Current rule :
3.4 Putting your Life at Risk - Players must at all times act realistically, meaning that any actions taken that may put a player’s In-Character life, freedom from imprisonment and/or general wellbeing at risk must be done so in a realistic fashion, for realistically good/beneficial reasons and in such a way that can be justified as reasonable.
Risks are deemed to be unreasonable when it can’t be appropriately and effectively justified; for example, if a player was to rob the bank and fail, leading to their death, that player would be expected to demonstrate to an administrator that they had a realistic and reasonable plan and/or mind-set to succeed.
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; for example, if a player kills another player, which results in the former’s death and/or imprisonment, it will mean that the player has failed and unless they can effectively and appropriately demonstrate/prove that they had a realistic and reasonable plan to succeed, an appropriate punishment will be enacted.
A common example would be for a player to murder a Police Officer in order to avoid receiving a traffic ticket; this would likely result in the enactment of an administrative punishment because this specific example is deemed to be inappropriate - this is because the risk (death/life-imprisonment) involved with the murder of a Police Officer is grossly disproportionate to the benefit of avoiding a traffic ticket, typically.
Another common example would be for a player to violate traffic laws without a good/reasonable reason.
Your version of the rule: Changing to Unnecessary Risks and Unrealistic risks.
Why do you believe this rule should be Added/Edited: (Be extensive and descriptive)
Looking at the main title I realised the lesson in life we all take risks it is the ones we would not take that should be pointed out. Life is a risk game there is always a chance of randomly being hit by a drunk driver or a mental patient with a weapon. Taking unnecessary risks is like purposely trying to get you killed for example walking up to a door and trying to raid a property unarmed. While I agree some risks may seem necessary but most of them are justified for example for self defence.
Shooting at police to protect yourself and your illegal drugs Is a risk but going up and firebombing the PD for it is unnecessary.
Unrealistic risks for example is running over several lanes of the highway and running into a active shootout it is something you would not even consider doing. So to sum this up if you are going to do something you would never do it is unrealistic.
This applies to the emergancy services but mostly it is risking the public. The priority of most of the emergancy services is to protect the public parking your vehicle in the highway and leaving it there is a no. You as a member of the emergancy services must protect the public even if you have to put your own police at risk but you must bear in mind that these choices must be realistic. Running into a hostage situation will not only get you killed but also the hostages and anyone else involved.
I do not have any ideas about rewriting the rules really but this is just to address an issue I believe there is with this rule.
3.4 Putting your Life at Risk - Players must at all times act realistically, meaning that any actions taken that may put a player’s In-Character life, freedom from imprisonment and/or general wellbeing at risk must be done so in a realistic fashion, for realistically good/beneficial reasons and in such a way that can be justified as reasonable.
Risks are deemed to be unreasonable when it can’t be appropriately and effectively justified; for example, if a player was to rob the bank and fail, leading to their death, that player would be expected to demonstrate to an administrator that they had a realistic and reasonable plan and/or mind-set to succeed.
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; for example, if a player kills another player, which results in the former’s death and/or imprisonment, it will mean that the player has failed and unless they can effectively and appropriately demonstrate/prove that they had a realistic and reasonable plan to succeed, an appropriate punishment will be enacted.
A common example would be for a player to murder a Police Officer in order to avoid receiving a traffic ticket; this would likely result in the enactment of an administrative punishment because this specific example is deemed to be inappropriate - this is because the risk (death/life-imprisonment) involved with the murder of a Police Officer is grossly disproportionate to the benefit of avoiding a traffic ticket, typically.
Another common example would be for a player to violate traffic laws without a good/reasonable reason.
Your version of the rule: Changing to Unnecessary Risks and Unrealistic risks.
Why do you believe this rule should be Added/Edited: (Be extensive and descriptive)
Looking at the main title I realised the lesson in life we all take risks it is the ones we would not take that should be pointed out. Life is a risk game there is always a chance of randomly being hit by a drunk driver or a mental patient with a weapon. Taking unnecessary risks is like purposely trying to get you killed for example walking up to a door and trying to raid a property unarmed. While I agree some risks may seem necessary but most of them are justified for example for self defence.
Shooting at police to protect yourself and your illegal drugs Is a risk but going up and firebombing the PD for it is unnecessary.
Unrealistic risks for example is running over several lanes of the highway and running into a active shootout it is something you would not even consider doing. So to sum this up if you are going to do something you would never do it is unrealistic.
This applies to the emergancy services but mostly it is risking the public. The priority of most of the emergancy services is to protect the public parking your vehicle in the highway and leaving it there is a no. You as a member of the emergancy services must protect the public even if you have to put your own police at risk but you must bear in mind that these choices must be realistic. Running into a hostage situation will not only get you killed but also the hostages and anyone else involved.
I do not have any ideas about rewriting the rules really but this is just to address an issue I believe there is with this rule.
