Revert Rule 5.4 to Previous state.

[LEWIS 088]

What rule do you wish to Edit/Add:

5.4 City Employees
Under most circumstance paramedics may not be killed. The only exception to this rule is where the medic has failed to follow reasonable orders given under gunpoint (i.e. a medic must be given orders to leave before shooting)), furthermore Paramedics are not allowed to revive players an unrealistic amount of times. Players may not attempt to take and/or demand money or items from a City Employee. This rule excludes job related items e.g. Police Radio.


Your version of the rule:

5.4 City Employees

Players may not attempt to take and/or demand money or items from a City Employee. This rule excludes job related items e.g. Police Radio. All current "jobs" are classed as City Employees


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

Paramedics are government officials, their word is evidence enough to get you charged with a crime by the police. If they come to close to a crime scene it's there own fault if they get killed.

 

[Sneaky]

Not relevant to OP in any way shape or form, all seems very arbitrary - what does your 'main point 2' even mean?

i think what he is trying to say here is a counter arguement against the limited amount of times youre allowed to revive someone. with point two he is saying no matter what as a medic you should keep trying to revive no matter what. i believe it’s relevant and pretty useful.

 

[Teemo]

In medicine, you keep reviving until the patient stops, not yourself.

That may happen in the real medical world but in game do you see people getting life sentences? No of course not that would make the game unplayable for any criminal aspect.
You have to remember this is a game and that we still need to have balance. If someone gets shot in the head 15 times but never finished off sure, in the real medical world you could revive them but in game it is unfair as criminals do not get this ability. This reviving rule is to make the game fair.

 

[Sneaky]

That may happen in the real medical world but in game do you see people getting life sentences? No of course not that would make the game unplayable for any criminal aspect.
You have to remember this is a game and that we still need to have balance. If someone gets shot in the head 15 times but never finished off sure, in the real medical world you could revive them but in game it is unfair as criminals do not get this ability. This reviving rule is to make the game fair.

the only way it can be fair is by removing it since it will result in warnings/bans which would be dumb. please put the irl/game arguement down the shitter too. it should remain fun too.

 

[Teemo]

the only way it can be fair is by removing it since it will result in warnings/bans which would be dumb. please put the irl/game arguement down the shitter too. it should remain fun too.

Did you read my post at all? I am saying we shouldn't bring the irl thing into game as it would make it unfun because of balance...

 

[M]

limited amount of times youre allowed to revive someone.

Didn't see that portion of the suggestion as the title was 'revert' rather than make other changes, my omission.

relevant and pretty useful.

Convoluted lexicon that the majority of the player base will not understand fully in the context of its public forum is not 'useful'. The damaging effect is 'sounds right so I agree'.

Main point 2:
In medicine, you keep reviving until the patient stops, not yourself.

Not a clinically appropriate remark in my opinion. Resuscitation decisions obviously involve a lot more considerations (comorbidities, underlying and possibly reversible cause of arrhythmia/asystole) the most important being the likely outcome for the patient. Even if a patient has the chance of (temporary) cardiorespiratory recovery following resuscitation, immediate intensive care is required, you probably know first hand how devastating and demanding the process of arrest/arrhythmia and resuscitation can be systemically - and not everyone is a fit candidate for a full recovery.

You need to clarify what you mean by "the patient stops" because, resuscitating someone into a state of vegetation may be hailed a success by some - but more appropriately a failure in the interests of the patient.

Edit - Many of the scenes you see on PERP to which the rule seems to be mainly targeted would be considered 'major incidents' where there are a number of patients. These patients may not also have 'stopped' but it's not viable to treat each and every one immediately - triage thresholds for 'death' are importantly very sensitive in terms of cardiorespiratory arrest.

 

[Garret_Pp]

Didn't see that portion of the suggestion as the title was 'revert' rather than make other changes, my omission.



Convoluted lexicon that the majority of the player base will not understand fully in the context of its public forum is not 'useful'. The damaging effect is 'sounds right so I agree'.



Not a clinically appropriate remark in my opinion. Resuscitation decisions obviously involve a lot more considerations (comorbidities, underlying and possibly reversible cause of arrhythmia/asystole) the most important being the likely outcome for the patient. Even if a patient has the chance of (temporary) cardiorespiratory recovery following resuscitation, immediate intensive care is required, you probably know first hand how devastating and demanding the process of arrest/arrhythmia and resuscitation can be systemically - and not everyone is a fit candidate for a full recovery.

You need to clarify what you mean by "the patient stops" because, resuscitating someone into a state of vegetation may be hailed a success by some - but more appropriately a failure in the interests of the patient.

Edit - Many of the scenes you see on PERP to which the rule seems to be mainly targeted would be considered 'major incidents' where there are a number of patients. These patients may not also have 'stopped' but it's not viable to treat each and every one immediately - triage thresholds for 'death' are importantly very sensitive in terms of cardiorespiratory arrest.

It is a point of opinion for most but yes generally you revive until the patient is no longer likely. All resuscitation is a hit and a miss. It is a SINGLE DIGIT percentage of people who survive asystole for example, but that doesn't mean we don't try and revive them. The general rule is you keep on preforming resuscitation. That does not mean you code somebody for an hour, I have have been misunderstood there. It is around 15-20 minutes commonly. I just mean if they have ROSC and they code again later then you will code them again yourself. But I don't mean you just keep on trying and trying. Without a DNR for example we still have to code a person in a persistent vegetative state even with little chance of remission after the fact. I agree that many can see resuscitation of a patient in a vegetative state as a miss, but we still have to do it.

But I do disagree on the point of deciding whether or not to resuscitate being delegated by factors like likely outcome. Here it isn't a matter of opinion, you code them unless they have a DNR. If they don't make it so be it but we are required to. It isn't even an opinion it's a rule.

And triage is very important in major scenes yes, but everybody is triage pretty simply here: Dead, unconscious, or walking wounded. There isn't the grey area like there is in real life where somebody is still alive but you have to mark them as beyond help.

I really don't mean to disagree and it isn't a matter of my personal opinion by any mean these are just the rules we have to follow, they aren't opinions. It may be different there but here those are the rules

--Edit--
Just set an arbitrary number on the revives guys there is no way around it.

 

[M]

Without a DNR for example we still have to code a person in a persistent vegetative state even with little chance of remission after the fact. I agree that many can see resuscitation of a patient in a vegetative state as a miss, but we still have to do it.

The unconscious patient is not able to consent to or refuse treatment, and so clinical decisions in the best interest of the patient (unless advance directive/DNAR/person with POA dictates otherwise) are overriding in terms of whether resuscitation should continue - because patients cannot demand treatment. The ALS algorithms are important and relevant yes, but don't highlight all the circumstances where it is clinically inappropriate to continue resuscitation attempts.

 

[LEWIS 088]

Topic Resolved.

@Medulla You are too fucking smart