(Aug 29, 2017, 05:23 PM)Overlewd Wrote: [ -> ]I can imagine someone saying something about a grace period for fairness sake. For example, if weapons are legal one moment, and become illegal because a president makes a new law, it would be unfair for cops to instantly go inside a gun store and arrest the gun dealer without giving him a few minutes to abide by the law and close the store. (IRL laws come into effect a while after they are announced not just appear out of thin air one day and come into effect immediately)
So can I be
punished for arresting someone for a new law without allowing a grace period before hand?
(Aug 29, 2017, 05:30 PM)ForceGhost Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 29, 2017, 05:23 PM)Overlewd Wrote: [ -> ]I can imagine someone saying something about a grace period for fairness sake. For example, if weapons are legal one moment, and become illegal because a president makes a new law, it would be unfair for cops to instantly go inside a gun store and arrest the gun dealer without giving him a few minutes to abide by the law and close the store. (IRL laws come into effect a while after they are announced not just appear out of thin air one day and come into effect immediately)
So can I be punished for arresting someone for a new law without allowing a grace period before hand?
No. It is not a listed rule and we can't enforce it. It would be a suggestion more than anything.
(Aug 29, 2017, 05:30 PM)ForceGhost Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 29, 2017, 05:23 PM)Overlewd Wrote: [ -> ]I can imagine someone saying something about a grace period for fairness sake. For example, if weapons are legal one moment, and become illegal because a president makes a new law, it would be unfair for cops to instantly go inside a gun store and arrest the gun dealer without giving him a few minutes to abide by the law and close the store. (IRL laws come into effect a while after they are announced not just appear out of thin air one day and come into effect immediately)
So can I be punished for arresting someone for a new law without allowing a grace period before hand?
I would imagine if a staff member were to enforce something unwritten like a grace period that they would simply stop the RP situation and tell the police that they cannot arrest person X (or unarrest them if they were arrested) but not issue a punishment as the grace period is not officially written anywhere nor has been commonly enforced.
So, no you shouldn't normally be punished for it, at least not while it remains entirely unwritten.
That said, if there is more to it, for example if you ask a president to change the law just so you can immediately arrest someone, the answer might be different.
(Aug 29, 2017, 04:51 PM)Soviethooves Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 29, 2017, 06:41 AM)Hungames Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 29, 2017, 03:49 AM)Soviethooves Wrote: [ -> ]"If it feels like it will get me in trouble, I probably shouldn't do it."
I feel like i am doing good stuff and not bad stuff but i still get in trouble cause the admin says i have to "go back to fearRP" after i already broke it by removing line of sight.
i follow written rules, they make up some bullshit
Can you explain this situation in detail?
my UBLR was already denied so no use. basically, when I got out of my car, I got out through the normal door, and I was out of sight of everyone. a badmin claimed I have to go back and turn myself into the cops since they had guns on me before I got out. line of sight was broken by solid cover, but I have to give myself in cause the cops had terrible tactics.
the BL reason itself contained a bunch of bullshit too "leaving vehicle under gunpoint", well yes, if a cop is holding a gun towards me, and tells me to get out, I am gonna fucking get out. "opening fire due to temporary loss of sight", i was completely covered by 2 different solid covers, a wall and a huge ass communist truck. "Breaking FearRP", I got out of the car into a spot where the cops couldn't see me so, according to the admins, the game broke fearRP for me so I had to go back to the cops and say here I am, arrest me cause I got out of the door that was closest to me. It was a bunch of unwritten bullshit that has never been enforced.
https://prnt.sc/fgbyk8
https://image.prntscr.com/image/fb21de74...b6a6ee.png
(Aug 29, 2017, 06:49 PM)Hungames Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 29, 2017, 04:51 PM)Soviethooves Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 29, 2017, 06:41 AM)Hungames Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 29, 2017, 03:49 AM)Soviethooves Wrote: [ -> ]"If it feels like it will get me in trouble, I probably shouldn't do it."
I feel like i am doing good stuff and not bad stuff but i still get in trouble cause the admin says i have to "go back to fearRP" after i already broke it by removing line of sight.
i follow written rules, they make up some bullshit
Can you explain this situation in detail?
my UBLR was already denied so no use. basically, when I got out of my car, I got out through the normal door, and I was out of sight of everyone. a badmin claimed I have to go back and turn myself into the cops since they had guns on me before I got out. line of sight was broken by solid cover, but I have to give myself in cause the cops had terrible tactics.
the BL reason itself contained a bunch of bullshit too "leaving vehicle under gunpoint", well yes, if a cop is holding a gun towards me, and tells me to get out, I am gonna fucking get out. "opening fire due to temporary loss of sight", i was completely covered by 2 different solid covers, a wall and a huge ass communist truck. "Breaking FearRP", I got out of the car into a spot where the cops couldn't see me so, according to the admins, the game broke fearRP for me so I had to go back to the cops and say here I am, arrest me cause I got out of the door that was closest to me. It was a bunch of unwritten bullshit that has never been enforced.
https://prnt.sc/fgbyk8
https://image.prntscr.com/image/fb21de74...b6a6ee.png
Yea, I didn't agree with that either. It is the shooter's job to cover those exit points.
