Community Suggestion 3.4 guide Update + 3.15 guide request

[MalekIsWeird]

Suggestion Title: Rule guide update
Suggestion Description: Include more explanation on fleeing from police and aiding others in fleeing from police in terms of 3.4

also include more specific examples for less serious infractions and to what extent it is okay to damage vehicles. For rule 3.15

Currently, it’s too vague and there is 0 explanation in neither guide or rule on lesser serious crimes if it’s okay to run from police or ram cars etc..

Why should this be added?:
- People can follow the rules as intended by the administration without individually having to ask or be punished to find out before realizing
- Guides are missing this crucial helpful info that can protect many good-willed people from rulebreaks.
- Provide an informative piece of guidance to the helper team to refer to when anyone inquired regard in this subject to easy refer that individual to.

What negatives could this have?:
- none? It’s teaching players to follow rules

What problem would this suggestion solve?: explaining the rules better in areas where it’s not as clear

 

[Aquaa]

Im not quite sure what is hard to understand in regards to the 3.4 aspect of your previous situation.

The rule states:

“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.”

You wanted to commit the crime of aiding and abetting, and then 6.5/6.9 to save your friend over a small sentence or ticket. The crimes you would commit would land you ~5yrs 5k to save your friend over like 2yrs 2k or so. It’s not proportionate or worth it by any means, there is no significant financial loss or long prison sentence that is worth you risking your freedom over. The rule is fine as it stands now, it is not vague at all, especially with provided relevant examples.

The same goes for 3.15, its essentially the same concept: Is it worth it? Do the benefits outweigh the risks/damage. You even have two examples provided within the rule itself.

“Players who commit an action that is likely to cause damage to their vehicle must have a valid reason to do so that outweighs the risks associated. For example, Fleeing life-threatening danger or running someone over in defence of yourself or someone else are justified reasons to collide with objects or otherwise damage the car.”

 

[Megasaw]

I think both of those rules are pretty self-explanatory as @Aquaa said above

I planned to make a video guide on 3.4 and 2.5 due to our influx of new players since they are the most commonly broken rules.

However, I think 3.4 and 3.15 are explained quite well in the rules since they give you specific examples of what not to do.

 

[JoeyThings]

I'm pretty sure I did explain this to you exactly how Aquaa did but way more summarized in private, but yes @Aquaa stated very well why these rules are fine

 

[MalekIsWeird]

Im not quite sure what is hard to understand in regards to the 3.4 aspect of your previous situation.

The rule states:

“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.”

You wanted to commit the crime of aiding and abetting, and then 6.5/6.9 to save your friend over a small sentence or ticket. The crimes you would commit would land you ~5yrs 5k to save your friend over like 2yrs 2k or so. It’s not proportionate or worth it by any means, there is no significant financial loss or long prison sentence that is worth you risking your freedom over. The rule is fine as it stands now, it is not vague at all, especially with provided relevant examples.

The same goes for 3.15, its essentially the same concept: Is it worth it? Do the benefits outweigh the risks/damage. You even have two examples provided within the rule itself.

“Players who commit an action that is likely to cause damage to their vehicle must have a valid reason to do so that outweighs the risks associated. For example, Fleeing life-threatening danger or running someone over in defence of yourself or someone else are justified reasons to collide with objects or otherwise damage the car.”

The rule 3.4 itself as you quoted says “realistic fashion and beneficial reasons”

I believe escaping in a hyper car and not causing engine damage while doing so to avoid years in prison and thousands in fines is beneficial?

Now you did make a mistake. You said the crime is risking 2 years and 2k, it’s not, it’s 3 years and 2k. Knowing this, and knowing the risk of the escalation is not even doubling that time in prison for a high chance of escape with a hyper car without causing any genuine damage to the vehicle aside from a paint scratch would be overall beneficial in my opinion yet it was punished.

Furthermore, the 3.15 rule itself is also missing the part where it should say that car damage can be punished even if mechanically no damage was caused to the vehicle. Because I’m sure, many like myself, understand it as purely game mechanic based. That players can’t cause engine damage, but actions that are slow like pushing a car would only scratch the paint or maybe dent the body but not “damage the car” in game mechanic terms.

