[Scrotonium]

If you see someone breaking the rules, try to warn them or contact an admin. Do not take the situation into your own hands. You may still defend yourself if your character’s life is endangered by the rule breaker.



Would this kind of replace backseat administration in-game? Such as handcuffing a prop pusher, or killing them?

[Overlewd]

If you see someone breaking the rules, try to warn them or contact an admin. Do not take the situation into your own hands. You may still defend yourself if your character’s life is endangered by the rule breaker.



Would this kind of replace backseat administration in-game? Such as handcuffing a prop pusher, or killing them?

I don't really understand what you mean by "replace". I do not think it is reasonable for us to expect players who have a shotgun or tazer on them to just stand there and watch them get murdered by a mass-proppusher.

However as soon as it falls out of the immediate self-defense category you may still not take it into your own hands - do not cuff someone for walking into their NLR area, for example.

[Overlewd]

Why was the checkpoint rule made?

It was not made, part of it was removed.

But if you mean why it doesn't have to be rammable anymore, mostly because it's very hard to test it and someone who would ram through a checkpoint would just get shot dead by police instantly anyway so it was pretty redundant.

To prove that someone built an un-rammable checkpoint before, you'd have to stop everything, get a car, specifically try run it through the checkpoint, and then if it is rammable then there is a danger of it glitching out with welding and killing people or the person having to paste it again, or if it's not rammable then the member of staff dies and there's a fire and explosion - basically a lot of effort and very disruptive to roleplay happening at the site and nearby.

[Overlewd]

Nice to see these being changed, but how exactly will the new FearRP be enforced?
I can see many discussions with someone claiming that they were out of microphone range.

The same way it was enforced before. You can make a lot of other claims that would in theory invalidate FearRP, but this claim is just as easily disproven by proper evidence as the other claims.

[Soviethooves]

But how can you prove that the other player is in mic range if it only shows one side?

[Overlewd]

But how can you prove that the other player is in mic range if it only shows one side?

It shows one side which shows the distance between the players, which is sufficient because the mic range is a fixed distance.

[monk]

If I unplug my headphones can I claim I was never in microphone range because I couldn't hear them talking?

Just because you can't hear them doesn't mean you aren't in microphone range. They don't have to be talking for you to be under FearRP either. The addition was made so that there werent any grey areas regarding snipers and similar.

It is entirely yout responsibility to ensure you are out of range if you decide to use that part of the rule to your advantage.

Alright but what if I unplug my headphones and close my eyes? Similar to the "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it did it really fall" question, if I cannot actually observe being placed under FearRP does that rule even exist? Moreover, can I realistically be held accountable for breaking FearRP if I myself am being held at gunpoint in real life? Does that situation supersede the server rule?

[Overlewd]

If I unplug my headphones can I claim I was never in microphone range because I couldn't hear them talking?

Just because you can't hear them doesn't mean you aren't in microphone range. They don't have to be talking for you to be under FearRP either. The addition was made so that there werent any grey areas regarding snipers and similar.

It is entirely yout responsibility to ensure you are out of range if you decide to use that part of the rule to your advantage.

Alright but what if I unplug my headphones and close my eyes? Similarly to the "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it did it really fall" question, if I cannot actually observe being placed under FearRP does that rule even exist? Moreover, can I realistically be held accountable for breaking FearRP if I myself am being held at gunpoint in real life? Does that situation supersede the server rule?

No, as usual and as it was before you are accountable for making sure you are paying attention and aware of your surroundings, and playing with your eyes closed and without sound does not make you unaccountable for breaking server rules.

Now, would you please refrain from posting any more troll questions? Thank you.

[Dick]

Great update from the 173 rules prior allowing for more flexible roleplay.

[Soviethooves]

But how can you prove that the other player is in mic range if it only shows one side?

It shows one side which shows the distance between the players, which is sufficient because the mic range is a fixed distance.

But what if the range is debatable? How you can be 100% sure they are within range?

[Overlewd]

But how can you prove that the other player is in mic range if it only shows one side?

It shows one side which shows the distance between the players, which is sufficient because the mic range is a fixed distance.

But what if the range is debatable? How you can be 100% sure they are within range?

The rule was made so there would be no grey area about snipers and chases where the armed man is significantly farther behind the person running away, or similar extremes. The only time when a range would be debatable and we don't know 100% whether they are in or out of range is when they are on the very edge of the microphone range, and at that point the player won't be 100% sure whether they are breaking FearRP or not themselves, therefore they should always choose to follow FearRP so they can never be in the wrong.

There are other rules like 1.3 where we can't be 100% sure of something, and yet the rule is still enforced without many issues.

In those few scenarios where you actually are on the edge of microphone range and it cannot be determined beyond a reasonable doubt whether you were in-range or out-of-range, the benefit of the doubt would apply. You may be warned about it however.

[Blazing]

Why was the checkpoint rule made?

It was not made, part of it was removed.

But if you mean why it doesn't have to be rammable anymore, mostly because it's very hard to test it and someone who would ram through a checkpoint would just get shot dead by police instantly anyway so it was pretty redundant.

