[Zaidplays]

https://limelightgaming.net/forums/thread-24717.html

We now have our first case of a player facing potential punishment because of the wierd wording of the restraining policy.

"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."

Do we really need to be punishing players, who are already restrained, unable to attack, fight in anyway, for simply moving around?

Not being bias or anything but, I do agree with the fact that if u move to avoid handcuffs fair enough but if ur already handcuffed and your not Breaking FearRP for whilst in handcuffs for example someone walking away whilst having a tazer on him as he ignores you. The fact that potentially being punished for moving around when handcuffed and not breaking FearRP is pretty Vague

[BlackDog]

https://limelightgaming.net/forums/thread-24717.html

We now have our first case of a player facing potential punishment because of the wierd wording of the restraining policy.

"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."

Do we really need to be punishing players, who are already restrained, unable to attack, fight in anyway, for simply moving around?

Not being bias or anything but, I do agree with the fact that if u move to avoid handcuffs fair enough but if ur already handcuffed and your not Breaking FearRP for whilst in handcuffs for example someone walking away whilst having a tazer on him as he ignores you. The fact that potentially being punished for moving around when handcuffed and not breaking FearRP is pretty Vague

People s hould be free to walk around to avoid cuffs should they decide to all they want, its up to the police to keep them under control to finalize the arrest.

So long as they are not at gunpoint, a player is under really no obligation to sit still like a nice kid, except for this policy whos exact wording DEMANDS, that once restrained, you do not move, no wiggle room in its interpretation, it dictates that you do not move.

By its wording even if say your restrained, and an officer walks into his cruiser, you STILL cant move, as the rule says ""unless told otherwise"

To me the policy needs a rewrite, or a removal of that second half of the policy

[Eddie]

There's nothing wrong with the policy. It is fine the way it is.

People moan about the policies always changing + People want policies to change = Loop

[BlackDog]

There's nothing wrong with the policy. It is fine the way it is.

People moan about the policies always changing + People want policies to change = Loop

So then would you agree that this example is acceptable due to the wording of the policy being fine?:

Bob is committing a crime, bob is caught, held at gunpoint, and eventualy restrained.

The officer who restrained bob, has his attention drawn elsewhere and moves completely out of sight of bob for up to a minute.


Bob then proceeds to sneak away.

A PR is later posted on Bob because the policy states that bob could NOT move until he was told, even though no one was around him at the time when he snuck away.

Bob is punished due to the exact wording of the policy stating: "being restrained carries an implicit order not to move unless told otherwise."

[Overlewd]

No. That's not how that works. We've been over this.

An ORDER is MEANINGLESS without something that actively applies FearRP.


All the "implicit order" means is that you pretend like the cop is telling you to stop moving as he is cuffing you. That's it. If he then switches to something that doesn't apply fearRP, breaks LoS, etc, you are free to break the order to not move.

[greg]

easy fix just get a little circle around the person talking or one of those darkrp things where it says who can hear u talk

[BlackDog]

No. That's not how that works. We've been over this.

An ORDER is MEANINGLESS without something that actively applies FearRP.


All the "implicit order" means is that you pretend like the cop is telling you to stop moving as he is cuffing you. That's it. If he then switches to something that doesn't apply fearRP, breaks LoS, etc, you are free to break the order to not move.

The problem is, and has always been the point in this thread, the wording of the policy.

We all know it would be absolutely asinine to enforce it in the way listed, yet it remains written that way.

You yourself have in the past said that rules should be enforced as they are written.

If the rule isnt meant to be enforced or abided by as it is written, why then do we not just rewrite it to be as it is enforced?

The exact wording of the policy in question is ""being restrained carries an implicit order not to move unless told otherwise."

It does not say "While being restrained" it states "Being restrained" One word missing changes the entire meaning of the policy.

In its current form it states the fact you ARE restrained, means you cannot move

If it stated "While" then, it would only apply during the restraining process, not for after.

@Overlewd

[Eddie]

2.1 - You are considered to be under FearRP when you are in line of sight of a visibly armed person, who is within default microphone range of you and is able to harm your character at that moment. You must act afraid of armed people and life-threatening situations.

So the change states that the person must be within default microphone range, why is this and how are players supposed to know the default range? Also, why would this not apply to yelling? Whispering, doesn't really make sense.

