28/06/20 - Staff Meeting Notes

Messages
1,268
Reaction score
2,702
Points
730
Location
United Kingdom
  • Thread starter
  • Staff
  • #1



28/06/2020 - Staff Meeting Notes


Helper/Enforcer Changes
  • Helper requirement for Enforcer removed
  • If an Enforcer candidate has potential but isn't quite ready for the role, they may be given Helper and reviewed for a temporary period.
  • Training for Enforcers will be improved.
  • A section for staff will be added to the help page
Ban Lengths
  • Players will not receive such long bans for minor rule breaks
  • Players who consistently cause problems and do not learn will still receive lengthy bans.
  • Bans for 3.20 will have more consistent lengths.
Bombing in raids
  • The excessive amount of bombs used in raids will have a solution in the coming days/week.
Construction
  • One way defenses, head glitches and pixel peeks will be enforced more strictly.
3.4 Enforcement
  • Clarified that when being gun pointed and told not to move from behind you may not pull your gun even if it is in passive stance.
Withholding evidence
  • Evidence that has been held for a long time period will not be admissible and evidence that is "dug up" or held maliciously can lead to punishment on the reporter.
 
Messages
5,422
Reaction score
15,461
Points
615
Location
North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
Bombing in raids
  • The excessive amount of bombs used in raids will have a solution in the coming days/week.
May I point out this thread that had a discussion about this issue?
 
Messages
596
Reaction score
404
Points
580
Location
Under Lewis088's bed
Bombing in raids
  • The excessive amount of bombs used in raids will have a solution in the coming days/week.
Lollis are not gonna be happy
 
Messages
1,071
Reaction score
1,967
Points
640
Location
Greece
Players will not receive such long bans for minor rule breaks
I thought people were whining because bans weren't long enough.
 
Messages
596
Reaction score
404
Points
580
Location
Under Lewis088's bed
i believe as in minor they mean running across intersection or prank calling
 
Messages
2,271
Reaction score
6,494
Points
575
Location
Lime Zesty
Withholding evidence
  • Evidence that has been held for a long time period will not be admissible and evidence that is "dug up" or held maliciously can lead to punishment on the reporter.
How long would be considered a long time?
If you have evidence of someone breaking rules from say 1-2 weeks ago but had a valid reason for not being able to upload it at the time would it still be permissible? Or if you were going through old videos and stumbled across rule breakages?
 
Messages
414
Reaction score
715
Points
605
Location
North Europe, Latvia
I imagine this is more to stop people who have the intent to take revenge on enemy organizations or make revenge AR's, the type of people who have "folders". And if you just stumbled across a rule breakage it probably isn't that serious.
 
Messages
4,856
Reaction score
6,550
Points
580
Location
REHAB
Bombing in raids
  • The excessive amount of bombs used in raids will have a solution in the coming days/week.
Limit bombs to 2 per person I guess. Simple solution. This could result in "Zerg raids" Ending in overbombing.
 
Messages
264
Reaction score
250
Points
545
Location
Parts Unknown
Bombing in raids
  • The excessive amount of bombs used in raids will have a solution in the coming days/week.
The problem was people bombing below apartments and killing people above them, not giving them a chance to defend. potentially make that a rule? idk.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,228
Reaction score
6,591
Points
630
Location
United Kingdom, Devon
Any updates on the bans that were just issued?
 
Messages
88
Reaction score
110
Points
515
Ban Lengths
  • Players will not receive such long bans for minor rule breaks
  • Players who consistently cause problems and do not learn will still receive lengthy bans.
  • Bans for 3.20 will have more consistent lengths.
Good decision had to be done sometime.
 
Messages
264
Reaction score
250
Points
545
Location
Parts Unknown
3.4 Enforcement
  • Clarified that when being gun pointed and told not to move from behind you may not pull your gun even if it is in passive stance.
Could you not have your gun in attack stance?
 
Messages
357
Reaction score
569
Points
545
Location
England, United Kingdom
but who shoves a gun in the face of their dealer?
 
