Fear RP and DM rule clarification for attacking vehicles

[Gyromite]

I believe clarification is needed for the FearRP and DM rules. As of this moment, it is considered DM if you attack another player who has heard demands, but is in a running vehicle. 

Starting with the recent Jay Gamble DM appeal, ChuckM highlights 

Quote

• If they are not in compliance with demands, attempt to escape, or call other players for help in a situation where they are required to display fear under fear roleplay rules.

and 

Quote

• Examples (but not limited to), where your character’s life is NOT considered to be in direct danger:

• When you are in a car which engine is not stalled.

This is part of the reasoning he uses to punish Jay Gamble. It is clarified further by FatherOsborn later in the thread when he says:

Quote

However, right now, you are not under Fear RP if you're in a car which engine is turned on

Further clarification can be seen in a later report by  BaJezusTrip, where Dqniel says:

Quote

The current Deathmatch rules state that failure to comply with demands may only be used as a reason to attack another player if said player is in a situation where they are required to roleplay fear under the fear roleplay rules. This is not the case here, as the reporting party was not required to display fear or abide by the fear roleplay rules. The reporting party was situated in a vehicle with an engine which was not turned off or stalled, and as per the rules surrounding fear roleplay he was not required to display fear nor abide by the fear roleplay rules during this situation, thus making your seemingly valid reason to attack the reporting party insufficient and invalid. It does not matter how close you are to the reporting party at the time of you aiming the weapon, as the fear roleplay rules makes it amply clear that if you are in a vehicle with an engine which is not turned off or stalled, you are exempt from acting under the fear roleplay rules. In short, if someone is situated in a vehicle with an engine which is not stalled or turned off, they do not have to display fear under the roleplay rules and they cannot be shot for non compliance.

The rule states:
• If they are not in compliance with demands, attempt to escape, or call other players for help in a situation where they are required to display fear under fear roleplay rules.

What is confusing is the rule states "or call other players for help in a situation they are required to display fear under fear roleplay rules", that's an OR in that rule. Meaning you may attack if they are not in compliance with demands OR attempt to escape OR call any other players for help in a situation where they are required to display fear under fear roleplay rules. When most people read the rule they think you can attack if the victim doesn't follow orders, runs, or calls for backup when they are held up.

I think a simple amendment, "If they are in a situation where they are required to display fear under fear roleplay rules, AND if they are not in compliance with demands, attempt to escape, or call other players for help ", would clarify things and keep the rule as it is now.

However this does not fix the problem:
I would like to pose a hypothetical situation. You are in a gang of criminals, you see a car moving to a drug selling location and begin to sell while inside of the car. You and your gang attempt to rob them, however since the car is running, you are not allowed to damage the car in any way. The party who is selling the drugs is at *no risk* because he is invulnerable to Robbery RP under the current rules. 

Even with the current rules in place, they are not being enforced properly. In this report the party was given demands by police, which was used as justification for DM'ing the reporting party. Lewis states the reason why the police were able to shoot him:
 

Quote

As you have highlighted in message above, "A player cannot kill their victim if their victim is in compliance with the demands" - you were not in compliance with any of the demands

However the reporting party was not under FearRP rules as he was in a running vehicle and was not eligible to be attacked. 

I don't mind the rules one way or another, however what I do mind is consistency and communication on the rules. I don't want this to be a "run and gun shoot 'em up gang gang" server, but at the moment there is no way for a criminal to stop a fleeing victim who is in a running vehicle, and that's a problem. 

I think the rules need to be updated so if a victim has received demands while stationary/very slow in a vehicle, or if he replies to demands as if he heard them (regardless of speed), the attacking party should be able to disable the vehicle. If the victim goes above 40km(debatable) with their windows up they cannot be attacked as they cannot hear demands. 