@Enzyme @Overlewd

@BlackDog‍  You are going off track from the original post.

[BlackDog]

Not at all? The topic title is "FearRP Changes"

What im talking about is the second fearRP change that was made

[Overlewd]

No. That's not how that works. We've been over this.

An ORDER is MEANINGLESS without something that actively applies FearRP.


All the "implicit order" means is that you pretend like the cop is telling you to stop moving as he is cuffing you. That's it. If he then switches to something that doesn't apply fearRP, breaks LoS, etc, you are free to break the order to not move.

The problem is, and has always been the point in this thread, the wording of the policy.

We all know it would be absolutely asinine to enforce it in the way listed, yet it remains written that way.

You yourself have in the past said that rules should be enforced as they are written.

If the rule isnt meant to be enforced or abided by as it is written, why then do we not just rewrite it to be as it is enforced?

The exact wording of the policy in question is ""being restrained carries an implicit order not to move unless told otherwise."

It does not say "While being restrained" it states "Being restrained" One word missing changes the entire meaning of the policy.

In its current form it states the fact you ARE restrained, means you cannot move

If it stated "While" then, it would only apply during the restraining process, not for after.

@Overlewd

I do not understand the difference or the point you are trying to make. At the end of the day, an order is an order, and an order does not need to be followed while not under FearRP. 

Also if you quote me I get an alert, you don't need to both quote me and tag me at the end. :>

[BlackDog]

No. That's not how that works. We've been over this.

An ORDER is MEANINGLESS without something that actively applies FearRP.


All the "implicit order" means is that you pretend like the cop is telling you to stop moving as he is cuffing you. That's it. If he then switches to something that doesn't apply fearRP, breaks LoS, etc, you are free to break the order to not move.

The problem is, and has always been the point in this thread, the wording of the policy.

We all know it would be absolutely asinine to enforce it in the way listed, yet it remains written that way.

You yourself have in the past said that rules should be enforced as they are written.

If the rule isnt meant to be enforced or abided by as it is written, why then do we not just rewrite it to be as it is enforced?

The exact wording of the policy in question is ""being restrained carries an implicit order not to move unless told otherwise."

It does not say "While being restrained" it states "Being restrained" One word missing changes the entire meaning of the policy.

In its current form it states the fact you ARE restrained, means you cannot move

If it stated "While" then, it would only apply during the restraining process, not for after.

@Overlewd

I do not understand the difference or the point you are trying to make. At the end of the day, an order is an order, and an order does not need to be followed while not under FearRP. 

(The key point though is thats not whats written, whats written specificly states you cant move unless told otherwise, whether they are there or not,whether they have a gun or not, the policy states that the fact you have been restrained, applies fearRP, and that you cannot move until told you can.

This is why the wording of a policy is so important, obviously yes, the above sounds insane and no one would enforce it that way, but the problem is that it is written in such a way that demands that yes, people need to abide by it as such.

We can say that obviously not having a gun out wouldnt apply fearRP and thus they could attempt to escape, but the full wording of the policy is again:
"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."

The way the policy is worded, enacts fearRP while being cuffed/roped, which is fine so long as said person was already applying fearRP beforehand.
The problem is the addition of the second part, that dictates that after you have been restrained, you cannot move until told otherwise, as you are still bound by fearRP.

The wording is not an implication of "While being restrained" its an implication of "After you are restrained/While Restrained"

Simply removing the second half and returning it to its original form removes this problem, or clarifiying it in such a way that it follows what you are saying it means, as in its current form it does not say what you say it means.

(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.)
to
(2.5 - If someone switches from a gun to handcuffs/rope to detain you, FearRP still applies before and while they are restraining you.)

Also if you quote me I get an alert, you don't need to both quote me and tag me at the end. :>
(Legitimately didn't know this, my bad)

[Doctor Internet]

No. That's not how that works. We've been over this.

An ORDER is MEANINGLESS without something that actively applies FearRP.


All the "implicit order" means is that you pretend like the cop is telling you to stop moving as he is cuffing you. That's it. If he then switches to something that doesn't apply fearRP, breaks LoS, etc, you are free to break the order to not move.

The problem is, and has always been the point in this thread, the wording of the policy.

We all know it would be absolutely asinine to enforce it in the way listed, yet it remains written that way.

