[Blazing]

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.

I did mention that you'd be able to turn around and keep going, but if you're by a checkpoint and realise too late then you're trapped.

There is a difference as you've used the difference for justification of changing the rule, as you said 'someone who would ram through a checkpoint would just get shot dead by police instantly anyway so it was pretty redundant.' Police who would be shooting the vehicle would be those manning the checkpoint, not those in the car, who would have to slow down to get out (by which time the suspect will have driven away).

[Hungames]

can we make it so that cops can ram armed suspects with their vehicles because its realistic

[Soviethooves]

can we make it so that cops can ram armed suspects with their vehicles because its realistic

Not just cops, but anyone for self defense. It's a legitimate way to take someone down and will make people think twice about firing on cars.

[Cooli]

might be too overpowered

[Razz]

Nice, now i can self supply and raid!

[Overlewd]

Nice, now i can self supply and raid!

3.4 - Powergaming is not allowed. E.g do not write “/me pulls out a gun and shoots his opponent right in the head” when it hasn’t actually happened in the game. Instead of “/me kicks the man in the groin” use “/me attempts to kick the man in the groin” and let the other player decide the outcome; alternatively you can use /roll to decide the outcome. Other examples of powergaming – changing jobs just to buy something from the market for yourself, abusing the /demote command to get rid of a police officer holding you at gunpoint.

Hehe, nope.

[Sammijammi]

1.9 - Purposefully attempting to find loopholes in the rules will likely result in punishment.

I feel like this shouldnt be a rule, more of an initial statement, aside from it being common knowledge, players should already know that rules are rules.

Also, excuse me if im blind, but im struggling to find the rule regarding the players decision to disclose their roleplay reasoning to anyone but an admin.

[Overlewd]

1.9 - Purposefully attempting to find loopholes in the rules will likely result in punishment.

I feel like this shouldnt be a rule, more of an initial statement, aside from it being common knowledge, players should already know that rules are rules.

Also, excuse me if im blind, but im struggling to find the rule regarding the players decision to disclose their roleplay reasoning to anyone but an admin.

1.11 was removed because it is not necessary, as there is no rule that FORCES you to reply to players when they ask you for your RP reasoning. It is still entirely your choice whether you reply to players, and you still need to reply to staff if they ask.


And about 1.9, yes but it's nice to have it stated somewhere so the certain types of people don't feel justified in nitpicking the exact details of rules to justify their actions when they get punished.