"Being restrained carries an implicit order to not move unless told otherwise."
Doesn't that mean while you're being detained you can't move? I don't see it anywhere saying once you're detained you HAVE to stand still.
(Mar 11, 2019, 08:52 PM)Gungranny Wrote: [ -> ]"Being restrained carries and implicit order to not move unless told otherwise."
Doesn't that mean while you're being detained you can't move? I don't see it anywhere saying once you're detained you HAVE to stand still.
Reading the entire policy dictates that fearRP remains applied after you are restrained due to the way it is written.
This is the issue I have with its wording.
I agree yea, that sounds stupid and why would anyone think thats how it is actualy supposed to be enforced, but as recent inccidents have shown yes, a member of the community AND a member of the staff thought that this is exactly how it was meant to be abided by, and enforced, until they we're told otherwise.
The problem remains though even though they we're told, as the wording is still suspect and should be modified to reflect how it actualy is enforced.
Edit:
Side note: The policy also does NOT apply fearRP to cuffs/rope IF you have a melee weapon out, only guns, another issue that should be corrected.
(Mar 11, 2019, 09:22 PM)Gungranny Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 11, 2019, 09:10 PM)BlackDog Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 11, 2019, 08:52 PM)Gungranny Wrote: [ -> ]"Being restrained carries and implicit order to not move unless told otherwise."
Doesn't that mean while you're being detained you can't move? I don't see it anywhere saying once you're detained you HAVE to stand still.
Reading the entire policy dictates that fearRP remains applied after you are restrained due to the way it is written.
This is the issue I have with its wording.
I agree yea, that sounds stupid and why would anyone think thats how it is actualy supposed to be enforced, but as recent inccidents have shown yes, a member of the community AND a member of the staff thought that this is exactly how it was meant to be abided by, and enforced, until they we're told otherwise.
The problem remains though even though they we're told, as the wording is still suspect and should be modified to reflect how it actualy is enforced.
Edit:
Side note: The policy also does NOT apply fearRP to cuffs/rope IF you have a melee weapon out, only guns, another issue that should be corrected.
"2.5 - If someone switches from a gun to handcuffs/rope to detain you, FearRP still applies. In this case, being restrained carries an implicit order not to move unless told otherwise."
From that it reads that if you're being detained by someone with a gun (Melee weapon once fixed) and they switch to cuffs/ropes, you have to stand still while they put them on. I don't get what your case is. The wording is fine, or am I missing something?
You are restrained
You are being restrained
The same word can mean either action or situation, but the policy isnt 100% clear on which that is.
My main point is the policy needs to be reworded and fixed to prevent confusion in the future as again i have to note: We just had a situation where a player almost faced punishment due to a player and member of staff reading the policy by its exact wording, wording that has been pointed out to me, can mean one or the other due to how it is used.
"
In this case, being restrained carries an implicit order not to move unless told otherwise."
Can mean that you are restrained, or that you are being restrained, and that in one, or both cases, you should not move.
Fair enough this is a discussion, but you guys are just quoting walls of text with no real progress as this stage, surely it would make more sense to just agree to disagree
Edit: or wait for HR to tell one of your “you’re wrong”
Remove FearRP. End of. No need for any balancing or all that bullshit.
If someone minges after the removal, just put it under FailRP and be done with it.
(Mar 14, 2019, 01:17 PM)Markus Wrote: [ -> ]Remove FearRP. End of. No need for any balancing or all that bullshit.
If someone minges after the removal, just put it under FailRP and be done with it.
That'd go well with no way to subdue a suspect, hold or grab them or force them to get in the car /s
(Mar 14, 2019, 02:00 PM)Bambo Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 14, 2019, 01:17 PM)Markus Wrote: [ -> ]Remove FearRP. End of. No need for any balancing or all that bullshit.
If someone minges after the removal, just put it under FailRP and be done with it.
That'd go well with no way to subdue a suspect, hold or grab them or force them to get in the car /s
Yup. You are right. Wish we had tasers, beanbag shotguns, tranquilizers, or a way to grab unconscious bodies.
Wish someone made a suggestion for a
New Handcuffing/Detainee Control System 2 years ago that was approved and even you supported.
Also wish I pointed out that that would be FailRP. /s
(Mar 14, 2019, 03:46 PM)Markus Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 14, 2019, 02:00 PM)Bambo Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 14, 2019, 01:17 PM)Markus Wrote: [ -> ]Remove FearRP. End of. No need for any balancing or all that bullshit.
If someone minges after the removal, just put it under FailRP and be done with it.
That'd go well with no way to subdue a suspect, hold or grab them or force them to get in the car /s
Yup. You are right. Wish we had tasers, beanbag shotguns, tranquilizers, or a way to grab unconscious bodies.
Wish someone made a suggestion for a New Handcuffing/Detainee Control System 2 years ago that was approved and even you supported.
Also wish I pointed out that that would be FailRP. /s
If there is no need for balancing or all that bullshit isn't adding something to remove something else balancing?
Confuzzleed
:hmmmmmmm: