[BlackDog]

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.

Does this mean that if you're cuffed and the officer cuffing you leaves, gets distracted, or dies, then you can't walk away from where he left you? Despite your life not being in danger?

By its wording, thats exactly what it means, though obviously that would be silly to actualy have it be that way.

Get tied up, guy starves to death lets say, by written policy, you cant move unless someone says you can move, and if no ones around, written policy states you cant move.

This is one that I feel like didn't need to be added at all as it just convolutes things more.

[Overlewd]

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.

Does this mean that if you're cuffed and the officer cuffing you leaves, gets distracted, or dies, then you can't walk away from where he left you? Despite your life not being in danger?

Of course not. It carries an implicit order to not move. If the person ordered you not to move but then died/left/whatever, then you are free to move.

Basically the only time that part of the rule is applicable is if someone comes up to you, points a gun at you (you are under fearrp and cannot run away), restrains you, and then for example puts the gun on safety. By the old rules if they did all that without saying anything you'd be free to start running away as soon as the gun was on safety, because you didn't get an order to. Now there is an implicit order when you get restrained.

[BlackDog]

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.

Does this mean that if you're cuffed and the officer cuffing you leaves, gets distracted, or dies, then you can't walk away from where he left you? Despite your life not being in danger?

Of course not. It carries an implicit order to not move. If the person ordered you not to move but then died/left/whatever, then you are free to move.

Basically the only time that part of the rule is applicable is if someone comes up to you, points a gun at you (you are under fearrp and cannot run away), restrains you, and then for example puts the gun on safety. By the old rules if they did all that without saying anything you'd be free to start running away as soon as the gun was on safety, because you didn't get an order to. Now there is an implicit order when you get restrained.

If this is the case, why does the rule state the opposite is true?

Said policy seems like it needs rewording

[Overlewd]

Does this mean that if you're cuffed and the officer cuffing you leaves, gets distracted, or dies, then you can't walk away from where he left you? Despite your life not being in danger?

Of course not. It carries an implicit order to not move. If the person ordered you not to move but then died/left/whatever, then you are free to move.

Basically the only time that part of the rule is applicable is if someone comes up to you, points a gun at you (you are under fearrp and cannot run away), restrains you, and then for example puts the gun on safety. By the old rules if they did all that without saying anything you'd be free to start running away as soon as the gun was on safety, because you didn't get an order to. Now there is an implicit order when you get restrained.

If this is the case, why does the rule state the opposite is true?

Said policy seems like it needs rewording

??????????????????????????????????

[BlackDog]

Of course not. It carries an implicit order to not move. If the person ordered you not to move but then died/left/whatever, then you are free to move.

Basically the only time that part of the rule is applicable is if someone comes up to you, points a gun at you (you are under fearrp and cannot run away), restrains you, and then for example puts the gun on safety. By the old rules if they did all that without saying anything you'd be free to start running away as soon as the gun was on safety, because you didn't get an order to. Now there is an implicit order when you get restrained.

If this is the case, why does the rule state the opposite is true?

Said policy seems like it needs rewording

??????????????????????????????????

Basicly: The rule says (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.)

By the written policy, there is no wiggle room, it says not to move unless told otherwise, it does not include provisions to allow people to make a getaway when they are left alone and what not, somthing that the rule did imply before, as it basicly fell under other policys of "Being able to hurt you at that very moment"

But this policy change in the case of restraining people, dictates that unless you are told otherwise, once you are restrained, you are not to move, at all, unless told to.

To quote enzyme:

"They're written the way they are for a reason, and rules have been discussed properly."

"We have to act on our current rules, and how they are written."


In this case, and the case of the new modification to 2.1, they are written in a way that is clear and to the point, though their point isnt exactly logical to the way the players have been playing for years and infact does a disservice to them.

As HR has already made clear they are to be enforced as written, thus how they are written should be done very carefully, if players are told to abide by them another way, it becomes another subjective policy,where the written word is ignored in favor of personal opinion.

I do get what you we're getting at with this change, and I also agree, it sounds insane to say a player cant move unless told forever just because their restrained, or that because a player is on the yell mic setting they dont apply fearRP, but due to the wording of the policy, this is exactly what they are saying.

[Overlewd]

If this is the case, why does the rule state the opposite is true?

Said policy seems like it needs rewording

??????????????????????????????????

Basicly: The rule says (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.)

By the written policy, there is no wiggle room, it says not to move unless told otherwise, it does not include provisions to allow people to make a getaway when they are left alone and what not, somthing that the rule did imply before, as it basicly fell under other policys of "Being able to hurt you at that very moment"

But this policy change in the case of restraining people, dictates that unless you are told otherwise, once you are restrained, you are not to move, at all, unless told to.

To quote enzyme:

"They're written the way they are for a reason, and rules have been discussed properly."

"We have to act on our current rules, and how they are written."


In this case, and the case of the new modification to 2.1, they are written in a way that is clear and to the point, though their point isnt exactly logical to the way the players have been playing for years and infact does a disservice to them.

As HR has already made clear they are to be enforced as written, thus how they are written should be done very carefully, if players are told to abide by them another way, it becomes another subjective policy,where the written word is ignored in favor of personal opinion.