[OBESE]

This is a well presented case of how unrealistically the rule works in reality on the server. At the current state of the rule there is no point to try to stop or give demands to anyone who is sitting in a vehicle with its engine on, because the player does not have to comply as they are not under FearRP. Considering the fact that the whole concept of the FearRP is to make sure that you have value for your life, then this specific section of the rule does the opposite - it gives the invincibility factor to the player.

In a hypothetical scenario where you are sitting in a car with engine on and an individual approaches you, pulling out his weapon, aiming at you through the passengers window and demanding you to get out of the vehicle, you are not considered to be under fearRP rule, so you just hit the gas pedal and drive 100m ahead. What has happened at this moment is - the individual has triggered a "valid DM reason" as he tried to rob you, put you in harms way by aiming a weapon on you, so you either get out of the car and kill the person or you turn around and ram the person in whichever way you want.

The example given above shows how does these two rules interact with each other, nullifying one and boosting the other. It also shows both rules conradicting with each other because you have a valid reason to attack as the individual put you at harms way, but seconds ago you did not have to comply as you were not assumed to be in any danger. And it all is just due the simple fact that for some reason a vehicle seems to be considered as a tank.

I do understand the whole idea how this rule was made and I do not think that there is any blame to it as it is a correct idea, because you could be able to run away in certain situations. I, myself, believe the problem is in the fact that when a report happens there is no distinction between direct way the rule is written and analysing the situation by using common sense.

I have seen RP servers, especially in SAMP where roleplay term "Common Sense" aka "CS" is used and is part of the rules. I could see why it is not used here as it would end up being just matter of opinion and understanding of the same situation, but in different ways. Nonetheless when it comes to RP where we try to imitate RL in a game - CS is what puts it apart in every action we do, in every rp we make, at least for some of us.

As the original post has explained - either have consistency and clarify "Sorry, but yes, this is how it works" or do some adjustments.

Edited August 22, 2019 by OBESE

[Fuz]

Great post.

[alexalex303]

I for one believe that if someone aims a gun at you/your car and he tells you to do something, if your engine is on, you may choose to not follow it, but he can shoot you for it. Anything else does not make any sense. You're making the demand with a gun, the other party makes a choice to ignore it, he should face consequences. I don't see why people in vehicles are being granted special protection.

You are creating a situation in which you are never allowed to shoot at someone that's in a vehicle. If his engine is off, he will be FORCED to obey FearRP and get out, and if his engine is on, you can not shoot him because he's not under FearRP? It is very puzzling.

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by alexalex303

[Aldarine]

The issue with this is that it swings totally in one direction or the other and there’s no real middle ground. With the way the rule is stated now, yes being in a running vehicle grants you massive amounts of protection. Taking that away would give us an absurd amount of vehicle shootings be it stopped, low speed, or even high speeds and then on to forum reports we go (even moreso if you attach a driving speed element). The Fear RP rule in itself is incredibly debilitating and in my opinion something has to be implemented to balance it which is vehicle protection. It’s not perfect by any means as things can always be improved but it really is a tough thing to come to terms with then you realize that the swing will just move heavily in favor of the opposite side to the point of being even more debilitating.

[MrUntouchable215]

10 minutes ago, Aldarine said:

The issue with this is that it swings totally in one direction or the other and there’s no real middle ground. With the way the rule is stated now, yes being in a running vehicle grants you massive amounts of protection. Taking that away would give us an absurd amount of vehicle shootings be it stopped, low speed, or even high speeds and then on to forum reports we go (even moreso if you attach a driving speed element). The Fear RP rule in itself is incredibly debilitating and in my opinion something has to be implemented to balance it which is vehicle protection. It’s not perfect by any means as things can always be improved but it really is a tough thing to come to terms with then you realize that the swing will just move heavily in favor of the opposite side to the point of being even more debilitating.