Genuinely, it is confusing. I want to follow the rules but I understand it differently and I don’t have hard time seeing many other people will logically come to my conclusion too and be just as lost then punished. It’s not about serious crimes.

TL: DR:

What’s confusing is the proper way staff expect players to escalate when it’s not as clear cut as 7 year or more sentence, because to me this WAS escalation with reason behind it but apparently it’s not. This guide will help explain the boundaries regarding more petty crimes rather than crimes that are easy to decide on since they’re already so severe you might as well shoot rather than try to run.

 

[phoondos]

Furthermore, the 3.15 rule itself is also missing the part where it should say that car damage can be punished even if mechanically no damage was caused to the vehicle. Because I’m sure, many like myself, understand it as purely game mechanic based.

It's stated in the first sentence of the rule that a player must "make a constant effort to avoid colliding with other cars, walls or other entities." This heavily implies that any damage that isn't directly perceptible through game mechanics must fall under rule 3.15.

Knowing this, and knowing the risk of the escalation is not even doubling that time in prison for a high chance of escape with a hyper car without causing any genuine damage to the vehicle aside from a paint scratch would be overall beneficial in my opinion yet it was punished.

You did not make an effort to avoid colliding with the vehicle. Furthermore, you had no valid reason to push that car out of the way, considering nothing was going on at the moment other than your friend getting a small fine. From what I can tell at a cursory glance, this is the reason that you were punished.

 

[MalekIsWeird]

It's stated in the first sentence of the rule that a player must "make a constant effort to avoid colliding with other cars, walls or other entities." This heavily implies that any damage that isn't directly perceptible through game mechanics fall under rule 3.15.


You did not make an effort to avoid colliding with the vehicle. Furthermore, you had no valid reason to push that car out of the way, considering nothing was going on at the moment other than your friend getting a small fine. From what I can tell at a cursory glance, this is the reason that you were punished.

If you rewatch the evidence, there is No.Physical.Way that Leen’s vehicle can escape without collision. This point is crucial to understand because it explains that breaking the threshold of no collision is necessary to acquire a means of escape.

As for the claim she was getting a small fine. We both know 3.4 doesn’t work in terms of the future tense, it opens doors for a player based on the imminent risk due to circumstance and in this case the crime she was apprehended for was Driving Without Due Care or Attention. A crime worthy of 3 years and $2,000 if the officer decides to press that.

3.4 itself as a rule in writing highlights that risk of 7 years or more is a reason to kill cops which communicates that resistance by criminals is done in consideration of risk of the crime’s potential consequences.

 

[money]

Only thing that causes confusion here is yourself interpreting the rules past what is written.
You may have avoided police realistically in your example, but not for beneficial reasons. You took on a risk of 5 years and 5k for both you and your buddy.
Whether you can free him by using instant transmission or you plan to run right after with him is in this case irrelevant, as the risk itself does not outweigh the benefit, no matter what you do to increase your chance of escape, as the rules do not state "unless the chance of escape is high" (as intended). You took on a risk (both you and your friend arrested for 5 years) that outweighed the benefits (police arresting your friend for 2 years).

Worth imagining a cop pulling you over for speeding in his transit van. You have a supercar, you can easily evade him with almost sure escape, but the risk (5 years) you take outweights the benefits. It doesn't matter, in this case, if you can do many things to minimize that risk. This only becomes relevant in situations where you meet the conditions for evasion or similiar stated in the rule (realistic and beneficial), to demonstrate to staff you had a reasonable chance of escape or similar. In that case, you abide by 3.4

3.15 you collide with car

 

[MalekIsWeird]

Only thing that causes confusion here is yourself interpreting the rules past what is written.
You may have avoided police realistically in your example, but not for beneficial reasons. You took on a risk of 5 years and 5k for both you and your buddy.
Whether you can free him by using instant transmission or you plan to run right after with him is in this case irrelevant, as the risk itself does not outweigh the benefit, no matter what you do to minimize it, as the rules do not state "unless the chance of escape is high" (as intended). You took on a risk (both you and your friend arrested for 5 years) that outweighed the benefits (police arresting your friend for 2 years).

