Limelight Forums

Hello community! I am glad to announce that after internal discussion it was decided to make adjustments to the current ruleset on the server to help fill any common grey areas that often cause issued and misunderstandings, particularly with our newer players. If you are fairly experienced with the gamemode you will find that most of these things have been enforced for a long time and not much has changed.

You can find the exact changes in the spoiler at the bottom, but here’s a tl;dr of the changes:

1)   Changed FearRP rule to reflect that it applies to guns on safety.
2)   Clarified NLR and /job usage.
3)   Added the “FailRP” government rules about killing those who don’t pose a threat.
4)   Added the “FailRP” crime rules about mugging as Corleone and baiting.
5)   Completely rewritten the doomforting rule so it is understandable to people unfamiliar with the term.
6)   Added clarification on the way arrests are handled in terms of IC and OOC/@.





As of 16/05/17:

6.7 Do not try to get on to rooftops; do not build on them either. 
6.7a Exception: You may place a new billboard/sign on top of the existing billboards. 

HAVE BEEN REPLACED WITH:

6.7 You may get up to rooftops if you have a valid RP reason to do so. You may only use the ladder tool to reach rooftops
and the act must be roleplayed out (no magic ladders out of nowhere mid-raid, for example). You may build on rooftops,
however defensive fortifications or contraband are not allowed.
6.7a You may reach rooftops via means other than a ladder if a staff member approves of it (must look realistic).
6.7b Tides/Empires hotel roof in city is off limits, do not attempt to get up there.

Hopefully this change allows for some interesting Roleplays that previously would not have been allowed.

Good to finaly see grey zones dissapear.

This will help others understand the rules a little bit more.

Good decision, you lil' democratic decision makers in the forums hidden from us peasants.

Very nice.

So the rule says within range, so can i put cops across the lake under fearrp with my awp??????????

Not sure but I think that should be 2017?

The general rule is that the year to include in a copyright notice is the year of first publication of the work. First publication is when the work is made available to the public without restriction. This includes selling a book or leaving free copies of it in a public place or posting content on your blog.

Nice to see some of the grey areas regarding rules get solved. The safety part in FearRP is going to be a big help as well, as some people didn't seem to understand it's just a button or switch you click or flick and you're ready to fire.
13.4, 13.4b and 15.6 are good ones as well. 

It was needed.

(May 9, 2017, 11:27 AM)Temar Wrote: [ -> ]The general rule is that the year to include in a copyright notice is the year of first publication of the work. First publication is when the work is made available to the public without restriction. This includes selling a book or leaving free copies of it in a public place or posting content on your blog.

Oh, ok, my bad

(May 9, 2017, 03:04 AM)SourLemon Wrote: [ -> ]So the rule says within range, so can i put cops across the lake under fearrp with my awp??????????

Adorable loophole but I thought about up this one myself and no, obviously you can't. You could ask that same question with the old rules as "under gunpoint" didnt specify range either.

Be reasonable :>

Edit: There's also the problem of actually seeing the person's weapon at that distance, at which point he's not necessarily "visibly" armed anymore. Microphone range (maybe /y) is a good indicator for most situations I'd say.

(May 9, 2017, 03:04 AM)SourLemon Wrote: [ -> ]So the rule says within range, so can i put cops across the lake under fearrp with my awp??????????

FearRP is usually generally when someone says something or pointing at them generally. So the AWP wouldn't work like that because the point would require to know your orders/location to be able to follow under FearRP. Good thought doe :3

A few new rules today, keeps the minges away.

(May 9, 2017, 01:08 PM)Overlewd Wrote: [ -> ]

(May 9, 2017, 03:04 AM)SourLemon Wrote: [ -> ]So the rule says within range, so can i put cops across the lake under fearrp with my awp??????????

Adorable loophole but I thought about up this one myself and no, obviously you can't. You could ask that same question with the old rules as "under gunpoint" didnt specify range either.

Be reasonable :>

Edit: There's also the problem of actually seeing the person's weapon at that distance, at which point he's not necessarily "visibly" armed anymore. Microphone range (maybe /y) is a good indicator for most situations I'd say.

I can pretty easily tell if someone is armed from quite a distance. So would it be better to have the rule state that it is within mic distance instead of visible? I mean we are trying to prevent grey areas correct?

(May 9, 2017, 03:27 PM)SourLemon Wrote: [ -> ]

(May 9, 2017, 01:08 PM)Overlewd Wrote: [ -> ]

(May 9, 2017, 03:04 AM)SourLemon Wrote: [ -> ]So the rule says within range, so can i put cops across the lake under fearrp with my awp??????????

Adorable loophole but I thought about up this one myself and no, obviously you can't. You could ask that same question with the old rules as "under gunpoint" didnt specify range either.

Be reasonable :>

Edit: There's also the problem of actually seeing the person's weapon at that distance, at which point he's not necessarily "visibly" armed anymore. Microphone range (maybe /y) is a good indicator for most situations I'd say.

I can pretty easily tell if someone is armed from quite a distance. So would it be better to have the rule state that it is within mic distance instead of visible? I mean we are trying to prevent grey areas correct?

That's not exactly a grey area anymore it's just trying to find loopholes. When someone is pointing a gun at you from that distance you don't know if they want you to freeze or gtfo or something else, so FearRP can't possibly apply. Also there are many ways you can counter-loophole your loophole with another loophole which I won't go into because let's not.