[Taylor]

It isn’t on our services. What happens outside off LL is of no concern of the staff team.

But if it ultimately effects LL's image then it should concern then.

Say if you owned a company and one of your employees attacked a rival company, your public image would drop therefore causing you to lose sales.

But we can not interfere outside our services. Staff doesn’t have the jurisdiction over all of Gmod, Steam, other Teamspeaks, etc.

I understand that, but go back to my example said employee would likely be fired, yes? Whilst obviously a different example the principle is the same, plus don’t Limelight have the ability to ban anyone for any reason they want?

[Soviethooves]

But if it ultimately effects LL's image then it should concern then.

Say if you owned a company and one of your employees attacked a rival company, your public image would drop therefore causing you to lose sales.

But we can not interfere outside our services. Staff doesn’t have the jurisdiction over all of Gmod, Steam, other Teamspeaks, etc.

I understand that, but go back to my example said employee would likely be fired, yes? Whilst obviously a different example the principle is the same, plus don’t Limelight have the ability to ban anyone for any reason they want?

Not really. It has to break a rule or TOS. Not to mention the reason this is different is that, if your company isn’t going to fire the worker that trashed my store, why should I fire my worker for doing the same? There is no sense in being the better man at this point as it was tried and failed.

Also some states limit firing workers for off duty conduct. Only exception is criminal activity.

[Taylor]

But we can not interfere outside our services. Staff doesn’t have the jurisdiction over all of Gmod, Steam, other Teamspeaks, etc.

I understand that, but go back to my example said employee would likely be fired, yes? Whilst obviously a different example the principle is the same, plus don’t Limelight have the ability to ban anyone for any reason they want?

Not really. It has to break a rule or TOS. Not to mention the reason this is different is that, if your company isn’t going to fire the worker that trashed my store, why should I fire my worker for doing the same? There is no sense in being the better man at this point as it was tried and failed.

Also some states limit firing workers for off duty conduct. Only exception is criminal activity.

Law and jurisdiction

These terms and conditions will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the United Kingdom, and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of relevant courts.

Anyways why does it matter if FL doesn't punish their players the way we used to, why should we have to lower ourselves down to that level and stop giving a shit about our reputation just because they don't? That's like saying we should change our rules to be identical to theirs.

[Soviethooves]

I understand that, but go back to my example said employee would likely be fired, yes? Whilst obviously a different example the principle is the same, plus don’t Limelight have the ability to ban anyone for any reason they want?

Not really. It has to break a rule or TOS. Not to mention the reason this is different is that, if your company isn’t going to fire the worker that trashed my store, why should I fire my worker for doing the same? There is no sense in being the better man at this point as it was tried and failed.

Also some states limit firing workers for off duty conduct. Only exception is criminal activity.

Law and jurisdiction

These terms and conditions will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the United Kingdom, and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of relevant courts.

Anyways why does it matter if FL doesn't punish their players the way we used to, why should we have to lower ourselves down to that level and stop giving a shit about our reputation just because they don't? That's like saying we should change our rules to be identical to theirs.

If they don’t want to be helpful and ban players that are being asshats over here, we have no reason to do the same. Changing our rules back to theirs has no connection to this and it’s a terrible comparison as most of our rule changes are from staff members and players on OUR services, not from theirs.

I just don’t see a reason to be nice to a community that won’t do the same for us in these situations?

Also, when did our IRL examples turn into being involved directly with the discussion? I’m merely debunking you theory from the states POV.

[Taylor]

Not really. It has to break a rule or TOS. Not to mention the reason this is different is that, if your company isn’t going to fire the worker that trashed my store, why should I fire my worker for doing the same? There is no sense in being the better man at this point as it was tried and failed.

Also some states limit firing workers for off duty conduct. Only exception is criminal activity.

Law and jurisdiction

These terms and conditions will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the United Kingdom, and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of relevant courts.

Anyways why does it matter if FL doesn't punish their players the way we used to, why should we have to lower ourselves down to that level and stop giving a shit about our reputation just because they don't? That's like saying we should change our rules to be identical to theirs.

I just don’t see a reason to be nice to a community that won’t do the same for us in these situations?

It's not being nice to them it's protecting our own reputation.

[Kvatch]

Imagine a new player joins Fearless after never playing Limelight or Fearless before. They started an RP, then a bunch of players wearing L2RP tags comes along and starts ruining their RP by spawning props around them, mic spamming and just being general minges. What impression do you think that'll give the player towards anyone else who is also wearing those L2RP tags? That they're in the same group? That all they do is just join other servers and minge? Then imagine they see the Limelight server and make the connection - do you think they're just gonna have a "clean impression" of the server, with no opinion to give? They're gonna associate their bad experiences with the previous L2RP-wearing players with the server that the tags originate from.

For this reason, I honestly do think Limelight should make it an offence to wear the tags and cause intentional harm and minges on another server, as long as the accusers have proper, unquestionable evidence to support their claims.

[Enzyme]

Add a rule saying do not fuck around on other servers whilst wearing Limelight's tags?

It isn’t on our services. What happens outside off LL is of no concern of the staff team.

But if it ultimately effects LL's image then it should concern then.