Worth imagining a cop pulling you over for speeding in his transit van. You have a supercar, you can easily evade him with almost sure escape, but the risk (5 years) you take outweights the benefits. It doesn't matter, in this case, if you can do many things to minimize that risk. This only becomes relevant in situations where you meet the conditions for evasion or similiar stated in the rule (realistic and beneficial), to demonstrate to staff you had a reasonable chance of escape or similar. In that case, you abide by 3.4

3.15 you collide with car

I kindly ask that you Please read my reply to Aquaa, there are clear inaccuracies in your statement which are addressed there and a rebuttal that is essentially reusable for your argument.

 

[money]

I kindly ask that you Please read my reply to Aquaa, there are clear inaccuracies in your statement which are addressed there and a rebuttal that is essentially reusable for your argument.

I read it. As far as i understood, you were or would break someone out. Whether you are guaranteed to escape after or not is irrelevant, if the original act (risk) did not contain a reward worth risking for (beneficial). Your benefit is in a minus.

After the original act (aiding and abetting, 5 years, for a risk of freeing a 2 or 3 year sentence friend), your act of escape is both realistic and beneficial. Whether you stop or not you will get a 5 year 5k sentence, so evading police is allowed as per the rule, especially since you got a supercar. Unfortunately, you already broke a rule prior.

3.15 dont collide with car

 

[MalekIsWeird]

I read it. As far as i understood, you were or would break someone out. Whether you are guaranteed to escape after or not is irrelevant, if the original act (risk) did not contain a reward worth risking for (beneficial). Your benefit is in a minus.

After the original act (aiding and abetting, 5 years, for a risk of freeing a 2 year sentence friend), your act of escape is both realistic and beneficial. Whether you stop or not you will get a 5 year 5k sentence, so evading police is allowed as per the rule, especially since you got a supercar. Unfortunately, you already broke a rule prior.

3.15 dont collide with car

I’m not sure what’s the confusion with the crimes punishment capacity? The crime pertains a risk of 3 Years not 2.

I understood I broke a rule the moment the dispute was denied and I accepted that. I am not here to aimlessly argue or cause trouble. I genuinely am just asking for more clarification through staff providing guidance on the boundaries of resistance in regards to less serious crimes as well as explaining the expectations for escalation in situations where less serious crimes have committed but the escalation is in proportion. Also including more clarification on the permissibility of collisions in these lesser serious crime situations, Especially situations where collision is inevitable.

Lastly, I must reiterate, the car was pinned into a wall. Avoiding collision was impossible but that in the rule itself as written doesn’t automatically cripple a player completely as it provides examples to showcase that with good reason that collision is permissible. Collision itself was a necessity for escape to escalate a proportionate amount such that an already imminent risk of 3 years in prison can be gambled for only 2 years more, which would be the 5 years for 6.5/6.9.

I still hope that my points are seen and that something is done to further guide the player base. That, in summary, is my aim behind this suggestion.

 

[Babi]

Why should this be added?:
- People can follow the rules as intended by the administration without individually having to ask or be punished to find out before realizing
- Guides are missing this crucial helpful info that can protect many good-willed people from rulebreaks.
- Provide an informative piece of guidance to the helper team to refer to when anyone inquired regard in this subject to easy refer that individual to.

People already knows what 3.4 is.
That would just be a waste of the dev's time tbh.

 

[MalekIsWeird]

People already knows what 3.4 is.
That would just be a waste of the dev's time tbh.

3.4 is statistically the most punished rule in this community. There is an undeniable absence of guidance regarding lesser serious crimes in both rule and guide and that prompts this post to request staff guidance on this uncovered topic.


and FYI this doesn't require dev time.... the helper team afaik works on guides.

 

[Megasaw]

3.4 is statistically the most punished rule in this community

Yes, because most new players don't read the rules first thing and normally either:

- Go to a muggable area to then get gun pointed
- Run into a shootout to pick up guns
- Run across intersection because it is faster

Our guide for 3.4 is already really good, same with the description of the rule, I don't know what you are so confused about. Maybe I'm missing the point?

 

[Efan]

This is an issue of you refusing to understand the rules rather than the rules being hard to understand.