To prove that someone built an un-rammable checkpoint before, you'd have to stop everything, get a car, specifically try run it through the checkpoint, and then if it is rammable then there is a danger of it glitching out with welding and killing people or the person having to paste it again, or if it's not rammable then the member of staff dies and there's a fire and explosion - basically a lot of effort and very disruptive to roleplay happening at the site and nearby.

What about the cases where you're in pursuit by the police and you encounter an unmanned checkpoint? It's not uncommon that people leave their checkpoints without removing them as they move onto another task, and I hardly see it fair that you've essentially been prop blocked due to a change of rules.

The only solution for keeping this rule in place would be to add another rule so that checkpoints must be manned at all times (requiring them to be removed if they are not being used).

[Overlewd]

Why was the checkpoint rule made?

It was not made, part of it was removed.

But if you mean why it doesn't have to be rammable anymore, mostly because it's very hard to test it and someone who would ram through a checkpoint would just get shot dead by police instantly anyway so it was pretty redundant.

To prove that someone built an un-rammable checkpoint before, you'd have to stop everything, get a car, specifically try run it through the checkpoint, and then if it is rammable then there is a danger of it glitching out with welding and killing people or the person having to paste it again, or if it's not rammable then the member of staff dies and there's a fire and explosion - basically a lot of effort and very disruptive to roleplay happening at the site and nearby.

What about the cases where you're in pursuit by the police and you encounter an unmanned checkpoint? It's not uncommon that people leave their checkpoints without removing them as they move onto another task, and I hardly see it fair that you've essentially been prop blocked due to a change of rules.

The only solution for keeping this rule in place would be to add another rule so that checkpoints must be manned at all times (requiring them to be removed if they are not being used).

The likelihood of that happening is very slim. And it wouldn't matter in a pursuit if it was manned and unmanned, the result would be the same. 

If you encounter an unmanned, locked checkpoint make an @ call about it.

[Blazing]

Why was the checkpoint rule made?

It was not made, part of it was removed.

But if you mean why it doesn't have to be rammable anymore, mostly because it's very hard to test it and someone who would ram through a checkpoint would just get shot dead by police instantly anyway so it was pretty redundant.

To prove that someone built an un-rammable checkpoint before, you'd have to stop everything, get a car, specifically try run it through the checkpoint, and then if it is rammable then there is a danger of it glitching out with welding and killing people or the person having to paste it again, or if it's not rammable then the member of staff dies and there's a fire and explosion - basically a lot of effort and very disruptive to roleplay happening at the site and nearby.

What about the cases where you're in pursuit by the police and you encounter an unmanned checkpoint? It's not uncommon that people leave their checkpoints without removing them as they move onto another task, and I hardly see it fair that you've essentially been prop blocked due to a change of rules.

The only solution for keeping this rule in place would be to add another rule so that checkpoints must be manned at all times (requiring them to be removed if they are not being used).

The likelihood of that happening is very slim. And it wouldn't matter in a pursuit if it was manned and unmanned, the result would be the same. 

If you encounter an unmanned, locked checkpoint make an @ call about it.

I wouldn't say it's a very slim chance; pretty much every checkpoint I've seen becomes unmanned at some point, and checkpoints are designed to be positioned at places of high traffic.

The result would be different. Having to stop and hand yourself in, get prop killed as you try to smash through, or trying to go around and potentially get trapped is different to being able to smash through the barrier and continue driving away.

[Overlewd]

Why was the checkpoint rule made?

It was not made, part of it was removed.

But if you mean why it doesn't have to be rammable anymore, mostly because it's very hard to test it and someone who would ram through a checkpoint would just get shot dead by police instantly anyway so it was pretty redundant.

To prove that someone built an un-rammable checkpoint before, you'd have to stop everything, get a car, specifically try run it through the checkpoint, and then if it is rammable then there is a danger of it glitching out with welding and killing people or the person having to paste it again, or if it's not rammable then the member of staff dies and there's a fire and explosion - basically a lot of effort and very disruptive to roleplay happening at the site and nearby.

What about the cases where you're in pursuit by the police and you encounter an unmanned checkpoint? It's not uncommon that people leave their checkpoints without removing them as they move onto another task, and I hardly see it fair that you've essentially been prop blocked due to a change of rules.

The only solution for keeping this rule in place would be to add another rule so that checkpoints must be manned at all times (requiring them to be removed if they are not being used).

The likelihood of that happening is very slim. And it wouldn't matter in a pursuit if it was manned and unmanned, the result would be the same. 

If you encounter an unmanned, locked checkpoint make an @ call about it.

I wouldn't say it's a very slim chance; pretty much every checkpoint I've seen becomes unmanned at some point, and checkpoints are designed to be positioned at places of high traffic.

The result would be different. Having to stop and hand yourself in, get prop killed as you try to smash through, or trying to go around and potentially get trapped is different to being able to smash through the barrier and continue driving away.

Slim chance because checkpoints are made very rarely from my experience. You will likely know the checkpoint exists before you get into a chase, so you will know to avoid driving past it. You don't have to choose between stopping, smashing through, or driving around, you can turn around and keep going, it works quite well in LL pursuits.

And I meant there is no difference between a manned and unmanned checkpoint in your scenario.