I do get what you we're getting at with this change, and I also agree, it sounds insane to say a player cant move unless told forever just because their restrained, or that because a player is on the yell mic setting they dont apply fearRP, but due to the wording of the policy, this is exactly what they are saying.

It says it carries an implicit ORDER not to move. As with any other FearRP ORDER, if the person giving the order isn't actually there anymore to keep applying FearRP to you, you are free to move. This seems like a very clear and obvious conclusion to me.

[BlackDog]

It says it carries an implicit ORDER not to move. As with any other FearRP ORDER, if the person giving the order isn't actually there anymore to keep applying FearRP to you, you are free to move. This seems like a very clear and obvious conclusion to me.

You are correct, it is clear and obvious to anyone who would look at a RP situation, the problem is this is not what the rule says, and this is what we're talking about here.

Why change a policy to seem more restrictive than it was prior, then require more clarification to avoid further subjective enforcement, when that policy is already more or less 100% subjectively enforced.

Again: I agree with you on this, but the main issue here is the wording, the wording of the rule demands that players abide by it, as with all policy, to the letter.

You and enzyme have both said in the past that policy must be enforced to the letter.

Here we have a situation where the rule says one thing, but you are dictating it means another, which causes confusion among players.

In the end rather than adding all kinds of clarifications, its simpler to just either revert the policy back, or make it clear as to what it actually means.

[Temar]

one of the main issues staff deal with when it comes to fearrp is the person saying they didnt know they were under fear rp / didnt hear anything etc
and proving them wrong can be hard if not impossible
so that why we set range, that covers all normal chat range, iver text or voice, so anyone in this range should of heard you and if they break fearrp in this range then its clearly rule breakage

[ForceGhost]

one of the main issues staff deal with when it comes to fearrp is the person saying they didnt know they were under fear rp / didnt hear anything etc
and proving them wrong can be hard if not impossible
so that why we set range, that covers all normal chat range, iver text or voice, so anyone in this range should of heard you and if they break fearrp in this range then its clearly rule breakage

But as the rule is at the moment, you can hear a command and not be under FearRP, due to the person applying FearRP being in yell range.

[BlackDog]

one of the main issues staff deal with when it comes to fearrp is the person saying they didnt know they were under fear rp / didnt hear anything etc
and proving them wrong can be hard if not impossible
so that why we set range, that covers all normal chat range, iver text or voice, so anyone in this range should of heard you and if they break fearrp in this range then its clearly rule breakage

But we already had a distance fearRP thing?

If you could hear them, see them, and they we're able to harm you, you we're at fearRP.

The change to 2.1 changes that entirely:

" 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."

The wording is key here, it now states that if you are not within the default mic range, IE: Close-Med, you cant be held at fearRP by someone at Long range voice chat, even though you can hear them, and see them, and they clearly have a gun, and have told you not to move.

Is this intended? If so players are not equiped with a rangefinder and thus are unable to tell when they are within a Default Voice Range unless it is more obvious like within say 5 meters.

[goigle]

Reebs, the issue is not that you can or cant hear them, but the fact the wording of the rule now states that if your talking and they can hear you within 10m, fearRP applies, if they are 20m away, it does not apply, if they are 1-5m away, it does not apply.

I get the yelling range argument. The whisper range argument is nonsensical.

If you are within whisper range, you are in the default range. The rule specifies distance, not which mode your mic is on. You can be on yell mode but still be within the default distance.

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.

Does this mean that if you're cuffed and the officer cuffing you leaves, gets distracted, or dies, then you can't walk away from where he left you? Despite your life not being in danger?

No, because you only have to follow orders while under FearRP.

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.

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).

You should already know that - you don't have to follow someone's orders from FearRP when they no longer have you under FearRP. The rule specifies an implied order, it doesn't say that order extends beyond FearRP.

[Doctor Internet]

No, because you only have to follow orders while under FearRP.

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.

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).

You should already know that - you don't have to follow someone's orders from FearRP when they no longer have you under FearRP. The rule specifies an implied order, it doesn't say that order extends beyond FearRP.

I'm going to have to agree here. It's very, very clear.
Let's say we have two characters. Jim and Bob, since you like them.

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.

I don't see why?

[BlackDog]

I'm going to have to agree here. It's very, very clear.
Let's say we have two characters. Jim and Bob, since you like them.

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.

I don't see why?

(I dont disagree with them walking off in either case, but the problem here in lies with the wording of the policy, the wording of the policy forbids such an action, and prior statements made by HR have made it clear staff are to enforce the rules as written, and players are to abide by them as written.

Thus this would mean that no, a player could not simply walk away even if the gunman has jacked themself off to death, because the rule says they cant move unless told to now that they have been restrained.

I agree that yes, this is retarded sounding, but that's what is written, and enforcing/abiding by the written word is what keeps people out of trouble.

You cannot say to follow the rules as they are written, and then claim that a clarification should be upheld over the actual writing, at that point you may as well just changing the writing to nullify the requirement of a clarification in the first place.

In the end ask yourself this: Do I expect players to follow our rules exactly as they are written?

If so then the lines "being restrained carries an implicit order not to move unless told otherwise." and "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."

Must also be followed as written, no matter how dumb it may sound to nullify fearRP application at a non default voice range that is farther, or the idea that being restrained makes you unable to move unless told to, period.

The simple fix: Revert the wording)

[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?

[Tom*]

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?

I think not