View previous replies…
Messages
95
Reaction score
118
Points
495
Location
Stockholm , Sweden
Withholding evidence
  • Evidence that has been held for a long time period will not be admissible and evidence that is "dug up" or held maliciously can lead to punishment on the reporter.
How long is this long period of time ?
 
Messages
679
Reaction score
637
Points
545
Messages
1,268
Reaction score
2,702
Points
730
Location
United Kingdom
Evidence that deals with more severe issues will be made an exception, however obviously a relevant time limit would still need to be met. We wouldn't go banning people who cheated 3 years ago or something stupid like that, same with metagame.
 
View previous replies…
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
2,640
Points
545
Location
Under a Rock, North Wales, United Kingdom
  • Evidence that has been held for a long time period will not be admissible and evidence that is "dug up" or held maliciously can lead to punishment on the reporter.
You looking to get someone banned? You're gonna need this, sucker!
 
Messages
2,228
Reaction score
6,591
Points
630
Location
United Kingdom, Devon
Did not mean to bump this thread however something needs clarifying, specifically regarding the clarification to 3.4. in this post:

3.4 Enforcement
  • Clarified that when being gun pointed and told not to move from behind you may not pull your gun even if it is in passive stance.

Why is it now even if your gun is in attack stance that this is now being enforced as a violation of 3.4.? If that change was made why wasn't this actually communicated to the community properly, @Tetra (I believe) was the one who lost 70k to this bizarre ruling and without any prior notice.

How do sweaters now safely sell drugs? before you could throw them a PPK they could keep it in passive and they would be on their way, was this considered before making the change?

Was this change even communicated to you as Community Manager or discussed within this exact meeting? @Dom_
 
Messages
869
Reaction score
1,669
Points
696
Location
Ireland
As far as I know we have never discussed holding it in actual attack stance, and if this is against 3.4 or not. So if it is being enforced like this there is probably some different views going around. Will clear up.
 
Messages
869
Reaction score
1,669
Points
696
Location
Ireland
@Husky I'll just leave what I put in slack here.

Regarding the gun pointing at drug dealer thing: During the full staff meeting we had, and the admin meeting that followed we decided if you were gun pointed from behind at the drug dealer, even with a gun in passive you should follow the muggers orders. The exception here is if there are multiple people at the DD with firearms in passive. For now we will allow people to turn around and fire if their gun is in attack stance while selling drugs. This will be discussed in the next admin meeting, and we'll update you as soon as something has been decided.
 
View previous replies…
Messages
4,856
Reaction score
6,550
Points
580
Location
REHAB
If you have a gun in passive stance there’s nothing unrealistic about being able to raise it and shoot the mugger though, that’s what I’ve always believed? Why change it now?
 
View previous replies…
Messages
277
Reaction score
444
Points
525
@A1L
I can provide a demo if a staff member requests it. I am currently in the process of clipping the entire situtation to make it easier
 
Messages
2,228
Reaction score
6,591
Points
630
Location
United Kingdom, Devon
@Madda appreciate the response, the ruling has become blurred due to the specific mentioning of "passive stance", I think it's incredibly unhealthy and unfair to players for rules like this to change at the discretion of a staff member. This in my opinion probably should have already been discussed, the wording suggests it was. If the ruling changed it should read:

3.4 Enforcement
  • Clarified that when being gun pointed and told not to move from behind you must listen to orders regardless of your weapons stance (passive/attack).

As a player I do not demand a say in each rule, I simply ask to be informed and updated to the actual rules that we have to abide by. The passive aggressive comments by other staff on this thread are a big yikes, the whole "just dispute it and stop whining" is a horrific take in such a circumstance.

Regardless, I thank you for the quick response @Madda - It's truly appreciated.
 
Messages
277
Reaction score
444
Points
525
Just to say the entire thing about having your gun in active stance was apartently overruled when it was brought to his attention by a “certain” staff member.
This staff member who isn’t being named due to the fact it could be slanderous went over 2 senior administratiors heads and went straight to boli
 
Messages
243
Reaction score
300
Points
545
Location
Massachusetts, United States of America
Any information about your activity recently? And what to expect in the future?

personally haven’t seen an event hosted since you’ve went inactive. This was also a huge topic talked about in the community meeting
 
Top