FearRP/DM Rule Change

[Cyrus Raven]

DISCLAIMER: This post is meant as a way for people to give their thoughts on the current rules regarding FearRP/DM and to help staff with suggestions on how to improve them. This is NOT meant as an attack on the staff or whoever wrote the rules, as I am sure most people realise that staff tries their best to make this community and it's rules as fair as possible. Having said this we should talk about these issues openly and attempt to reach a solution, this thread is not meant as place to flame staff and I will request this thread be deleted if this happens.

As it currently stands the following Deathmatch rules are being enforced:

 

Deathmatch (DM)
Deathmatching is the act of attacking a player or their property without a proper roleplay reason.
Examples of valid reasons to attack another player:
• If they attempt to arrest or hurt you, an ally, or damage your property.
• If they report you to the police for a serious crime.
• 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.

 

As it stands there seems to be a loophole that can be abused by people being initiated by another party, this (in my view) has been partially recognised by staff members already.

''We're going to sit down and review rules here within the next few days to see if we can re-word things and make it easier for any player to stop a moving car, or get a player out of a car. There are ways to deliver more intimidating demands, passengers can aim a gun at a person and try to make them stop, trying to slow the car down, etc. However, right now, you are not under Fear RP if you're in a car which engine is turned on, but it may change within the next few days. We'll make a community announce as always if so, for awareness.'' - Eclipse Staff Member

 

If a group of players surround a car, but that car has it's engine on then they are not under fearRP. Not only can the car being surrounded simply drive off, but the initiating party has no ability to forcibly stop the vehicle after demands have been made as it is constituted as DM. This is obviously prone to abuse. A player who is not under FearRP essentially is immune from being forcibly stopped by anyone making demands, this section of the rules should be changed.

I think it is important to change the rules whilst discouraging poor initiation like ''Stop or die'' and other variations of quick sentences meant to be used as an excuse to shoot. FearRP rules should remain, but they should mainly be guidelines so people know when they should surrender or when they can risk escape and not as a shield for any sort of aggression. In essence, if I am not under fearRP because my car engine is on then I should be able escape without being punished by server rules. However, if the party that is trying to initiate on me sees me driving off and blatantly ignoring their demands then they should be able to shoot out my tires or engine without having to worry about breaking server rules.

 

A very simple and bare bones way to fix this abuse is to remove the ''in a situation where they are required to display fear under fear roleplay rules.'' portion of the rule, although I am sure Eclipse Staff are looking for a better way to deal with it.

 

 

 

[Riderz]

+1 This brings the standard of RP such a ridicules low standard, thus must be fixed

 

I also think this should be factored into backup calls etc

Edited September 14, 2019 by Tezhl

[vacant]

+1 anyone in a car with their engine on essentially becomes invincible

[Cyrus Raven]

30 minutes ago, Hoxton_Curry said:

+1

This rule is a joke, nobody asked for this and it makes people in a car invincible. This can be abused to the point where someone can come to every lab call 911 and people using the lab cannot shoot at this vehicle even if they gave demands, it also doesn't matter if the person in the vehicle is standing still or driving off after the demands are given. 

Here is a clip of someone abusing this rule, we were robbing 4 members of the Rooks but one of them managed to get into their car in time and he informed his buddies of the situation. Nothing wrong here.
3 Minutes later he drives in like this, scouting the situation and informing his friends of our numbers, positions, weapons and all we could do is watch

https://plays.tv/video/5d7a44318ca67c45c9/nice

Note: Im not speaking against rooks here, many legal and illegal factions abuse this

Also Im not really sure why does it take more than a month to get a PD member punished for breaking this rule but when a criminal breaks it, they're banned in a few days
 

1. PD member breaks the rule, pending over a month

 

2. SD member breaks the rule, pending for almost a month

 

3. Criminal breaks the rule, banned in 2 days

 

4. Crimianls breaks the rule, banned in 2 days

And so on

Sorry for turning this into another PD vs Criminal topic but I see this as an obvious bias

Took a look at the reports and just thought I should mention that reports against support members most likely take longer than other players as they are reviewed by different people to ensure no bias takes place. If you want to prove bias it would be best to look at outcomes and not report times. Having said this, thanks for the examples and let's try to focus on the suggestion at hand instead of making it about PD vs Crims

[Jonaseriksen07]

+1 Love being in god mod when am in my vehicle but i think it needs some re work tbh

[Gramz]

+1 to reworking the fearRP rules to say "if you are unarmed in a stopped vehicle and someone points a gun at you from close range"

 

[froggytommy]

+1 "

If you're in a vehicle going under 30kmph with weapons pointed at you and demands made you must act under the Fear RP rule." could work.