You yourself have in the past said that rules should be enforced as they are written.

If the rule isnt meant to be enforced or abided by as it is written, why then do we not just rewrite it to be as it is enforced?

The exact wording of the policy in question is ""being restrained carries an implicit order not to move unless told otherwise."

It does not say "While being restrained" it states "Being restrained" One word missing changes the entire meaning of the policy.

In its current form it states the fact you ARE restrained, means you cannot move

If it stated "While" then, it would only apply during the restraining process, not for after.

@Overlewd

To quote myself.

Jim has Bob at gunpoint.
Jim says "If you move, I'll blow your brains out."
From this, Jim has issued an implicit order for them to not move. They haven't directly said, "Don't move", but the threat if they do move implies it.
Jim walks into a different room, locks themself in, puts on a blindfold, soundproof headphones, starts jacking it to hentai. idk. He goes out of FearRP range.
Bob says lol and fucks off.

You'd agree with that.

Jim has Bob at gunpoint.
Jim pulls out cuffs and cuffs Bob.
From this, Jim has issued an implicit order for them to not move. They haven't directly said, "Don't move", but have pulled out cuffs and cuffed them, as the rule states, it has been implied.
Jim walks into a different room, locks themself in, puts on a blindfold, soundproof headphones, starts jacking it to hentai. idk. He goes out of FearRP range.
Bob says lol and fucks off.

You disagree with that.

To quote myself again.

[18:00] Doctor Internet: I can scream "dont move"
[18:00] Doctor Internet: if i don't have a gun or knife
[18:00] Doctor Internet: or w/e
[18:00] Doctor Internet: it doesn't matter how much i scream that
[18:00] Doctor Internet: they can still run away.

Being restrained carries an order to not move.
Let's use your examples.

By its wording even if say your restrained, and an officer walks into his cruiser, you STILL cant move, as the rule says ""unless told otherwise"

2.2 - You must follow the orders of the person(s) who have you under FearRP, and you may not draw a weapon on them or attack them. FearRP applies to melee weapons and tasers if you are within effective range (except if in a vehicle).

They're in a vehicle, FearRP doesn't apply.

The officer who restrained bob, has his attention drawn elsewhere and moves completely out of sight of bob for up to a minute.

They're not applying FearRP anymore, and so yeah. Bob can move away.

[BlackDog]

The wording of the policy, no matter how much we can compare it with others that cover other areas, specificly counters the idea that you can move if they leave, turn around, or after you have been restrained.

The exact wording of the policy that causes this is once again: (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.)

There is no wiggle room there, there is no (Oh but this rule says this so that means 2.5 means you can move), the wording specificly states (Once restrained, do not move until you are told to as fearRP is in effect)

If this is not how its being enforced, then the wording of the policy should be changed to reflect how it is enforced as we have done with other policies recently.

We literaly just had a PR posted by someone who thought this exact thing, that if they move, its punishable, and it was at first going to be approved due to the wording of the policy as it was read, but it was denied due to this not being how its enforced, but it IS how it is written and thus it is exactly how people who read it think it is to be abided by.

Again to be 100% clear:

No I am not advocating for it to be enforced as "You cant move due to fearRP no matter what"
I am advocating for the policys wording to be amended, because its current wording implies the above is to be enforced by staff, and followed by players, but no one enforces it that way, and no one really thinks it should.

[Doctor Internet]

Where does it say "you cannot move"?
Where does it say "FearRP is in effect"?

And finally.
What do you think it should be changed to? You make paragraphs about how the current wording isn't how it's enforced. How is it enforced?

[BlackDog]

Where does it say "you cannot move"?

(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.)
Where does it say "FearRP is in effect"?

(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.)

And finally.
What do you think it should be changed to?
(Already noted this above: (2.5 - If someone switches from a gun to handcuffs/rope to detain you, FearRP still applies before and while they are restraining you.)

You make paragraphs about how the current wording isn't how it's enforced. How is it enforced?
(This is already answered above? Its worded in a way to disallow the movment of a player after they have been restrained, this is how it is listed to be enforced.

In how it is enforced, this bit that limits players ability to move is more or less ignored and enforced as the policy was prior to the second half being added as shown by the recent listed denied PR.

The rule stated they could not move after being restrained until told they could, they moved anyways, and this was deemed acceptable)