3.4 Ammendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
5,863
Reaction score
7,780
Points
665
Location
REHAB
What rule do you wish to Edit/Add:

3.4 Putting your Life at Risk
Any actions taken by a player that may put their In-Character life, freedom from imprisonment or general well being at risk must be done so in a realistic fashion and for beneficial reasons.

This rule is specifically relevant to the violation of any In-Character law, meaning that murders, thefts, etc, are all expected to be conducted realistically;

A common example of an unreasonable risk would be for a player to murder a Police Officer in order to avoid receiving a traffic ticket. The risk involved with the murder of a Police Officer is typically grossly disproportionate to the benefit of avoiding a traffic ticket. Another example would be for a player to walk on the highway without a justifiable reason.



Your version of the rule:
3.4 Putting your Life at Risk
Any actions taken by a player that may put their In-Character life, freedom from imprisonment or general well being at risk must be done so in a realistic fashion and for beneficial reasons.

This rule is specifically relevant to the violation of any In-Character law, meaning that murders, thefts, etc, are all expected to be conducted realistically;

A few common examples of unreasonable risks includes, but is not limited to:
- Running on the highway without a justifiable reason
- Hanging around the vicinity of a shootout you are not a part of or being within the line of fire from both intentional and accidental fire. Users must flee the scene of a shootout and wait for police to clear the scene and reopen the area to the public. This applies regardless of you being restrained or not.
- Murdering a police officer(s) to avoid yourself or others receiving a minor punishment, such as a small ticket or a minor jail sentence
- Hanging around the scene of a crime you committed with the intention of engaging more police in combat
- To not comply with reasonable orders given under the direct threat of a lethal weapon pointed at you, such as a mugging.
- Committing a violent or serious crime, such as murder, theft, arson, etc. whilst knowing that police are in direct eyeshot of the scene you wish to commit the crime at.



Why do you believe this rule should be Added/Edited:

As demonstrated by this action request by @Slayerduck , despite running around a shootout you don't have any part in being an obvious breach of 3.4 and 3.6 and looking at the reactions and "Justifications" Provided by all of those involved, some even being very experienced players, it seems that none of the users saw there actions as breaches of 3.4 or 3.6 and the rule should specifically state this as a direct breach of 3.4 and 3.6. People seem to not completely understand the rule as a whole and as a result unknowingly breach the rule.

The rule should be Ammended in this manner:
- To make it easier to read and understand
- To make it harder for users to talk there way out of receiving punishments from reports on them
- To point out the very issue we've had for a very long time now, People running around shootouts solely to watch and possibly even giving criminals they don't know the locations of cops or vice versa.
- To clarify the entire rule in general and curbing criticism of it being "a rule with unwritten rules" or "A rule staff can make up as they go along".
 
Messages
449
Reaction score
456
Points
540
Location
Greece
No matter the rule's wording changes if no one is there to enforce it nothing will change and it wont stop any of this from happening in the future. There needs to be staff spectating these situations in order for the rule to be enforce.
 
Messages
1,198
Reaction score
2,109
Points
750
Location
Greece
Aren't you misunderstanding the point of the suggestion? Adding examples will minimise 3.4 rule breaks that were caused by the player not being aware that he was breaking the rule in the first place.

I can assure you that most shootouts are being spectate to ensure these stuff don't happen although the suggestion itself is not related to "staff not enforcing the rule".
 
Messages
5,863
Reaction score
7,780
Points
665
Location
REHAB
  • Thread starter
  • Staff
  • #5
The mentioning of these specific scenario's will deter people from accidentally Breaking the rule, as opposed to flat out preventing 3.4 breaks happening, since rules are just blocks of text, people Intentionally Breaking the rule can only be stopped by spectating staff members. The whole point of this thread was after years of action requests where the accused simply said they don't think there actions were against 3.4 and then them getting banned and complaining about the ban being "Unfair", Actions that they committed to get an "unfair" ban or warning being specifically mentioned in the rules description as a breach of that rule not only helps people understand and follow the rule better but will give them a lot less to complain about since there actions are literally mentioned under the rule.
 
Messages
5,863
Reaction score
7,780
Points
665
Location
REHAB
  • Thread starter
  • Staff
  • #6
My only concern with making this a part of the rule was its a big block of text that some users might not read, But at the same time I've tried to make it as simple to read as possible whilst going into more detail. Thanks for the feedback!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Top