Rule Changes and 3.4 poll - 28/07/2024

[Seshwan]

That's a whole lotta text to ultimately boil down to you just complaining about your ban. The whole "Oh I let him cuff me" cop out doesn't work when 9/10 the moment the cuffs come out, the player who didn't want to comply just starts blasting, which is obviously not exactly stellar RP.

In an ideal world yeah, there would be more roleplay surrounding gunpointing, but given that everyone and their nan plays almost exclusively to inflate their ego, any amount of "negotiation" will be to get some kind of competitive advantage. It has gotten to a point where gunpointing somoene is a mechanic more than anything else, because people would just go nuts doing whatever they want just for the chance of getting a kill or not losing a weapon.

It's all well and good to write all of this, but you know exactly how frustrating it is when people don't comply with you. Giving control to the person with the gun makes these situations fair across the board. It is when people decide they don't want to yield control that they don't comply. This whole reply reads as someone not wanting to get the short end of the stick rather than someone actually advocating for proper roleplay. It seems to me that you just don't want to RP on someone else's terms other than yours, which isn't exactly fun for everyone else.

Your 3.4 record would seem to support this...

To clarify for you, im aware of my ban, and why and how and what happened.
I tired to comply a different way, this is why i was banned because i didn't to exactly what the cop wanted, this is understandable, I'm not complaining about my ban, I'm debating the logic behind this rule, yes there are situations where 3.4 is useful of course, no denying, but its a very brief rule, this rule needs a lot more attention.

(P.S) i deserve my ban, i tested the waters, i was tired, and i wasn't tryna get Minge grabbed you are right on that. my situation was quite unique and not the average mug, it was a police situation, where i asked to be cuffed, and consented to be searched and didn't put my hands up, explaining that i had a firearm on my possession.

I actually got rule break baited, where the police broke character twice just to inform me that I wasn't rping their way.

stuff happens and I'm not going to deny it. but this isn't about my ban.

 

[money]

@Seshwan I will not format seperately but in order of your complaints from original post:

If you're about to be arrested, but not under gunpoint by a cop, you should call for support. If he is pointing a gun at you, he intends to shoot you if needed, nothing to do with law on either side. You start calling for your mates to come light him up, he'll stop the transmission, as you are effectively trying to kill him. So, figuratively speaking, you pulled out your gun under gunpoint and died.
This is against the rule, nothing to do with law either, again. Maybe the officer acted against the law in some situations (not in this example), but it doesn't concern yourself breaking the law.

If we allow attempts to persuade, everyone would stall as long as they please, and would fight in reports they were about to persuade the person and that it was possible.

You can comply in a reasonable time, but mustn't do actions which represent you pulling out your gun figuratively.

And finally, if people broke rules, report them.

 

[Seshwan]

@Seshwan I will not format seperately but in order of your complaints from original post:

If you're about to be arrested, but not under gunpoint by a cop, you should call for support. If he is pointing a gun at you, he intends to shoot you if needed, nothing to do with law on either side. You start calling for your mates to come light him up, he'll stop the transmission, as you are effectively trying to kill him. So, figuratively speaking, you pulled out your gun under gunpoint and died.
This is against the rule, nothing to do with law either, again. Maybe the officer acted against the law, but it doesn't concern yourself breaking the law.

If we allow attempts to persuade, everyone would stall as long as they please, and would fight in reports they were about to persuade the person and that it was possible.

You can comply in a reasonable time, but mustn't do actions which represent you pulling out your gun figuratively.

And finally, if people broke rules, report them.

And this is what i think should be spoken and debated, why aren't in-depth descriptions and scenarios to better yet explain why and how you should and can react?

because right now it currently just interpretation and a little bit of briefing

3.4 is the "most important rule" so why is there such little detail?

 

[Locksmith]

And this is what i think should be spoken and debated, why aren't in-depth descriptions and scenarios to better yet explain why and how you should and can react?

because right now it currently just interpretation and a little bit of briefing

3.4 is the "most important rule" so why is there such little detail?

There is detail, it Explictly states, that if a Lethal firearm is pointed at you, and you have no cover nearby to use, and you do not have a firearm in passive stance, you must comply with their orders in the scenario, it does not matter if its an LEO or a civilian that is gun pointing you, you have to comply with them, furthermore, your not safe fleeing from gunpoint from an LEO, as the complaint comittee specifically has a policy stating that if the use of force violation( most typical scenario being used here) occured as a result of a server rule violation, then they may choose to exonerated at their discretion, meaning you can be shot by cops for fleeing under gunpoint and typically will be shot for doing so.

 

[money]

And this is what i think should be spoken and debated, why aren't in-depth descriptions and scenarios to better yet explain why and how you should and can react?

because right now it currently just interpretation and a little bit of briefing

3.4 is the "most important rule" so why is there such little detail?

For the sake of not stating every scenario, it is simply stated in the rule example you should comply with reasonable orders under gunpoint, which all of the scenarios similar to this ultimately boil down to. Rules are already very long, so for the sake of preserving roleplay and also of course keeping them easy to understand, they are to the point.

Ultimately, the rules as a whole say to do what gives you the highest chances of survival - disobeying a person who wants to shoot you (or "pulling out your gun") will act against that, unless you are able to remove the threat long enough or the benefits outweigh the risk (where your chances of survival go up).

