Gang Backup Rule

[Appelgi]

The gang backup rule... how to start?

 

The actual rule

Its a weird rule, with no clear boundaries. What can be done? What can't be done? Its all pretty unclear. Some things are obviously easy to follow, such as the joint-freq rule.

Well, that's the only rule within the ruleset that is clear, for all people.

 

Now next to that rule, there are plenty of unwritten, and ill explained rules that are all in a shady area. For example you can't call for allied (gang) backup in an ongoing situation. Can you call someone ( a friend ) and call him alone for backup though? 

Can you roll around with other gangs, and call backup then? You are directly involved, so why wouldn't you be able to call backup? 

 

With so many questions, how is this a permanent fix for an issue? It seems like this was a temporary fix for an issue that was happening a few weeks back, where criminal organizations would group up in massive groups to fight off their (grouped up) enemies and police officers.

Due to it looking like a temporary fix, its mashed up together, with no regard to how it would work out ingame. This might look good on paper (the rule) but it just isn't.

This was a temporary issue, which could've been easily resolved by adding the rule that no joint-freq's could be used no more. 

 

The effect on Criminal Roleplay

 

This rule has massive limitations to roleplay. I have been in this server for years now, and I have been part of crim rp since I joined the server, and I have always loved the criminal diplomacy. The rule makes people ruleplay, thinking about the rule constantly. 

Diplomacy, like I said is still going on, but it really does change the dynamic of the server. Fighting is of course less RP, but its still a bonding experience, which is restricted ALOT now. Why have diplomacy, or gang RP, if you cant even work together as a criminal organization?

 

Smaller gangs relied before on bigger gangs to protect them, and in return those smaller gangs would trade or support the bigger gang for their protection. This is all thrown out of the server now. Small gangs have it really rough, and are on their own. People get called multiple times a day asking if they can support a backup call, which they have to make up a stupid excuse to not breach the rule. I would say this is totally not RP, this is not organic at all. 

 

Suggestion

 

 

I would suggest that either the rule's get described point by point, an actual rule. I would not be for this, but at least the boundaries are known. 

The best option would be to adjust the current "rule" to ban any form of joint-freq's and thats it, get rid of the rest. The other rules are just a mess. They create forum wars, where sides post constant reports on people and its creating OOC hate/toxicity. 

 

I am not picking any side, and not taking a biased view. This is just my view upon the server dynamic. 

If you feel like how the rule should be adjusted, or should be put in place, I'd like to discuss that.

 

[Taylor Garcia]

Big +1

[Odiinko46]

+1 

[alexalex303]

This rule was not introduced as a fix to a temporary problem, it was introduced as a fix to a problem as old as the (modern) server, starting with the original council.

It is not healthy for the server for a small group of players to have a monopoly on gangs, and give those players the power to bully other players off the server. No matter the amount of supposed roleplay it generates, it does not create a healthy environment, and adds to OOC tensions.

You stated that this rule stifles criminal diplomacy, I say that it strengthens it. Not the 120 man zerg going up Chiliad, that's dead, but actual diplomacy.

Say you have gangs A, B and Z. A & B are on good terms, and for some reason gang B and Z are having a conflict, that maybe turned violent.

Instead of having gangs A&B sit on a joint frequency all day and throw 100 man fights every time they see each other, gang A can provide support to gang B via soft power. That means providing weapons to help the other gang fight, provide drugs or cars to shop for the other gang to maintain influence, or even straight up cash. They can also refuse to provide any of these to the enemy faction. That is all backed up through roleplay.

The only thing this rule harms is the TDM mentality, and in my opinion, it should never be removed or altered. Clarification is always welcome so long as it does not introduce loopholes (which is why I believe the current rule is vague).

Edited March 11, 2021 by alexalex303

[Appelgi]

2 minutes ago, alexalex303 said:

It is not healthy for the server for a small group of players to have a monopoly on gangs, and give those players the power to bully other players off the server. No matter the amount of supposed roleplay it generates, it does not create a healthy environment, and adds to OOC tension.