One solution I can think of is if they refuse to comply with demands in a vehicle that's still or driving at very low speeds, or if the driver recognizes your demands and speaks back to you, etc, then you can shoot. If you're shooting and they aren't shooting back, you can aim to stall/disable the vehicle but you cannot aim to kill them but if they're shooting back, you can aim to kill. Regardless, if they're stalled, they get a second chance of RP and complying to demands, if they return fire..they made their intentions clear. That seems easier to enforce imo

The issue I see in these types of reports sometimes is that when someone is finally stalled after a chase, the shooter proceeds to continue throwing bullets into the car window with the intentions of killing the guy for not complying. I think that should be considered DM 100% , once the vehicle is stalled, you give them an opportunity to either get out with their hands up or don't and get shot.

Edited August 22, 2019 by MrUntouchable215

[CaesarSeizure]

I would be up for the idea that if a person is stationary and a person has a gun aimed at him, the person in the car should be free to drive away, while the person with the gun at that point should be free to shoot.

As you are still in danger, just you can take the chance to get away (better chance to survive while driving away in a car, than it is to try to outrun someone with a gun).

What i don't want is constant situations of people issuing demands from a moving car to a moving car, and this being treated the same. So if a person in a moving car does not stop, that should not give the person the right to shoot (this is more in the case that this is still a game, and we shouldnt have everything you do be a life or death case)

The problem i see with that specific PD report, is what would happen if the cop had been issuing demands while moving? Would they still have opened fire an would they still be fine?

[JakeInnit_]

Personally believe its best to remove the fear rp part from the DM rule, just because your in a car doesn't mean you should be protected. 

I agree with the consistency, different staff interpret the rules differently which causes confusion amoung community members which in turn can lead to accidental rulebreaks. 

[vacant]

Couldn’t have put it any better, the rules defo need some clarification cause at this point I’m scared to shoot incase I get an instant /b nice dm  

[Aldarine]

4 hours ago, MrUntouchable215 said:

One solution I can think of is if they refuse to comply with demands in a vehicle that's still or driving at very low speeds, or if the driver recognizes your demands and speaks back to you, etc, then you can shoot. If you're shooting and they aren't shooting back, you can aim to stall/disable the vehicle but you cannot aim to kill them but if they're shooting back, you can aim to kill. Regardless, if they're stalled, they get a second chance of RP and complying to demands, if they return fire..they made their intentions clear. That seems easier to enforce imo

The issue I see in these types of reports sometimes is that when someone is finally stalled after a chase, the shooter proceeds to continue throwing bullets into the car window with the intentions of killing the guy for not complying. I think that should be considered DM 100% , once the vehicle is stalled, you give them an opportunity to either get out with their hands up or don't and get shot.

This still wouldn't alleviate the overpowered pendulum from swinging massively to the other side. There are a few things to take note of here...

1. Chain robberies exist, we all know this. Along with this, very unrealistic robberies also exist (you can even see people get robbed right outside of NCZ bounds).

2. Foot traffic doesn't exist much on the server because of the risk of somebody running up to you, drawing a gun, and then bam, Fear RP and robbery. Vehicles are heavily relied on for transportation everywhere, even just to go walking distance down the street.

Combining those two points with the idea of changing the rule wording would basically provide nobody with any form of safe space which would again, swing the pendulum so heavily to the criminal side. Do you obey traffic laws? If so, you may want to stop stopping at the red lights because you can get a gun aimed at you and if you don't comply then your vehicle gets damaged via gunshots which will most likely lead to you being robbed, your car chopped, and now you have to wait hours for the to be available and you have to spend money to get it back... all from stopping at a red light. The exact same scenario could be said about driving down any street under the speed limit. How would anybody even know your specific speed limit to give them right to engage? You mention recognizing demands. Now what happens if your VOIP is lagging and you don't respond but instead keep driving? What if you're talking to a passenger? Mumbling to yourself (yes this is RP that people do using VOIP)? Blatantly ignore demands? Can't hear demands because you're blasting the vehicle's radio? Well now we speed right to attacking another player and player reports from both involved parties thus creating more work for staff, more blurred lines for rule breaks, etc. 