A good example of the last thing I stated is if, for example, you and your buddy get taken hostage by criminals, but they forgot to disarm you. Both of you comply, but they end up shooting him without explanation. In this case, regardless if you are under gunpoint or not, it is logical to assume the same faith awaits you, so in this case even if your chances of survival are extremely low under gunpoint, they are still better than zero, so you pull out your gun and attempt to take down the shooter, and this is allowed.

 

[Seshwan]

There is detail, it Explictly states, that if a Lethal firearm is pointed at you, and you have no cover nearby to use, and you do not have a firearm in passive stance, you must comply with their orders in the scenario, it does not matter if its an LEO or a civilian that is gun pointing you, you have to comply with them, furthermore, your not safe fleeing from gunpoint from an LEO, as the complaint comittee specifically has a policy stating that if the use of force violation( most typical scenario being used here) occured as a result of a server rule violation, then they may choose to exonerated at their discretion, meaning you can be shot by cops for fleeing under gunpoint and typically will be shot for doing so.

I will use my situation as i still see it as complying

Player 1 was gunpointed by cop 1, cop 1 wanted player 1 to get out the car with hands up, player 1 requested a supervisor and requested to be cuffed. cop 1 shouts fear rp, even though player 1 is unarmed and complying.

When under gunpoint by police is me complying this way any different from putting my hands up?

Now you see if you have no cover part, once i was angled by my car door, still under gunpoint, but i could of ducked and pulled a gun out by the side of my car.
but I'm not allowed to do this because rule 3.4 doesn't specifically say how to direct the gun-point needs to be.

Im not denying that the rule is needed, I'm just stating it isn't taken seriously by the people who wrote it.

Specifics will help users to prevent bans. what do you think? and that is the goal right?

 

[Locksmith]

I will use my situation as i still see it as complying

Player 1 was gunpointed by cop 1, cop 1 wanted player 1 to get out the car with hands up, player 1 requested a supervisor and requested to be cuffed. cop 1 shouts fear rp, even though player 1 is unarmed and complying.

When under gunpoint by police is me complying this way any different from putting my hands up?

Now you see if you have no cover part, once i was angled by my car door, still under gunpoint, but i could of ducked and pulled a gun out by the side of my car.
but I'm not allowed to do this because rule 3.4 doesn't specifically say how to direct the gun-point needs to be.

Im not denying that the rule is needed, I'm just stating it isn't taken seriously by the people who wrote it.

Specifics will help users to prevent bans. what do you think? and that is the goal right?

In the instance you just stated, you failed to comply with Reasonable orders, he had asked for you to get out and put your hands up, you decided against doing that, instead calling for a supervisor and then asking to be cuffed, the reason he wants you to do so is to ensure his own safety, if you were to do it how you stated, you could easily pull your firearm after he attempts to place you in cuffs, which would not be fair in the slightest.

Furthermore, if you are able to get in cover quickly and that cover can block and provide you with the cover you need to pull your firearm out safety(for example a corner nearby, a barricade that you can duck under, or a vehicle), you may do so.

I don't understand what you mean by its not taken serious, how so? it was written with game fairness and good roleplay in mind as to not allow individual to reckless endanger themself in situations.

Finally, please read the reply given by @money he has already stated why adding more specifics to the rules wouldn't necessarily assist the situation, as not every situation can be detailed, plus it would inflate the rules to be a larger document then they already are.

There is a host of staff member you can message if you are confused regarding a situation, as well as guides on 3.4 during situations that you can read to better you knowledge and decrease your likely hood of accidently breaking 3.4.

 

[Tilin]

Have you ever thought like I don't know, that there is a whole page to help you understand the most important rules: 2.5 and 3.4 better in the F1 menu, which very much describes this.
Right here: https://help.perpheads.com/page/general-guidelines-life-at-risk

Which describes exactly which gunpoint is or isn't valid to be broken. And gives you the exact examples of when it's smart to retaliate against cops.


And in all fairness, I'd understand if you got banned for like a very vague scenario of 3.4, but I've literally looked at the evidence and for all the viewers of the forum here's what happened:

@Seshwan was illegally transporting a firearm. Officer walked up to his car with his gun in passive. Told him he's illegally transporting. The cop raised their gun and shouted "Get out of the car you're under gunpoint". @Seshwan instead of complying said "Okay you put me under gunpoint for what reason". The officer responded it's for the "offensive weapon on your back". The officer stated: "Are you refusing under gunpoint", to which @Seshwan replied: "I don't need to. I'm not holding a weapon. Just cuff me".

And you complaining rule 3.4 is not clear enough, I'll copy paste FROM THE RULE ITSELF, the exact part which described this exact situation:

A few common examples of unreasonable risks includes, but is not limited to:

• To not comply with reasonable orders given under the direct threat of a lethal weapon pointed at you, such as a mugging.

Instead of criticizing your ban, please message one of the staff members if you wish to ask questions or start a thread on the forums.

Again, I'd understand if you'd complain about vagueness and unclarity, which sadly sometimes is the case and down to our descretion. But I don't think any member of the community will defend your situation here.

Now you see if you have no cover part, once i was angled by my car door, still under gunpoint, but i could of ducked and pulled a gun out by the side of my car.
but I'm not allowed to do this because rule 3.4 doesn't specifically say how to direct the gun-point needs to be.

No, you quite literally could not. You had an officer literally standing next to your door. At no point in that interaction would you break line of sight. If you'd crouch, the only thing you'd really do is stare at the officer's crotch.

Spoiler: This you?

Thread locked to prevent further chaos.