(Aug 27, 2017, 01:06 PM)Overlewd Wrote: [ -> ]It COULD be resolved through IC means, but will it? Extremely unlikely. The only person who would bother complaining in most scenarios is the person who got killed, and they cannot complain ICly due to NLR.
^
Then nobody will say anything about what happened and he will just go away with the kill , if its IC So I believe It should be OOC.
+ He might say "I didn't do it" to the president and he will not be demoted it happens all time when someone talk to president he say "I will talk to him" and nothing ..
(Aug 29, 2017, 11:24 AM)Toxic Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 29, 2017, 08:16 AM)Welker Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 29, 2017, 07:59 AM)BlackDog Wrote: [ -> ]11pm Posting:
To be blunt, i do feel far more situations need to be allowed to be handled in character.
> Feels more situations should be handled in-character
> Takes entire clan war to OOC
This is a discussion thread, so please stay relevant to the discussion, rather than taking your personal feelings about a predicament that is well behind everyone else and turning it into an ad hominem. Thank you.
[Image Removed]
Will-never-fuckmuku virgins btfo
User Warned - Soviethooves
(Aug 29, 2017, 07:50 PM)Murdoch Murdoch Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 29, 2017, 11:24 AM)Toxic Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 29, 2017, 08:16 AM)Welker Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 29, 2017, 07:59 AM)BlackDog Wrote: [ -> ]11pm Posting:
To be blunt, i do feel far more situations need to be allowed to be handled in character.
> Feels more situations should be handled in-character
> Takes entire clan war to OOC
This is a discussion thread, so please stay relevant to the discussion, rather than taking your personal feelings about a predicament that is well behind everyone else and turning it into an ad hominem. Thank you.
[Image Removed]
Will-never-fuckmuku virgins btfo
User Warned - Soviethooves
Nice to see y'all still can't take a joke lmao
But since making jokes is a crime here, let's get serious:
It's a fallacy in itself to call out a fallacy and treat an argument as invalid because of it
Bringing that up is, actually, relevant to the subject
Instead of trying to hide it either:
A) Admit that you were wrong and vow to make efforts to change the way you operate
B) Stick to it and continue to operate in this manner, but don't try to hide it like you're ashamed of it. It reflects and while the actions might not be, the shame you're operating with is visible to everyone. A shameful staff team makes for a shameful server
Alright, so I was the one who had originally spoken about the "grace period" when enacting a new law. I've discussed this with HR and the involved player () who had given me permission to talk about the specifics of the situation in which this happened, so with that being said, let's get into it.
Sours was currently the President, and had just decided to enact a law which stated that gambling businesses/casinos were outlawed, and were illegal to operate. Shortly after the law was made, I received a call from one of the casino operators saying that they were being arrested for the law, even though it had just went into effect. To me, this seemed like a potential case of powergaming as the law had only just went through, and there was around a minute or two between this law going into effect and the situation where the operator was being arrested.
I attempt to PM Sours in-game, to which he didn't respond as he was at the casino dealing with the fallout, persuading the responding officers to not go through with the arrest (as I assume he realised how this may look) and so I decided to drop him a couple of messages on Steam, asking him what was happening. For the sake of allowing the roleplay to continue, I didn't make my precense to the responding officers or players involved known. Sours ended up successfully convincing the officers and those on scene to not proceed with the arrest, and ended up walking back to the Town Hall. Whilst he was in the main lobby, I asked Sours for a quick word over in-game voice chat, and dragged him up to a roof to have a quick informal chat with him about how it may seem to other staff who are looking into the situation.
I then used the "grace period" as a term to give an example of how said situations can be avoided. I believe I suggested a 5 minute grace period between the law going into effect and people being arrested for it. I must emphasise that Sours was only spoken to off the record, and in an informal manner. No official verbal warning was issued and nothing was logged down for staff reference in the future. No formal punishments were issued, and no one other than myself was assigned to the case.
I hope this clears things up. Whilst the grace period isn't a written rule, it'd be a smart move to play by to avoid potential cases of powergaming, where it may seem to staff that a law has only went into effect to target a couple of players, and then have those players immediately arrested for the violation of that law.