[Pistol Pete]

+1. Definitely needs to be reconsidered.

There was a similar topic on this, a lot of the points there are valid:

I'll share the example I shared from that thread, https://streamable.com/ovj15

The guy has multiple guns (including a shotgun) aimed at him in close range and is able to just reverse out of there like the windows are bulletproof, nonsense.

[Cyrus Raven]

10 minutes ago, Pistol Pete said:

+1. Definitely needs to be reconsidered.

There was a similar topic on this, a lot of the points there are valid:

I'll share the example I shared from that thread, https://streamable.com/ovj15

The guy has multiple guns (including a shotgun) aimed at him in close range and is able to just reverse out of there like the windows are bulletproof, nonsense.

I wasn't aware another thread had been made, I will take a look.

[Balastas]

Wait people don't understand that irl cops shoot even at flying suspects in their car? since you're danger to public, they do not aim to your head they aim at your tyres what the fuck people. I will drive 200 km/h an hour through the city plowing anything through my way but gonna cry about police trying to shoot at my tyres. 

[Zion Willard]

+1 I have been a huge advocate for this ever since the rules have been "changed" to make the current status of DM what it is now. The "My shields are up" mentality needs to end with cars.

[Victor Einhart]

I'm in favour of allowing people to take shots at a car that flees in these kinds of scenarios, but I'm concerned at the level of RP surrounding these scenarios to begin with and the details of how it would work.

Already I think the level of RP with these robberies is quite low.  It's just "hands up, out of the car, /do success" and that's it.  Absolutely nothing else in all the robberies I've seen.  If there was any kind of engagement beyond this I wouldn't be concerned, but right now I can just see this devolving into more dumb shootings where people just shout some nonsense and then start blasting.  Personally I want more interesting RP and this isn't it.

Also, at what point would you be allowed to start shooting?

Edited September 15, 2019 by Victor Einhart

[Tomvd682]

100% agree with the suggestion and your correction of the rules makes a lot of sense +1

[alexalex303]

19 minutes ago, Victor Einhart said:

Already I think the level of RP with these robberies is quite low.  It's just "hands up, out of the car, /do success" and that's it.  Absolutely nothing else in all the robberies I've seen.  If there was any kind of engagement beyond this I wouldn't be concerned, but right now I can just see this devolving into more dumb shootings where people just shout some nonsense and then start blasting.  Personally I want more interesting RP and this isn't it.

The issue is that the status quo does not provide a high level of RP.

Three people show up with AKs, point them at a guy in a convertible with its engine on, and yell "Out the car", the guy drives off. They're not allowed to shoot.

They're left standing there, being able to do nothing.

Do you feel that the scenario I described above is good RP?

Edited September 15, 2019 by alexalex303

[smutty]

But 3 guys running up to a car with AKs yelling hands up get out isn't good RP to begin with. If they're going after a rival gang, or a money truck (that you may actually get money from) that'd be a different story, but that's rarely the situation. 

[Victor Einhart]

6 hours ago, alexalex303 said:

The issue is that the status quo does not provide a high level of RP.

Three people show up with AKs, point them at a guy in a convertible with its engine on, and yell "Out the car", the guy drives off. They're not allowed to shoot.

They're left standing there, being able to do nothing.

Do you feel that the scenario I described above is good RP?

I already said I was in favour of lads like that being able to shoot a fleeing car, but I don't think rolling up to some random person with AKs to take his radio and a burger is great RP to start with.

[JakeInnit_]

Remove the fear RP clause from the DM rule, +1

[jowebb7]

Random thing that I have thought about.

 

If tasers do not place people under fearRP and DM states 

in a situation where they are required to display fear under fear roleplay rules.

 

Then technically(by the letter of the law), shooting a taser at someone is always DM.

[Cyrus Raven]

26 minutes ago, jowebb7 said:

Random thing that I have thought about.

 

If tasers do not place people under fearRP and DM states 

in a situation where they are required to display fear under fear roleplay rules.

 

Then technically(by the letter of the law), shooting a taser at someone is always DM.

