injuries that could potentially cause death. Basically when the player is allowed to roleplay dying if they want to, and the death wouldn't be classed as non-RP. For example a gunshot wound is enough for that in my eyes, as you could simply bleed out if there's no one who could give you medical attention. Injuries from being beaten up, for example, would most likely be minor.

Gotcha with #2.
My concern remains with #1. In the situation I provided; would both parties have to pause RPing and request such? I can imagine that causing an issue. Who's responsibility is it to request the asay, the persons who initiated the attack outside of the zone or the person who brought the RP into the zone.

 

[Earl]

If the intention of the criminal was to not actually take the RP to a "restricted" area, is an asay still needed? IE. If Gang A wants to kill Gang B members in a driveby car chase and the car breaks down outside Angel Pine / Palomino Creek town hall it would technically be in breach of the rule and an asay is needed. Obviously, this isn't always RP / time appropriate as it was unintentional.

The idea behind the rule is that those places would be monitored by CCTVs/guards 24/7, so in case any illegal activity happened within the area - the police would be immediately notified. The fact whether it was intentional or not for the RP to happen there doesn't really change anything.

In regards to "heavily" injuring players before/after a robbery, can we please define that as it seems a little unclear to me.

Heavy injuries in this case are injuries that could potentially cause death. Basically when the player is allowed to roleplay dying if they want to, and the death wouldn't be classed as non-RP. For example a gunshot wound is enough for that in my eyes, as you could simply bleed out if there's no one who could give you medical attention. Injuries from being beaten up, for example, would most likely be minor.

Gotcha with #2.
My concern remains with #1. In the situation I provided; would both parties have to pause RPing and request such? I can imagine that causing an issue. Who's responsibility is it to request the asay, the persons who initiated the attack outside of the zone or the person who brought the RP into the zone.

Well, I agree that it's problematic, but the rule itself is problematic in general and there's no perfect way to handle this really. The rule has been changed multiple times and I believe we're the closest to avoiding any loopholes, I don't think it's possible to get rid of them all unless we removed the rule completely. :C
In the situation you described I'd say that informing the admins should be done by members of Gang A, who originally broke the law and started it all. It's all situational though so don't take my word for granted, I guess problematic situations will have to be handled separately as they happen. I can't really think of any better way to deal with this.

 

[Alko]

Great update. I like it

 

[Karner]

If the intention of the criminal was to not actually take the RP to a "restricted" area, is an asay still needed? IE. If Gang A wants to kill Gang B members in a driveby car chase and the car breaks down outside Angel Pine / Palomino Creek town hall it would technically be in breach of the rule and an asay is needed. Obviously, this isn't always RP / time appropriate as it was unintentional.

The idea behind the rule is that those places would be monitored by CCTVs/guards 24/7, so in case any illegal activity happened within the area - the police would be immediately notified. The fact whether it was intentional or not for the RP to happen there doesn't really change anything.

In regards to "heavily" injuring players before/after a robbery, can we please define that as it seems a little unclear to me.

Heavy injuries in this case are injuries that could potentially cause death. Basically when the player is allowed to roleplay dying if they want to, and the death wouldn't be classed as non-RP. For example a gunshot wound is enough for that in my eyes, as you could simply bleed out if there's no one who could give you medical attention. Injuries from being beaten up, for example, would most likely be minor.

Gotcha with #2.
My concern remains with #1. In the situation I provided; would both parties have to pause RPing and request such? I can imagine that causing an issue. Who's responsibility is it to request the asay, the persons who initiated the attack outside of the zone or the person who brought the RP into the zone.

Well, I agree that it's problematic, but the rule itself is problematic in general and there's no perfect way to handle this really. The rule has been changed multiple times and I believe we're the closest to avoiding any loopholes, I don't think it's possible to get rid of them all unless we removed the rule completely. :C
In the situation you described I'd say that informing the admins should be done by members of Gang A, who originally broke the law and started it all. It's all situational though so don't take my word for granted, I guess problematic situations will have to be handled separately as they happen. I can't really think of any better way to deal with this.

Understandable, not all loopholes can be covered. I guess if there's any -major- issues a complaint would be made.

 

[mark]

 

[JayChris]

force a game crash to avoid a roleplay situation
turn off your router (or disconnect from the internet in any way) to avoid a roleplay situation

I kinda find that rule problematic, because there are people who have routers that sometimes shut down for longer than 5 minutes up to several hours. Bit hard to prove that your router didn't work for a long time. I mean, you can't expect someone to get out their phone inrl and take pictures of their router from time to time.

Read the rest of the rule.

I did read it. It says:

If you're found to be saying the truth - your ban will be removed and you'll have to continue the roleplay scenario from the moment you left the game.

In what way will administrators be able to prove that a player has been telling the truth and how can a player proove his innocence? It isn't specified within the rule, so I wanted an elaboration.

 

[Bauer]

force a game crash to avoid a roleplay situation
turn off your router (or disconnect from the internet in any way) to avoid a roleplay situation

I kinda find that rule problematic, because there are people who have routers that sometimes shut down for longer than 5 minutes up to several hours. Bit hard to prove that your router didn't work for a long time. I mean, you can't expect someone to get out their phone inrl and take pictures of their router from time to time.

Read the rest of the rule.

I did read it. It says:

If you're found to be saying the truth - your ban will be removed and you'll have to continue the roleplay scenario from the moment you left the game.

In what way will administrators be able to prove that a player has been telling the truth and how can a player proove his innocence? It isn't specified within the rule, so I wanted an elaboration.

First off all, when a player loses connection, we get a notification about that. If you leave any other way, it shows a different message. So basically, IF it ever happens someone is losing connection during RP while he is actually required to be there, AND fails to log back in within 5 minutes, he will be banned. He then can come to any admin saying his internet failed and without too much hassle he will be unbanned. Maybe a screen could be taken of your internet connection when it was offline to show. But in general, it almost never happens a player can't connect back within 5 minutes and did not intentionally quit or force crashed the server. So if there's actually someone out there with a legit reason his connection failed, I don't see why the admin team would create such a hassle about it. At least I never did. I've unbanned people once before after they came to me and told me their connection failed.

The only reason why the rule is there is to punish those who force themselves out of an RP situation, not people who lost connection by accident.