Please don't get me wrong, I am in no way saying that there shouldn't be a way to engage with somebody in a vehicle, but you do have to look at it from a larger perspective with power balancing. Blatantly removing vehicular protection from players would basically turn this server into deathmatching reports galore which nobody wants.

[Pistol Pete]

+1, the rule is currently ambiguous. In addition to making the mentioned clause more widely understandable, I think some of the clauses could be changed entirely.

If I'm pointing a gun at someone who is in a car with the engine on but not moving, I don't think they should be protected under FRP.

Look how silly it looks, no sense of realism here:

At the very least, players should be able to open fire on the vehicle if it attempts an escape. They definitely shouldn't be punished for DM.

 

[alexalex303]

16 minutes ago, Aldarine said:

This still wouldn't alleviate the overpowered pendulum from swinging massively to the other side. There are a few things to take note of here...

1. Chain robberies exist, we all know this. Along with this, very unrealistic robberies also exist (you can even see people get robbed right outside of NCZ bounds).

2. Foot traffic doesn't exist much on the server because of the risk of somebody running up to you, drawing a gun, and then bam, Fear RP and robbery. Vehicles are heavily relied on for transportation everywhere, even just to go walking distance down the street.

Combining those two points with the idea of changing the rule wording would basically provide nobody with any form of safe space which would again, swing the pendulum so heavily to the criminal side. Do you obey traffic laws? If so, you may want to stop stopping at the red lights because you can get a gun aimed at you and if you don't comply then your vehicle gets damaged via gunshots which will most likely lead to you being robbed, your car chopped, and now you have to wait hours for the to be available and you have to spend money to get it back... all from stopping at a red light. The exact same scenario could be said about driving down any street under the speed limit. How would anybody even know your specific speed limit to give them right to engage? You mention recognizing demands. Now what happens if your VOIP is lagging and you don't respond but instead keep driving? What if you're talking to a passenger? Mumbling to yourself (yes this is RP that people do using VOIP)? Blatantly ignore demands? Can't hear demands because you're blasting the vehicle's radio? Well now we speed right to attacking another player and player reports from both involved parties thus creating more work for staff, more blurred lines for rule breaks, etc. 

Please don't get me wrong, I am in no way saying that there shouldn't be a way to engage with somebody in a vehicle, but you do have to look at it from a larger perspective with power balancing. Blatantly removing vehicular protection from players would basically turn this server into deathmatching reports galore which nobody wants.

The solution to a perceived unrealistic amount of robberies is to make vehicles godmode? It doesn't make any sense.

If you have an issue with people robbing too much, address that issue directly. Propose a rule that doesn't allow street robberies when the bank is open (during the day), that's it, you cut unrealistic robberies by like 70%.

Vehicles are used by a very wide range of people, from criminals to cops. They should not be safe heavens.

 

[Marca]

Only time I'd say that demands are given clearly, is if you yell them while next to the vehicle if windows are up. If the driver decides to take his chances and flee, it's his choice and also a valid one, since he can duck down. It's up to you then to disable the vehicle in time before he gets away. FearRP should not be enforced in this case, because you have a chance to escape and show that you value your life. This is very different than having a gun pointed at your face while on foot.

[alexalex303]

Just now, Marca said:

Only time I'd say that demands are given clearly, is if you yell them while next to the vehicle if windows are up. If the driver decides to take his chances and flee, it's his choice and also a valid one, since he can duck down. It's up to you then to disable the vehicle in time before he gets away. FearRP should not be enforced in this case, because you have a chance to escape and show that you value your life. This is very different than having a gun pointed at your face while on foot.

If you did that, under the current interpretation of the rules, you would be guilty of deathmatching. 

[Aldarine]

2 minutes ago, alexalex303 said:

The solution to a perceived unrealistic amount of robberies is to make vehicles godmode? It doesn't make any sense.

