Limelight Forums

Full Version: Rule Clarifications Record and Q/A
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
This thread will be used to record and keep track of finer details/staff consensus/precedents/answers to player questions about the rules. As I drafted this mostly from memory, expect potentially missing stuff or mistakes (though hopefully the team members that saw it beforehand should have spotted any mistakes, ree).

The notes are in the spoilers below, sorted by rule section. The rules are bolded, the notes are normal text.

Sooo whoever originally requested this and anyone else who loves reading walls of text, you are welcome.

Please feel free to use this thread to suggest additions/changes to the list and to ask questions about the rules.
1.4 - Do not swear excessively, argue or insult in OOC chat, and do not write caps-locked messages. While you can be sexist/racist/otherwise discriminatory In-Character, this must not carry over to OOC.

why are caps not allowed like i don't see the issue. Doc int can spam OOC with word by word messages if he wants whats the issue with caps?
(Jul 25, 2018, 04:52 PM)IVNT Wrote: [ -> ]1.4 - Do not swear excessively, argue or insult in OOC chat, and do not write caps-locked messages. While you can be sexist/racist/otherwise discriminatory In-Character, this must not carry over to OOC.

why are caps not allowed like i don't see the issue. Doc int can spam OOC with word by word messages if he wants whats the issue with caps?


Capsing is the online equivalent of shouting. Shouting isn't something you should do in civil conversation. Also if it wasn't restricted, it'd be overused by people who get emotional (salty), or those who feel like they have a particular need for their message to be seen more than other messages, both of which happen quite a lot.
(Jul 25, 2018, 05:08 PM)Overlewd Wrote: [ -> ]
(Jul 25, 2018, 04:52 PM)IVNT Wrote: [ -> ]1.4 - Do not swear excessively, argue or insult in OOC chat, and do not write caps-locked messages. While you can be sexist/racist/otherwise discriminatory In-Character, this must not carry over to OOC.

why are caps not allowed like i don't see the issue. Doc int can spam OOC with word by word messages if he wants whats the issue with caps?


Capsing is the online equivalent of shouting. Shouting isn't something you should do in civil conversation. Also if it wasn't restricted, it'd be overused by people who get emotional (salty), or those who feel like they have a particular need for their message to be seen more than other messages, both of which happen quite a lot.

But say for example if you accidentally wrote in all caps "HELLO" the whole server fucking yells "CAPS" anyway, like the hypocrisy there, is it not classed as backseat administrating.
(Jul 25, 2018, 05:13 PM)IVNT Wrote: [ -> ]
(Jul 25, 2018, 05:08 PM)Overlewd Wrote: [ -> ]
(Jul 25, 2018, 04:52 PM)IVNT Wrote: [ -> ]1.4 - Do not swear excessively, argue or insult in OOC chat, and do not write caps-locked messages. While you can be sexist/racist/otherwise discriminatory In-Character, this must not carry over to OOC.

why are caps not allowed like i don't see the issue. Doc int can spam OOC with word by word messages if he wants whats the issue with caps?


Capsing is the online equivalent of shouting. Shouting isn't something you should do in civil conversation. Also if it wasn't restricted, it'd be overused by people who get emotional (salty), or those who feel like they have a particular need for their message to be seen more than other messages, both of which happen quite a lot.

But say for example if you accidentally wrote in all caps "HELLO" the whole server fucking yells "CAPS" anyway, like the hypocrisy there, is it not classed as backseat administrating.

I very much doubt you'd get punished for writing HELLO in all caps unless you've just been warned about all caps. Asking someone to not all-caps is not backseating, like it wouldn't be backseating to inform someone in local OOC that they are breaking FearRP. It would be punishable backseating if someone took punishing/similar for rule violations into their own hands. Like if you all-capsed in OOC and a cop arrested you for it. Yeah I guess if everyone pointed out a fairly obvious accident with caps it wouldn't feel good but, oh well.
(Jul 25, 2018, 05:08 PM)Overlewd Wrote: [ -> ]
(Jul 25, 2018, 04:52 PM)IVNT Wrote: [ -> ]1.4 - Do not swear excessively, argue or insult in OOC chat, and do not write caps-locked messages. While you can be sexist/racist/otherwise discriminatory In-Character, this must not carry over to OOC.

why are caps not allowed like i don't see the issue. Doc int can spam OOC with word by word messages if he wants whats the issue with caps?


Capsing is the online equivalent of shouting. Shouting isn't something you should do in civil conversation. Also if it wasn't restricted, it'd be overused by people who get emotional (salty), or those who feel like they have a particular need for their message to be seen more than other messages, both of which happen quite a lot.

I shout all the time in conversations and no one cares so why do LL care.
aight so you got all these fancy pants explanations but i still got a couple of questions you know:

1. when am i allowed to raid some kids as a criminal, last time i asked that i got told that i can "raid for the hopes of finding riches" or something like that. im not trying to get fucked over so i need to know

2. so beanbag shotguns apply fearRP even when in cars?

3. So in 3.7 where it says mechanics can run chop shops, does that mean I can steal cars as a mechanic if my job was "chop shop - worker" or such? and also rob people for their cars at gunpoint?

4. 10.1 - cant i be corrupt and bust down some dudes door just cuz i want his contraband and weed and keep it off the books? corrupt cops do it all the time in the movies

5. whats the max repair amount i can charge someone for a repair, like ferrari parts are expensive even from a full repair

6. Crime rules - confirm robbing peoples houses, reasons to kill cops (if i get pulled over can i buss a cap in a cop cuz i got a shotgun on me) and stuff like that cuz the government is really thought out but criminals gotta guess whats right and whats wrong :v
(Jul 25, 2018, 08:20 PM)greg Wrote: [ -> ]aight so you got all these fancy pants explanations but i still got a couple of questions you know:

1. when am i allowed to raid some kids as a criminal, last time i asked that i got told that i can "raid for the hopes of finding riches" or something like that. im not trying to get fucked over so i need to know

2. so beanbag shotguns apply fearRP even when in cars?

