- Messages
- 18
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 20
Suggestion Title: further clarity on rules
Suggestion Description: **Suggestion for Clarification of Rule 3.11 – Wild Growing**
Specifically regarding Rule 3.11 and the following statement:
*"If you are searching public areas for drugs, you can kill someone who is holding a weapon while defending their drugs, similar to defenders in a raid."*
I believe this section of the rule is somewhat vague and could benefit from further clarification, particularly regarding the circumstances in which Kill on Sight (KOS) is permitted when encountering players involved in wild growing.
Following a situation I recently experienced, I feel that providing clearer guidelines would help players better understand when lethal force is justified, while also allowing staff to handle reports and disputes more consistently.
**My suggestion would be to clarify the requirements for establishing a player's involvement with the drugs before initiating KOS.**
For example, the rule could specify that at least one of the following conditions must be met:
1. **Establishing a connection to the drugs:** The player must have reasonable grounds to associate the individual with the drugs being grown. Simply being in the general vicinity of drugs should not automatically justify KOS, even if the individual is armed.
2. **Visible armed defence:** The individual must be visibly holding a weapon in their hands while positioned near the drugs, with their actions reasonably indicating that they are actively defending them.
The intention of this suggestion is not necessarily to make wild growing more restrictive, but rather to establish clearer boundaries between someone actively defending their drugs and an unrelated player who happens to be in the area.
I believe this clarification would reduce ambiguity, prevent unnecessary KOS situations, and provide both players and staff with a more consistent understanding of how Rule 3.11 should be interpreted and enforced.
Why should this be added?:
- Prevents RDM
- Establishes a clear distinction between proximity and involvement
- Reduces the potential for players to exploit vague wording
- Reduces unnecessary reports and administrative workload
What negatives could this have?:
- Makes it harder to engage legitimate drug defenders
- Makes split-second decisions more difficult
What problem would this suggestion solve?: The primary issue this clarification aims to address is the ambiguity surrounding what constitutes a legitimate defender during wild growing and, consequently, when KOS is justified.
Suggestion Description: **Suggestion for Clarification of Rule 3.11 – Wild Growing**
Specifically regarding Rule 3.11 and the following statement:
*"If you are searching public areas for drugs, you can kill someone who is holding a weapon while defending their drugs, similar to defenders in a raid."*
I believe this section of the rule is somewhat vague and could benefit from further clarification, particularly regarding the circumstances in which Kill on Sight (KOS) is permitted when encountering players involved in wild growing.
Following a situation I recently experienced, I feel that providing clearer guidelines would help players better understand when lethal force is justified, while also allowing staff to handle reports and disputes more consistently.
**My suggestion would be to clarify the requirements for establishing a player's involvement with the drugs before initiating KOS.**
For example, the rule could specify that at least one of the following conditions must be met:
1. **Establishing a connection to the drugs:** The player must have reasonable grounds to associate the individual with the drugs being grown. Simply being in the general vicinity of drugs should not automatically justify KOS, even if the individual is armed.
2. **Visible armed defence:** The individual must be visibly holding a weapon in their hands while positioned near the drugs, with their actions reasonably indicating that they are actively defending them.
The intention of this suggestion is not necessarily to make wild growing more restrictive, but rather to establish clearer boundaries between someone actively defending their drugs and an unrelated player who happens to be in the area.
I believe this clarification would reduce ambiguity, prevent unnecessary KOS situations, and provide both players and staff with a more consistent understanding of how Rule 3.11 should be interpreted and enforced.
Why should this be added?:
- Prevents RDM
- Establishes a clear distinction between proximity and involvement
- Reduces the potential for players to exploit vague wording
- Reduces unnecessary reports and administrative workload
What negatives could this have?:
- Makes it harder to engage legitimate drug defenders
- Makes split-second decisions more difficult
What problem would this suggestion solve?: The primary issue this clarification aims to address is the ambiguity surrounding what constitutes a legitimate defender during wild growing and, consequently, when KOS is justified.