If you have an issue with people robbing too much, address that issue directly. Propose a rule that doesn't allow street robberies when the bank is open (during the day), that's it, you cut unrealistic robberies by like 70%.

Vehicles are used by a very wide range of people, from criminals to cops. They should not be safe heavens.

 

I agree they shouldn't be godmode and something should be changed, please don't think I don't want that. It's just a matter of balancing realism and overall enjoyment for all parties. The DM and Fear RP rules are very big and heavy rules but of course nothing comes without flaws. If everything was perfect we wouldn't have player reports every day. I do hope that staff can have a chat regarding very specific scenarios where you can make an attempt to disable a vehicle.

[thiggins19]

1 hour ago, alexalex303 said:

 

If you have an issue with people robbing too much, address that issue directly. Propose a rule that doesn't allow street robberies when the bank is open (during the day), that's it, you cut unrealistic robberies by like 70%.

People get robbed during the day all the time. What's unrealistic is saying you can't rob someone because the bank is open. You want to cut robberies in half or make them less frequent, bring in a cool down on robberies. If someone robs you, that player can't rob you again for X amount of time. Fairly nonrp to rob someone multiple times in a day anyways.

Edited August 22, 2019 by thiggins19
Fixed a typo

[Dylan Ortiz]

i don't think the new rule is a good idea for a few reason. 1 if you aim a gun at someone and tell them to get out the car or to leave the area they don't have to listen to you as they don't fall under fear RP rules so they can just sit around if they want to be idiots. 2 if you aim a gun at someone and tell them to get out the vehicle they can flee without you shooting at them turn a around and VDM you as they now have a KOS on you for trying to rob them while you cant do anything. i can just see this rule being abused

Edited August 22, 2019 by Dylan Ortiz

[Dylan Ortiz]

i agree with you 100%. You could park a car behind someone then aim a gun and tell them to get out of the car and they could spend 10 minutes trying to set there car free and all you could do is sit there and watch them....

[MrValencia]

I agree with a lot of the points that people are introducing. Personally I believe it makes sense for a criminal to have the ability to either stall a fleeing vehicle or even kill the victim especially because at any given moment that victim now has full authorization to defend their lives by attacking the criminal.

As far as the comment about the constant robberies that are going on in this server; I fully agree. There are currently way too many robberies going on to the point of not being able to really do much as a normal citizen in the city without being robbed or almost being robbed.

Hell, I've seen people just going to the clothing store or walking down the street in broad daylight and getting robbed by like 2 to 6 people. You go to the mines and get robbed and if you don't then you'll most likely get robbed at the foundry. As a criminal I love the idea of being able to rob others and engage in roleplay with my victims, but right now there isn't much of that going around. Whenever I rob my victims I try to actually provide engaging roleplay that may further the storylines of myself and the victims. Currently the only roleplay I see going on during robberies is "Hands! Hands! You have 5 secs", and then said victim is robbed and boom they go on their merry way. Unfortunately this is happening to frequently that some players I've met who've been on the server for about a month or longer are now leaving because they can't get much done without getting robbed.

I also think that currently people are being way too trigger happy with reports. I mean some of the reports I've seen being submitted are unnecessary like goddamn grow up and try to handle the situation OOC'ly with the other player instead of immediately going to the forums as you smuggly PM the player with "Nice DM, see you on forums, or nice rule breaking man, see you on forums." If unfortunately it can't be handled with the other player properly then take it to forums.

At the end of the day we're all apart of this community because we enjoy spending our time on here and creating stories that further the roleplay experience for the community. Let's not forget that and continue doing what we can to further this community.

[Zion Willard]

Absolutely, the current interpretation of the rules makes no common sense and has never been enforced this way in the past. Clarification needs to be made, and you need to have a way to initiate on a player in a vehicle. 

[Riderz]

+1

[krooks365]

+1 +1 +1 

PLEASE

[BallinByNature]

These rules have been re-released in the 2020 edition, if further clarification is needed, please create another suggestion.

Thank you!