 

Why is there such an urge to suppress natural criminal roleplay? Every gang starts small, some succeed and some don't, what's the problem with that? This argument makes no sense what so ever anyways, as "bullying" of other criminals can be done regardless, you don't need multiple gangs to "bully"  a smaller gang, gangs can do this on their own. This rule doesnt protect that at all.

6 minutes ago, alexalex303 said:

You stated that this rule stifles criminal diplomacy, I say that it strengthens it. Not the 120 man zerg going up Chiliad, that's dead, but actual diplomacy.

 

I dont think if we removed this rule, you would see this happening ingame..

 

8 minutes ago, alexalex303 said:

Say you have gangs A, B and Z. A & B are on good terms, and for some reason gang B and Z are having a conflict, that maybe turned violent.

Instead of having gangs A&B sit on a joint frequency all day and throw 100 man fights every time they see each other, gang A can provide support to gang B via soft power. That means providing weapons to help the other gang fight, provide drugs or cars to shop for the other gang to maintain influence, or even straight up cash. They can also refuse to provide any of these to the enemy faction. That is all backed up through roleplay.

The only thing this rule harms is the TDM mentality, and in my opinion, it should never be removed or altered. Clarification is always welcome so long as it does not introduce loopholes (which is why I believe the current rule is vague).

Right, exactly. No joint-freq, I agree. Supplying guns is a valid "soft power" support, but is it really? What if both sides have enough weapons, or are able to supply themself? Wow, really cool diplomacy, trading guns. Wow.

I understand that as an officer yourself, you only see us as a "TDM" groups. Of course you do, thanks, but backstage there is a lot of RP happening which I'm not sure you're aware of. Believe me, we are not here only to clap, but this rule in general makes us avoid grouping up with creates roleplay.

[alexalex303]

3 minutes ago, Appelgi said:

Believe me, we are not here only to clap, but this rule in general makes us avoid grouping up with creates roleplay.

Then this rule doesn't affect you. This rule is directly related to you providing backup to a shootout/hostile scenario. You can group up all day and perform all your of roleplay as your faction.

6 minutes ago, Appelgi said:

I dont think if we removed this rule, you would see this happening ingame..

This has happened in every single major war since the original council. You can literally look in the player report archive and see massive 100+ man fights at chiliad between five to seven factions, as recent as a couple of months ago in the FSO/La Fam war. I've avoided naming factions as I don't want to seem like I'm attacking anyone. That was okay back then, it's not anymore. No, it shouldn't come back.

[Appelgi]

2 minutes ago, alexalex303 said:

Then this rule doesn't affect you. This rule is directly related to you providing backup to a shootout/hostile scenario. You can group up all day and perform all your of roleplay as your faction.

I wish, I think (thanks due to unclearity) this counts as ruleplaying, as it would "bypass" the rule. 

[alexalex303]

1 minute ago, Appelgi said:

I wish, I think (thanks due to unclearity) this counts as ruleplaying, as it would "bypass" the rule. 

Ruleplaying is ruleplaying, roleplaying is roleplaying. If you're actively trying to group up every time you feel like you're gonna get attacked, that's obviously ruleplaying. If you're genuinely trying to interact with other gangs occasionally, it will be fine. I do not think that anyone in the staff team is a robot and can not tell the difference. Just play it fair and trust in the staff team.

[alexalex303]

2 minutes ago, Pootis said:

So where do you draw the line, alexalex303, between ''ocasional interaction'' and ''preparing for an attack''? Is an admin going to track each gang, making sure they only hang together at most 10 times per week? 

As with all things, I would advise using common sense.

If for example your gang opens up a pub every week, having other gangs show up there would be highly regular and nothing out of the ordinary, another gang attacking that and complaining wouldn't be valid since it's a known routine thing.

If you however spot some potentially hostile people near your HQ, and invite your friendly gangs to "chill", and it happens more than once, that is highly questionable.

