[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]

[Eddie]

[BlackDog]

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

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

[Overlewd]

[BlackDog]

[Doctor Internet]

[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)