I see several people posting their reports with the video included where they can be seen clearly talking over a voice communication program, but nobody takes action on them, which basiaclly renders this rule useless. I'm definitely sure nobody is going to spy on someone using it, but come on, if he posts the video himself he's basically creating evidence also to work against him, then you can definitely apply the rule of mixing and punish him, since as me being an avid player for gunfights I can clearly say the advantage voice communication gives is immense. This brings me to the point if our official teamspeak channels are even allowed. (?)Using third-party applications such as Teamspeak, Steam, Discord, Skype or other such platforms to call for assistance or guide your friends is also considered metagaming/mixing. You may not use any third-party software to communicate in-character without consent from the management team. GOV, SAPD, SASF, NOOSE and subsidiary departments of the aforementioned agencies may use Teamspeak or Discord as their radio communication platform.
Twisted right?vin wrote:The problem is that the DM rule has both "you need a reason" and "only kill as a last resort".
Trying to jack someones car gives you a reason to kill them, but it's not necessarily a last resort but then again since you have a reason to kill him it's not DM.
Those aren't mutually exclusive. You may have a reason which leads you to have to stop someone. It doesn't mean that your only solution to do so is killing. Which is when the other portion of the rules comes in (at least, in my interpetation), and killing should only be the last resort, even if you do indeed have a reason for having to stop that personvin wrote:The problem is that the DM rule has both "you need a reason" and "only kill as a last resort".
Trying to jack someones car gives you a reason to kill them, but it's not necessarily a last resort but then again since you have a reason to kill him it's not DM.
A lot of people use TS/Skype without mixing, and we all know who used to do it during gunfights, especially asking for help OOC, but you can't really prove they're mixing unless they actually start giving directions during the video. Some do, and are ignored though.tisler wrote:Also this rule:
I see several people posting their reports with the video included where they can be seen clearly talking over a voice communication program, but nobody takes action on them, which basiaclly renders this rule useless. I'm definitely sure nobody is going to spy on someone using it, but come on, if he posts the video himself he's basically creating evidence also to work against him, then you can definitely apply the rule of mixing and punish him, since as me being an avid player for gunfights I can clearly say the advantage voice communication gives is immense. This brings me to the point if our official teamspeak channels are even allowed. (?)Using third-party applications such as Teamspeak, Steam, Discord, Skype or other such platforms to call for assistance or guide your friends is also considered metagaming/mixing. You may not use any third-party software to communicate in-character without consent from the management team. GOV, SAPD, SASF, NOOSE and subsidiary departments of the aforementioned agencies may use Teamspeak or Discord as their radio communication platform.
Which is why I'm here asking for an ammendment/clarification/explanation on what exactly is against the rulesBennyy wrote: I think the rule set needs rewritten. It's so ambiguous...
1 - I am. 2 - Even if I wasn't does that mean what I said isn't true? 3 - You're asking for a person to quit the server, you're technically advertising against playing the server, thus you really should be punished for those words. 4 - You're going off-topic. Don't do it again.Vic wrote:please just gtfo Oak you're not even playing anymore
You're allowed to do that shit as a LEA and especially in a GFFuzzy wrote:pd killing civilians because someone tried to take their car really nice.....i know they can but they shouldn't do it otherwise why are they police man to protect people not to kill them.
as for pg I remember once when I was robbing a biz together with some guys but I was waiting outside and checking for cops meanwhile gf starts I killed 1-2 cops/sasf and since i was low I hided.After some time police comes behind my back and tazes/cuff me(since they use keybind and u get instantly cuffed)I was rping with those sasf until my friends come to save me then this sasf guy use force get in while I was trying to rp despite the fact that there was a gf.I was on the roof of a store and he was on the street.Apparently it is allowed to do that while in gf so your friends won't be able to save you.#IMRPLOGIC
I am 100% sure that it used to be punisheable to do that (especially in gunfights), not to mention that it's pretty much what I pointed out in the Powergaming ruling example, you're forcing an action and doing it in a fraction of the time you'd be able to do it, thus it would be powergaming. The rules don't specify anything about PD being able to get without roleplaying/non-powergamey roleplay.Glow wrote:You're allowed to do that shit as a LEA and especially in a GFFuzzy wrote:pd killing civilians because someone tried to take their car really nice.....i know they can but they shouldn't do it otherwise why are they police man to protect people not to kill them.
as for pg I remember once when I was robbing a biz together with some guys but I was waiting outside and checking for cops meanwhile gf starts I killed 1-2 cops/sasf and since i was low I hided.After some time police comes behind my back and tazes/cuff me(since they use keybind and u get instantly cuffed)I was rping with those sasf until my friends come to save me then this sasf guy use force get in while I was trying to rp despite the fact that there was a gf.I was on the roof of a store and he was on the street.Apparently it is allowed to do that while in gf so your friends won't be able to save you.#IMRPLOGIC
woot wrote:If a suspect is co-operating, and willing to RP, they must allow them to at least walk to the car. If the suspect doesn't co-operate, Law Enforcement Officers may force them in the car with /get - without having to RP. Furthermore, LEO's are allowed to /cuff & /get players in all hostile situations without having to write additional /me messages
K3lroy wrote:It is also considered powergaming to force players into a vehicle in high-speed, such as cops using /get while driving past a cuffed suspect with 100km/h.
Cops must park next to the suspect in order to use /get. There is no requirement that the driver must be outside of his vehicle, but there must be a someone outside of the car who force the suspect inside.
It is permitted to exit your vehicle as the driver and roleplay opening the doors and then forcing the suspect inside after roleplaying.
Simply /get'ing someone running away on foot is not allowed. You must /letgo the suspect so they can not run away in order to /get them.
It's linked mate, I didn't take credit for it. Actually interestingly enough I was about to use two reports from you, but I didn't want to appear biased so I had to seach for another.LuigiDA wrote:Wtf who allowed you to use my report without credits
Cruz_Gonzalez wrote:Lool you dumb fool just looking at your first example shows how much you should jurt shut the fuck up, go look at the video and see that he shot back. Try to also examine the whole situation and see that we were in a huge gunfight.
Whether he shot back after he was shot at or not is irrelevant because he was just defending himself after being shot at. It's based on whether or not he should even have been shot at in the first place. The consequences could be less severe than being shot at, as, like the rules state, not last resort.Vegas wrote:Mistake or not, you attempted to steal his vehicle IC = face the consquences IC
No action atken.
It's not. It's about the rules saying one thing , yet something different being enforced. If 50% play with A, and 50% play with B then something's wrong, and needs clarification.P4kit0 wrote:Is this a discussion about Heavy RP vs Light RP?
Cause we know where IM is. It's a Liiiiiiiiiiiiiight RP.
yes but you are very cool!Cruz_Gonzalez wrote:Tl;dr
I only read the first 4 sentences cuz someone linked it to me
Sent from my .. using Tapatalk
I already replied to this. Edit: It doesn't even need to be regarding in-game stuff. There's an admit that suggests that sayingBlack Hunter wrote:It's light rp ..