End of the day there is no clear line, just like there isn't one with fear RP, or with DM. There are some examples for DM, but the list is not all encompassing. There is no clear definition for what "close range" is for fear RP, and everyone has their own idea, but no hard line. That is how roleplaying works, it's all very situational.

[Danyby]

+1 the rule isn't very clear and sometimes we don't know what to do, thus, the forum reports nowadays...

[skeletee]

You named two suggestions, either: (1) better clarify the rule, or (2) adjust the rule so that it simply bans joint-frequencies with allies and nothing else. I'm going to explain why this current rule NEEDS to stay and potentially need evolved over time and why I agree with your first suggestion over your second. The following points I'm about to make is generalised based on the past several months and isn't intentioned to point any fingers at any specific faction.

THE NEW RULE

The rule is still fairly new and people are still navigating the different nuances and contexts of it. Like every new rule that gets introduced, we cannot expect it to be perfect at first. On top of that, it is also having to ensure that every member of your faction is clued up in understanding the rule. The back-up/joint frequency rule is one of those rules that can be broken easily if not understood. All it takes is one person to be rolling with another gang while still staying on the same frequency, and then out of nowhere requesting for back-up. Of course, their members are going to respond without knowing the context, because how could they not? Their member's life is at risk. However, at that simple request alone, this becomes outnumbered 2:1 and the outcome of the RP scenario has  been changed to the point that it can't simply be OOC resolved. The forums should not solely be a place for punishment, but also to help staff clarify the new rule. If one faction's understanding of the new rule is different to another, then there are going to be situations in-game where one faction will think the other one is breaching it. This is unavoidable. It is also extremely difficult to understand the absolute source of where that back-up has come from without checking logs or reviewing evidence closely, sometimes. It is simply a learning process and a way for all gangs to eventually be on the same page. Should the new rule be written? Yes, I think so eventually. But at the moment, it is too contextual and just needs more time to evolve.

The rule is simply as it stands; If you did not come across the situation organically, then you cannot assist. You either have two options; (1) assist on your own or (2) leave and spare your character's life. 

So I agree, this rule seems really good on paper - and it has been VERY good, honestly - but it just needs reworked and can only be reworked over time as more context is placed.

RP DEPRIVATION

As someone who was on the other end of the massive gang alliance (apologies that I don't know the exact number of factions involved, I just know that we were severely outnumbered), my motivation RP, as well as others', depleted completely. Any potential ideas, storylines, diplomacy meetings with other gangs, and RP scenarios had to be at a standstill/pause because we were expected to fight every day and for multiple times a day, often with very little escalation. At times, we had plans for RP, but it was constantly delayed because of a recent fight/upcoming fight/people were no longer motivated to carry out the RP. This deprived my faction of RP as well as our faction leaders' motivation to plan any for our members, which in turn deprived RP from factions that we wished to RP with. 

If anything, I think the health of the server has improved significantly since the introduction of the rule. My faction was finally able to focus on building relations outside of fighting as well as focus on our own backstory/lore/turfs. It's also helped our members bond with one another internally since we only have one faction to focus on and that is ourselves.

LIMITATION

What I've noticed during my time on the server is when you give someone an inch, they'll go a mile. When you give people drug tables to place at home, they'll stack it on top of each other. When an OP bike is available on the server, people will buy it for millions. When a job is buffed, then people will do it all day, every day. Not to say that I wouldn't do the same, because why wouldn't I? However, when you apply this to alliances - when you don't limit them - then people will group in obscene numbers with no other motivation than to fight and provide back-up. This is why the rule needs to stay because without it, then everything I mentioned under RP deprivation happens, and if that continues, then people will be so demotivated that they will be pushed out of the server completely. 

SMALLER GANGS

Quote

Smaller gangs relied before on bigger gangs to protect them, and in return those smaller gangs would trade or support the bigger gang for their protection. This is all thrown out of the server now. Small gangs have it really rough, and are on their own. People get called multiple times a day asking if they can support a backup call, which they have to make up a stupid excuse to not breach the rule. I would say this is totally not RP, this is not organic at all. 