The DM rules state:

 

 

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

• When you are on foot or bike and a weapon is aimed at you at close range.

 

So an officer chasing a suspect after he gets out of the car and runs (and after being told to stop multiple times) or if he is on a bike while the officer is in close range and he's dismissing demands is valid grounds to taze seeing as a tazer is a weapon.

[Aldarine]

So while I understand the issue and think that changes do need to be made, I do not believe the best way to go about this is by removing the line regarding fear rp. The reason for this lies in the fact that that portion of the line referencing fear rp applies to all situations where you are allowed to attack another player. Note that the wording of the rule can be segmented and read as follows:

"...not in compliance with demands in a situation where they are required to display fear under fear rp rules."

"...attempt to escape in a situation where they are required to display fear under fear rp rules."

Reading over that and imaging the fear rp segment is removed would make it so every demand made is valid even without a gun pointed at your face and just walking away from somebody would give them grounds to attack. Removing that part of the rule would not have a limited impact on the concerns regarding valid demands for somebody in a vehicle. 

In my opinion, it's not the deathmatching rule that needs to be looked at but instead the fear rp rule. Guidelines need to be set down that dictates how you can place somebody in a vehicle under fear rp. That way, once they are under fear rp, the deathmatching rule, as is, kicks in and allows you to attack should they violate the rule.

The section of the Fear RP rule that should be reviewed states you are not under Fear RP:

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

I would advocate for valid demands being given to all parties in a stationary vehicle with windows down/convertibles at a minimum, however, much more than that and it becomes tricky circumstances. Criminals should be able to disable a moving vehicle to a certain extent. I fear too much of a change will lead to constant shooting at vehicles with very poor RP just "for the luls" which would be unfortunate. Not only that but then you'll have people arguing about valid demands, how fast somebody was driving, how the shooting party could gauge speed, constant refund requests (a lot of which would get denied due to the minimum), etc.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Aldarine

[jowebb7]

19 minutes ago, Kyle White Raven said:

The DM rules state:

 

 

 

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

• When you are on foot or bike and a weapon is aimed at you at close range.

 

So an officer chasing a suspect after he gets out of the car and runs (and after being told to stop multiple times) or if he is on a bike while the officer is in close range and he's dismissing demands is valid grounds to taze seeing as a tazer is a weapon.

I think you mean fearRP right?

But many reports have been denied and the statement has been made that tasers do not place you under FearRP.

 

[Cyrus Raven]

1 hour ago, jowebb7 said:

I think you mean fearRP right?

But many reports have been denied and the statement has been made that tasers do not place you under FearRP.

 

Thanks for posting that report.

 

It's interesting, I wasn't expecting that ruling. Not to mention that by literally following the rules a taser by definition is a weapon. 

This being the case, it sets a very bad precedent where your hypothetical scenario becomes plausible.

 

Would love to see a response from a staff member with regards to tazer, maybe even by @MrSilky seeing as he was the one who ruled on the aforementioned report.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Kyle White Raven

[Drizzy.]

1) I agree to the fact that having engine on - means you can run does need rework but I do not agree it should be totally decommissioned as a feature.

My solution would be if you are under 10 km/h i.e standstill and someone rocks up with a gun at point blank you have to comply, i.e this opens up avenues of roleplay for people. The downside to it would be how does one dispute if someone else is under 10km/h or not just by the movement of vehicle visually. So if a vehicle is still even with engine on but has a firearm pointed at them at close range they should comply as the risk of being shot in attempting to flee is high.

 

Their needs to be a sweet balance for both parties giving a chance to run.

[jowebb7]

I am currently not playing on the server due to another game taking all my time and then twins coming soon... but as a police officer(I was only a cadet) I pulled my taser on someone on a bike and gave them demands and they drove away. As they drove away, I took a shot(and missed) and they started going off on me in a PM that it was deathmatch. 

While I do not believe any admin would fault me for it, it got me thinking. Because of the way the rules are worded, technically any time a taser is fired at someone, it is death match. I just want to reiterate, I do not believe that any admin in this server would issue a death match ruling to someone who shot a taser at someone who failed to listen to demands. But it is still a weird loop hole per say, in the rules. 

[MINDFCK]

+1 for using vehicle as a shield and this needs to be changed...... 

Some guys who were on gun point just said that:

- you know that my engine is on? You can't do a shit.... 

Like the window is their shield or some protection from bullets.