3. So in 3.7 where it says mechanics can run chop shops, does that mean I can steal cars as a mechanic if my job was "chop shop - worker" or such? and also rob people for their cars at gunpoint?

4. 10.1 - cant i be corrupt and bust down some dudes door just cuz i want his contraband and weed and keep it off the books? corrupt cops do it all the time in the movies

5. whats the max repair amount i can charge someone for a repair, like ferrari parts are expensive even from a full repair

6. Crime rules - confirm robbing peoples houses, reasons to kill cops (if i get pulled over can i buss a cap in a cop cuz i got a shotgun on me) and stuff like that cuz the government is really thought out but criminals gotta guess whats right and whats wrong :v

1. Depends on your job really. Burglars would break in just for hopes of finding anything valuable. Gangs probably want to have some way of knowing that there's contra/drugs inside first. Methods of entry would be different. You can also raid for revenge (if reason sufficient and criminal job), as a hitman when hired to do so (once again with valid reason).

2. Yes, that is what the team voted in favour of, and the shotgun was changed a wee bit to work when cars get shot so it complies with the harm your character part of the rule.

3. Do not rob people of their cars at gunpoint. And run more refers to the part after the car gets stolen already. Not particularly fond of the idea of mechanics running around looking for cars to steal, they still need to be doing their job of repairing cars and customizingm

4. Corruption does not allow you to ignore search warrant acquisition. But if you have a valid warrant and raid, amd have a corrupt background and plan, sure keep it.

5. Currently no limit. Same as in theory there is no limit to how much you charge for gun dealer guns. As long as it's not actually failrp much (like charge more than car costs to buy, to repair, but that is an extreme and I hope obvious point).

6. Will edit in later, too much stuff.
Consensus note - Display of corruption not required in job titles or descriptions or anywhere.
(Jul 30, 2018, 06:36 AM)Overlewd Wrote: [ -> ]Consensus note - Display of corruption not required in job titles or descriptions or anywhere.

Thank god for this. Finally I have something to referr to when someone gets pesky.
Quote:When you get out of the car, you remain under FearRP if you were previously under FearRP regardless of where glitchy seats may have ejected you in,

I really don't understand why this is a thing. It should be looked at on a case by case basis, not just a blanket rule saying that even if the cops absolutely fail to cover the proper parts of a vehicle, you are still under fearRP and must return yourself to them. Furthermore, you classify all ejections as "glitchy seats" despite the fact that unless a prop is blocking the normal place of exit, you usually come out on the proper side. 

For example, in this scenario, why should the person marked "me" still be under fearRP? They were told to exit the car, and did so, but the cop failed to cover both sides of the car. They shouldn't be under fearRP, but this rule forces them to go to the other side and turn themselves in. 

[Image: k0r3kJb.png]
They follow fearRP by exiting the vehicle. They exit on their side, not due to some "glitchy seats", but are still under fearRP. It is the cop's duty to cover both sides of the car or call for an additional to assist. It isn't the job of the criminal to just turn themself in for no reaosn.
(Jul 31, 2018, 07:20 PM)Hungames Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:When you get out of the car, you remain under FearRP if you were previously under FearRP regardless of where glitchy seats may have ejected you in,

I really don't understand why this is a thing. It should be looked at on a case by case basis, not just a blanket rule saying that even if the cops absolutely fail to cover the proper parts of a vehicle, you are still under fearRP and must return yourself to them. Furthermore, you classify all ejections as "glitchy seats" despite the fact that unless a prop is blocking the normal place of exit, you usually come out on the proper side. 

For example, in this scenario, why should the person marked "me" still be under fearRP? They were told to exit the car, and did so, but the cop failed to cover both sides of the car. They shouldn't be under fearRP, but this rule forces them to go to the other side and turn themselves in. 

[Image: k0r3kJb.png]
They follow fearRP by exiting the vehicle. They exit on their side, not due to some "glitchy seats", but are still under fearRP. It is the cop's duty to cover both sides of the car or call for an additional to assist. It isn't the job of the criminal to just turn themself in for no reaosn.

very true and its like if ur in a box truck and wedge ur self in the alley by 195 cosmos and rockford tow stopping cops from getting access then u in RP smash the front window and climb thru then fearRP shouldnt be applied if cops r only behind ur van. fyi if u have ever seen the new mission impossible u will know where i got this from
In both of the above examples, please read the sentence before the one you quoted about line of sight.
(Aug 1, 2018, 02:25 AM)Overlewd Wrote: [ -> ]In both of the above examples, please read the sentence before the one you quoted about line of sight.

The line above refers to people inside the car. Once you get out, the rule forces you to always be under fearRP regardless of "glitchy doors" or not.
(Aug 1, 2018, 02:27 AM)Hungames Wrote: [ -> ]
(Aug 1, 2018, 02:25 AM)Overlewd Wrote: [ -> ]In both of the above examples, please read the sentence before the one you quoted about line of sight.

The line above refers to people inside the car. Once you get out, the rule forces you to always be under fearRP regardless of "glitchy doors" or not.

The glitchy doors thing only applies if you were originally under FearRP before getting out. Hence look at that other line about potentially not being under FearRP
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8