To continue from my previous point, I feel like the server is at a place where small gangs actually have room to grow. Yes, smaller gangs can no longer ask for protection from bigger gangs, but why should they? Small gangs need to prove that they can fight on their own without the help of others. If say two smaller gangs are fighting one another, and one small gang has the advantage to request help from a bigger gang, then wouldn't that demotivate the small gang that they were fighting? Wouldn't it be better for the two gangs to sort things out between themselves and therefore eventually meet to discuss diplomacy?

ALLIES THAT MAKE SENSE

I think it's important for every faction leader to really sit down and consider what their true intentions are with their allies/back-up. If your ally-ship only extends as far as having a "shared enemy" and to fight, then they need to question whether or not you are truly here to RP. For example, Daichead Gadai would never ally with a British faction because of their backstory pertaining to the IRA. Being any more than friendly with a British faction would be in COMPLETE opposition to our lore and purpose of the faction. Instead, we have created close relations with Chinese factions (due to shared colonialism from the UK). At an OOC level, we also nowadays also only advance relations with factions that we believe are on the server to RP. 

At the end of the day, as I always say, it always comes down to the responsibility of the faction leaders. If you're a faction leader that wants to measure their faction's power by number of fights won, then of COURSE no longer having an active joint-frequency or back-up to call is a nerf to criminal RP. You will actually find that fighting together really only accounts for 10% of building relations.

Quote

Diplomacy, like I said is still going on, but it really does change the dynamic of the server. Fighting is of course less RP, but its still a bonding experience, which is restricted ALOT now. Why have diplomacy, or gang RP, if you cant even work together as a criminal organization?

Believe me, we are not here only to clap, but this rule in general makes us avoid grouping up with creates roleplay.

So where do you draw the line between ''ocasional interaction'' and ''preparing for an attack''? Is an admin going to track each gang, making sure they only hang together at most 10 times per week? 

If you really, really, want to build relations and group up... then what's stopping you? A joint-frequency or inability to back-up a gang should not stop you from RPing with another faction. Is the rule stopping you because you want to hang-out to eventually fight?

There are other ways to build relations, you just have to be creative. Some ideas (but not limited to) include needing help to kidnap someone specific to torture them, assisting another gang to help run their business, heists, bank-robberies, requesting help for illegal car modifications, food drives through Little Seoul, inviting HC to a planned private dinner, requesting for help in picking up a non-script shipment, requesting urgent (non-script) medical first aid from an ex-medic from another gang as a result of illegal activity, randomly showing up and turfs to gift blunts to a specific group of people, or just passively through community events/meet-ups. There are many things you can do.

TL;DR - +1/-1 The new rule is great and needs to stay, just needs more written clarification. New rule has helped RP excel in ways beyond simply fighting. Out of everyone, faction leaders should be pinned most responsible. RP should not be limited to just PVP and building relations through helping other gangs PVP. There is more to the server than that.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Lola

[SteakHappy]

+1

I am unsure why mentality has switched to gang shootouts not being part of RP, as indicated by some in this thread. Of course, clap crews have been a thing in the past and are a different thing altogether, but even then, the rule was NOT effective in preventing that.

 

The truth of the matter is that shootouts ARE an integral part of gang RP. There’s a fine line, of course, but rules like this do nothing to clarify where that line is. Instead, they do stifle RP opportunities and facilitate a need to ruleplay.

[Why]

+1 The constant fear of talking to my friends that joined opposite gangs due to this rule and us being attacked at for any reason is to much. Its RP Restraint I believe. Just my opinion. 

[Tharindu_Eranga]

1+

[Harley]

-1

I couldn't have said it better than Lola did.

This rule is extremely important to keep around. The responsibility comes down to Faction Leaders to ensure each and every single member of their faction, prospect or not, understands the rule, what they can and cannot do, and most importantly, why it's important and what it's here for.

Personally, I find the rule quite easy to understand. As High Command in an Official Criminal Faction it is my responsibility to ask as many questions as I can think of to our Faction Handlers to ensure that we as a faction understand the rule in it's entirety. I can then relay this information to the members of my Faction to ensure everyone understands it completely.

Faction Management are there to help you, and your Faction Management meetings should be taken advantage of. Ask questions to your Handlers if something is unclear, they are there to help your Faction grow and become something everyone can be proud of.

TL;DR: The rule is simple to understand and is worded fine. Any uncertainties are your responsibility to set straight by asking your Faction Handlers.

[Appelgi]

3 minutes ago, Harley said:

-1

I couldn't have said it better than Lola did.

This rule is extremely important to keep around. The responsibility comes down to Faction Leaders to ensure each and every single member of their faction, prospect or not, understands the rule, what they can and cannot do, and most importantly, why it's important and what it's here for.

Personally, I find the rule quite easy to understand. As High Command in an Official Criminal Faction it is my responsibility to ask as many questions as I can think of to our Faction Handlers to ensure that we as a faction understand the rule in it's entirety. I can then relay this information to the members of my Faction to ensure everyone understands it completely.

Faction Management are there to help you, and your Faction Management meetings should be taken advantage of. Ask questions to your Handlers if something is unclear, they are there to help your Faction grow and become something everyone can be proud of.

TL;DR: The rule is simple to understand and is worded fine. Any uncertainties are your responsibility to set straight by asking your Faction Handlers.

-1? Nice response. -1 about what?

 

As you clearly understand this rule, explain it to me please. 

[Harley]

Just now, Appelgi said:

-1? Nice response. -1 about what?

 

As you clearly understand this rule, explain it to me please. 

Your suggestion is to change the rule to make it "Just don't allow joint freqs, but allow the rest"

That's what I'm -1'ing. No need to take offense.

[Appelgi]

3 hours ago, Lola said:

TL;DR - +1 The new rule is great and needs to stay, just needs more written clarification. New rule has helped RP excel in ways beyond simply fighting. Out of everyone, faction leaders should be pinned most responsible. RP should not be limited to just PVP and building relations through helping other gangs PVP. There is more to the server than that.

I've read your post, and In summary I quite agree, not on all points but the majority, it just needs a major rehaul. A new set of rules need to be made regarding this, written down in black and white.

[Dara MacFadden]

-1 Lola summed it up perfectly!

[Appelgi]

4 minutes ago, Harley said:

Your suggestion is to change the rule to make it "Just don't allow joint freqs, but allow the rest"

That's what I'm -1'ing. No need to take offense.

Believe me, I am not taking any offense. Just curious why you would put down a simple -1, while I have left 2 suggestions myself, the removal of most of the rules, or a rework of them as soon as possible. Seems like you agree with one of them.

So a bit odd that you would say "Your suggestion is to change the rule to make it "Just don't allow joint freqs, but allow the rest"  while that's not my only suggestion. We should try and work something out.

[Appelgi]

2 minutes ago, Dara MacFadden said:

-1 Lola summed it up perfectly!

Have you read all the posts? Or just Lola's?

[Dara MacFadden]

1 minute ago, Appelgi said:

Have you read all the posts? Or just Lola's?

I have read the thread yes, what would you like me to respond to?

[TvA]

+1 i personally think the rule should stay, however it should be explained a lot better. Right now it's a vague paragraph long rule with little explanation. We need to have on black and white exactly what is allowed and what is not allowed.

[ize]

It's really not that complicated of a rule...

[Appelgi]

1 minute ago, Dara MacFadden said:

I have read the thread yes, what would you like me to respond to?

 

5 minutes ago, Dara MacFadden said:

-1 Lola summed it up perfectly!

 

Lola's response was one of the 2 suggestions I had made, that's why I was curious if you even cared to read the rest, since I clearly described it in my post. Glad to hear though that you support the idea of making a clear ruleset for the current vague rules.