Excessive Negativity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
626
Reaction score
1,502
Points
340
Location
Fife, Scotland
What rule do you wish to Edit/Add: 2.5 Excessive Negativity- Generally speaking, players are not allowed to excessively negatively affect the experiences of other players while playing on the server. For example, destroying a number of valuable items in a store should only be done under certain circumstances, and more so as a last resort; specifically, reasons such as product prices, a ‘basic’ distaste towards someone within the store, grossly disproportionate methods to quell competition, etc, are not typically acceptable.

Your version of the rule: Unrealistic Negativity: Typically, players should not react to certain situations in a negative way that is considered too excessive for the situation that that player was involved in. e.g. A player is told to "F*** off" by another player he had no prior connection to, that player may not enact an extreme act upon this person's self or property.

Why do you believe this rule should be Added/Edited:
This rule can seriously inhibit roleplay and many have been banned for this rule because of them wanting to engage in hardcore roleplay, this has been evidenced in countless situations and has drove away potential members wanting to have very serious roleplay.
I will give an example of this: I was once constantly bothered by a certain asian man while running a gun store (@MattIsMadForCod you cheeky little thing), during this time he harrased me, assaulted me, drove customers away from my store, verbally assaulted me, threatened me with further violence, attempted to raid me and nearly gunpointed my friend. I saw he had been walking in and out of a store next to us, I planned to get revenge.
Me and my friend @FazeDeco'sShack gathered molotovs and planned to destroy his business, we took up our positions and threw the molotovs, we made sure there was nobody inside so that we would not become murderers.
15 minutes passed and I saw Ash talking to them, I approached them and admitted, upon trying to explain myself fully, Ash refused to listen and dodged my questions completely, but that is a story/complaint for another day. I was banned for 4 days, ruining my short holiday all because I wanted to react the way many others have in real life stories, bare in mind this was my first ban.

Here is a hypothetical story: A player raids a guy, leaves him crippled, bleeding and grasping for breath in his destroyed house, upon being revived, he gathers his friends/organisation and tries to find out where the perpetrators were living, they find his car and proceed to bomb and set fire to the Parker and then escapes.
The player is pulled up and is told that they lost an insane amount of drugs, weapons and all their props were burned down, the player is banned for 1 week and his future appeal is denied because of this rule.

True Story In Which This WAS NOT Enforced: I was raided by 3 men in suits, after they took all of my items, injured me and destroyed my apartment, instead of shooting me to avoid me calling the cops, they took my chair /me ties me to the chair, takes me to my dirty bathroom, kicks the chair over, closes the doors and leaves me to die of hunger on the floor of a dirty, stinking, bullet riddled bathroom.
Know what this roleplay was? FUN...

These fine chaps performed great roleplay that was both realistic, evil and enjoyable for all parties, however, if I DID report this, they would most likely be punished using this rule.

This is all I have to say but if you are lazy...

TL;DR: This rule ruins a lot of potential roleplay situations and has ruined many in the past and should be removed or changed to my suggested version.
 
I personally think that 2.5 is a load of shit. It's not enforced equally and fairly at the moment and nor does it particularly aid roleplay. The only situations I see this rule being pulled into play in is those that could be dealt with under another rule such as 2.1 or 3.4.
Here's an example of what I've actually seen:
Person A accidentally knocks into Person B's car. They both get out and Person B tells Person A that he has to pay for the damage. Person A tells him where to shove his damage and drives off. Person B then reports this to the police and returns to the Projex apartments to continue the mindless point-click-AFK adventure that is growing. Whilst Person B is basking in the glory of his botanical successes, Person A is pulled over by the police. He has not broken any laws since the crash so he knows that it's about the crash with Person B. He takes the ticket that the cops give him and drives away. Person A then hunts down Person B's car, he finds it parked illegally outside the Projex apartments, he places a car bomb on it and drives away. A little while later when his crop has finished growing, Person B goes on a run to see the DD. He has all of the drugs he has been growing on him plus loads more he had in storage and as ever, a silenced beretta for protection. He gets into his car and boom dies.

In that situation it's clear that Person A has broken 2.5 as his actions were disproportional to the cost. However, he also broke 2.1 AND 3.4 and could be dealt with under those.

What I'm trying to get at is 2.5 is not necessary, it's often used when it really shouldn't be and the situations that it would apply to generally fall under other rules as well. 2.5 often stifles roleplay and is a bit of a dark cloud that looms over anyone that wants to be a bit mischievous.
 
I wouldn't say that getting rid of 2.5 entirely is a good idea, nor do I think it should be considered. What I think is a good idea is re-writing or adjusting the rule so that it fits with the rest of the rulebook, the way I see rule 2.5 currently is that it seems to be used as a get out of jail free card for rp situations, what I mean by this is say for example you are raided, harassed, shot at and all manner of nasty things by some guy, you and your buds then go to his house and burn him alive.

ME0jLH7.jpg

That would currently be seen as a break of 2.5, regardless oh how much torment you had undergone for any amount of time due to this person, it also seems to depend on whoever responds to the report on how the situation is dealt with. I guess what I'm getting as is where as most rules are open ended, more blanket style rules such as 3.4 (That can apply to a million situations and have a million answers) 2.5 seems to be a solid rock of DONT MAKE SOMEONE MAD ENOUGH TO USE THIS TO GET YOU BANNED.

My suggestion would be maybe re-write the rule so that instead it explained that not all behaviour that causes butthurt is breaking 2.5, explain to the players that with a good reason and enough calculated loss of experience, money, fun, role-play etc you may retaliate in kind.

All in all I feel 2.5 should come across more as 'An eye for an eye' when instead currently it comes across as more of a 'If someone makes you mad by doing a really nasty thing for what you see as no reason, cry about to an admin and watch the bans roll in'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top