[Cole]

Why wouldn't you want to replace rules with game mechanics? It seems like you want people to get punished for it.

[Jen]

Wouldnt that violate fearrp afterall making this a ""mechanic" just because people dont follow the rules?

-support

Yeah. It's in violation of FearRP. That's why there's a suggestion to have it fixed.

"Fixed" lack of proper moderation and morale to follow upmost basic fearrp rules with a game game mechanic that restricts the thing as a whole

I thought the community wanted more game mechanics to be implemented instead of more rules or am I mistaken?
As far as I'm aware the staff team does, the amount of time we spend dealing with fearrpbreakages when a simple mechanic like this can stop one type of fearrp breakage is well worthwhile.

Also, it stops you from doing it, so if you had an idea otherwise to break the rule then surely this would prevent you from being punished for fearrp, I don't see why you disagree with this mechanic being put in place.

[Armard]

Yeah. It's in violation of FearRP. That's why there's a suggestion to have it fixed.

"Fixed" lack of proper moderation and morale to follow upmost basic fearrp rules with a game game mechanic that restricts the thing as a whole

I thought the community wanted more game mechanics to be implemented instead of more rules or am I mistaken?
As far as I'm aware the staff team does, the amount of time we spend dealing with fearrpbreakages when a simple mechanic like this can stop one type of fearrp breakage is well worthwhile.

Also, it stops you from doing it, so if you had an idea otherwise to break the rule then surely this would prevent you from being punished for fearrp, I don't see why you disagree with this mechanic being put in place.

Same reason as why an acctual fearrp mechanic as of "who had the gun out first" was denied

[BlackDog]

In the end FearRP policies show their age and how obsolete they are becoming.

Hopefully they will be put into the same box we put rules that disallowed:

IC racism of any kind
The rules we once had that forbid climbing onto your own car
The rules that disallowed you jumping over any wall/fence or barricade of any kind, regardless of how short it was.
The rules that forbid building a billboard on a rooftop
The rules that dictated how fast cars should go to ram blockades


Then we can all have a good laugh at how stupid they all we're, and how insane it was that we once thought we needed them.

[Doctor Internet]

"Fixed" lack of proper moderation and morale to follow upmost basic fearrp rules with a game game mechanic that restricts the thing as a whole

I thought the community wanted more game mechanics to be implemented instead of more rules or am I mistaken?
As far as I'm aware the staff team does, the amount of time we spend dealing with fearrpbreakages when a simple mechanic like this can stop one type of fearrp breakage is well worthwhile.

Also, it stops you from doing it, so if you had an idea otherwise to break the rule then surely this would prevent you from being punished for fearrp, I don't see why you disagree with this mechanic being put in place.

Same reason as why an acctual fearrp mechanic as of "who had the gun out first" was denied

Because people don't understand how computers work?

[Limelight Gaming]

Pushing for Staff Review.

#type:[review]

[Armard]

Why wouldn't you want to replace rules with game mechanics? It seems like you want people to get punished for it.

As they should be since its expecially written that handcuffs count towards fearrp, adding virtual bumpers wouldnt get people to read the rules but make a physical boundary between what they can and cannot do

[Doctor Internet]

Why wouldn't you want to replace rules with game mechanics? It seems like you want people to get punished for it.

As they should be since its expecially written that handcuffs count towards fearrp, adding virtual bumpers wouldnt get people to read the rules but make a physical boundary between what they can and cannot do

So why is that a bad thing? Less work for staff and less likely that rule-abiding people get effected.

[Armard]

Why wouldn't you want to replace rules with game mechanics? It seems like you want people to get punished for it.

As they should be since its expecially written that handcuffs count towards fearrp, adding virtual bumpers wouldnt get people to read the rules but make a physical boundary between what they can and cannot do

So why is that a bad thing? Less work for staff and less likely that rule-abiding people get effected.

Also less people reading the rules, expecting more physical boundaries, wich we currently dont have

[Doctor Internet]

As they should be since its expecially written that handcuffs count towards fearrp, adding virtual bumpers wouldnt get people to read the rules but make a physical boundary between what they can and cannot do

So why is that a bad thing? Less work for staff and less likely that rule-abiding people get effected.

Also less people reading the rules, expecting more physical boundaries, wich we currently dont have

Why do you assume that adding a system to reduce reliance on goodwill and staff activity will lead to people becoming unable to read? That also assumes that it has the rule removed, which the suggestion does not call for.

There are still 75 rules. Having a system implemented to make things easier for everyone won't remove that.
That is, unless you want people to rely on overworked staff members, who have to make snap decisions, are human, and are much more likely to make mistakes?

[Doctor Internet]

Approved.