Say if you owned a company and one of your employees attacked a rival company, your public image would drop therefore causing you to lose sales.

In this case, our players would be our customers, not employee's. If a staff member would do it then their ass could be in trouble as they are Limelight officials. The same can't be said for players. We've dealt with players before who wore our tags and went on FL to cause havoc and we dealt with them. The issue came when we had FL members who did the same to us and FL wouldn't show the same respect/treatment. That's why we don't ban people from our server who minge elsewhere. We're not obligated to do this,  especially when it doesn't go both ways.

/phone

[Taylor]

It isn’t on our services. What happens outside off LL is of no concern of the staff team.

But if it ultimately effects LL's image then it should concern then.

Say if you owned a company and one of your employees attacked a rival company, your public image would drop therefore causing you to lose sales.

In this case, our players would be our customers, not employee's. If a staff member would do it then their ass could be in trouble as they are Limelight officials. The same can't be said for players. We've dealt with players before who wore our tags and went on FL to cause havoc and we dealt with them. The issue came when we had FL members who did the same to us and FL wouldn't show the same respect/treatment. That's why we don't ban people from our server who minge elsewhere. We're not obligated to do this,  especially when it doesn't go both ways.

/phone

That still doesn't change the fact they are hurting Limelight's reputation

[ForceGhost]

But if it ultimately effects LL's image then it should concern then.

Say if you owned a company and one of your employees attacked a rival company, your public image would drop therefore causing you to lose sales.

In this case, our players would be our customers, not employee's. If a staff member would do it then their ass could be in trouble as they are Limelight officials. The same can't be said for players. We've dealt with players before who wore our tags and went on FL to cause havoc and we dealt with them. The issue came when we had FL members who did the same to us and FL wouldn't show the same respect/treatment. That's why we don't ban people from our server who minge elsewhere. We're not obligated to do this,  especially when it doesn't go both ways.

/phone

That still doesn't change the fact they are hurting Limelight's reputation

Are they though?

If you see a guy with a Jack Daniels T-Shirt on smash up a car, do you think less of Jack Daniels? No, they're just someone wearing the T-Shirt.

[Taylor]

In this case, our players would be our customers, not employee's. If a staff member would do it then their ass could be in trouble as they are Limelight officials. The same can't be said for players. We've dealt with players before who wore our tags and went on FL to cause havoc and we dealt with them. The issue came when we had FL members who did the same to us and FL wouldn't show the same respect/treatment. That's why we don't ban people from our server who minge elsewhere. We're not obligated to do this,  especially when it doesn't go both ways.

/phone

That still doesn't change the fact they are hurting Limelight's reputation

Are they though?

If you see a guy with a Jack Daniels T-Shirt on smash up a car, do you think less of Jack Daniels? No, they're just someone wearing the T-Shirt.

yes as that shit still burns

OT: No, but if you are wearing school uniform and you burn a squirrel do people think less of the school? Yes.

Contact me for source if you're really that interested

[Soviethooves]

That still doesn't change the fact they are hurting Limelight's reputation

Are they though?

If you see a guy with a Jack Daniels T-Shirt on smash up a car, do you think less of Jack Daniels? No, they're just someone wearing the T-Shirt.

yes as that shit still burns

OT: No, but if you are wearing school uniform and you burn a squirrel do people think less of the school? Yes.

Contact me for source if you're really that interested

Comparing a school student to a consumer is ineffective in this argument. A school has students who are part of their program. Someone who bought a Jack Daniels T-Shirt is a fan of the brand, but isn't involved with them in any way other than buying their products.

[Taylor]

Are they though?

If you see a guy with a Jack Daniels T-Shirt on smash up a car, do you think less of Jack Daniels? No, they're just someone wearing the T-Shirt.

yes as that shit still burns

OT: No, but if you are wearing school uniform and you burn a squirrel do people think less of the school? Yes.

Contact me for source if you're really that interested

Comparing a school student to a consumer is ineffective in this argument. A school has students who are part of their program. Someone who bought a Jack Daniels T-Shirt is a fan of the brand, but isn't involved with them in any way other than buying their products.

Yeah okay fair enough

[ForceGhost]

Government Forces Rules

Do the Government Forces rules apply to just Police, SWAT and Secret Service or do they apply to every Government job?

Do people with a Government Worker/LEO passes have to follow the Government Forces rules?


13.2 - You may steal vehicles to sell them back to the owners or other parties, but only with valid roleplay reasons.

Can you ever steal vehicles for another reason? A couple of examples would be a plain old joyride as a low level criminal or for use as a getaway car which doesn't lead back to the thief for use in major crime?

[Soviethooves]

Do the Government Forces rules apply to just Police, SWAT and Secret Service or do they apply to every Government job?

All. They’re mostly tailored to the jobs you’ve listed as they’re the one more likely to assault someone else.

Do people with a Government Worker/LEO have to follow the Government Forces rules?

Technically no. LEO or Gov Pass holders are either contractors or “out of state” officials. Unless they’re in a government job via F1, Gov Forces Rules do not apply.

[Soviethooves]

For 13.2, people have gotten in trouble for stealing cars for joyrides, while getaway cars have been allowed. I assume this is due to a getaway car having more “purpose” to the thieves, but I’m not sure.