Rule Suggestion (3.23 Placing Drugs)

[Pugga]

Suggestion Topic:
3.23 Placing Drugs
Suggestion Description:
Banning growing in the sewers. Current the rule is:
3.11 Placing Drugs
Players must not place drugs in areas that are not accessible without jumping or crouching, unless they are transporting the drugs in a timely manner. In addition, drugs may also not be placed within any public building or in shops.
I propose that its changed to this:
Players must not place drugs in areas that are not accessible without jumping or crouching, unless they are transporting the drugs in a timely manner. In addition, drugs may also not be placed within any public buildings, shops or the sewers

The sewers is only accessible by a ladder or crouch walking down a tube, but somehow you can still grow in them? I have checked the sewers regulary every few hours for the past few days and only 1 time someone hasnt been growing drugs there and thats because I had already took them 2 hours prior

There was 4 people in there at onepoint, all growing at the same time

Why should this be added?:
- Stops people holidng a hallway killing anyone that enters
- Theoretically its already a rulebreak as you have to jump/crouch/climb down/up ladders to get there, but is somehow allowed
- Stops shooting when they think there is drugs when there is not
- Currently more people base there than actual basing at this rate
What negatives could this have?:
- Less experience/good players may not be happy with it

 

[iiTzWasParsnip]

Technically, it would be against rules to shoot someone to "protect" your drugs as you are in a publicly accessible area. So people can grow down there but aren't actually allowed to protect their drugs. Also would not be able to shoot cops if they discovered the drugs.

 

[Caveric Jonson]

Let the people grow in the sewers.

 

[MalekIsWeird]

Technically, it would be against rules to shoot someone to "protect" your drugs as you are in a publicly accessible area.

 

[iiTzWasParsnip]

View attachment 27687

This whole thing had been debated before. If it is not in your property, it makes no sense to kill people for discovering it.

 

[MalekIsWeird]

This whole thing had been debated before. If it is not in your property, it makes no sense to kill people for discovering it.

1) Debated where
2) the rule literally says it’s fine to shoot a cop to prevent discovery
3) if even a civilian discovers it then doesn’t back off when warned / tried to steal it / approaches menacingly aiming guns at you / Reports you to police. / etc etc are all perfectly valid reasons to kill them.

 

[Eistee von Aldi]

1) Debated where
2) the rule literally says it’s fine to shoot a cop to prevent discovery
3) if even a civilian discovers it then doesn’t back off when warned / tried to steal it / approaches menacingly aiming guns at you / Reports you to police. / etc etc are all perfectly valid reasons to kill them.

you cant shoot cops for growing drugs in public

where does it say so?

It is self-evident

 

[MalekIsWeird]

you cant shoot cops for growing drugs in public


It is self-evident

Source: trust me bro

 

[iiTzWasParsnip]

1) Debated where
2) the rule literally says it’s fine to shoot a cop to prevent discovery
3) if even a civilian discovers it then doesn’t back off when warned / tried to steal it / approaches menacingly aiming guns at you / Reports you to police. / etc etc are all perfectly valid reasons to kill them.

I was trying to find the forum. It was debated back in V5, where, growing in publicly accessible places mean you can't kill people for discovering them. As it makes no sense. You aren't actually taking on any risk because they are not within your own property. It's like if you're growing in the forest and camping nearby, a officer decides to walk over to where you have your grow (Not knowing that there is drugs there), you just gonna kill them? That would then go against 2.5.

Moral of the story is, don't grow in publicly accessible places, if you want to defend your drugs. It is that simple.

 

[MalekIsWeird]

I was trying to find the forum. It was debated back in V5, where, growing in publicly accessible places mean you can't kill people for discovering them. As it makes no sense. You aren't actually taking on any risk because they are not within your own property. It's like if you're growing in the forest and camping nearby, a officer decides to walk over to where you have your grow (Not knowing that there is drugs there), you just gonna kill them? That would then go against 2.5.

Moral of the story is, don't grow in publicly accessible places, if you want to defend your drugs. It is that simple.

Repeating the same argument doesn’t make it any less incorrect.

I refuted it already with a literal quote from rule 3.4

 

[Eistee von Aldi]

Repeating the same argument doesn’t make it any less incorrect.

I refuted it already with a literal quote from rule 3.4

I invite you to place some planters on the map and start KOSing cops and see how that goes for you

 

[iiTzWasParsnip]

Repeating the same argument doesn’t make it any less incorrect.

I refuted it already with a literal quote from rule 3.4

That "literal quote" doesn't apply to publicly accessible drugs. If it is not on your property, people/police aren't forcing their way in, then you have no right to protect it.

By your logic, you could leave a planter, in the middle of the street, then kill anyone who walks up to it. Or kill any cops that are heading that way... Same logic applies to hidden drugs in publicly accessible locations. - This is why it is against rules, because it make no sense for it to be within rules.

 

[MalekIsWeird]

That "literal quote" doesn't apply to publicly accessible drugs. If it is not on your property, people/police aren't forcing their way in, then you have no right to protect it.

You can’t ad hoc your own terms onto rule 3.4, if it only says it’s valid to kill police to prevent discovery. It does not specify whether it has to be in a property or not, to claim otherwise would require proof and that burden is on you.

By your logic, you could leave a planter, in the middle of the street, then kill anyone who walks up to it. Or kill any cops that are heading that way... Same logic applies to hidden drugs in publicly accessible locations. - This is why it is against rules, because it make no sense for it to be within rules.

No that’s illogical because it’s an obvious false equivalence. Intentionally planting drugs in the street is not remotely close to hiding them in a forest or a sewer. In any case, 3.4 requires players to take reasonable action to prevent risk to freedom or life so planting in the street would be unreasonable while hiding them in discrete locations is reasonable.

 

[iiTzWasParsnip]

You can’t ad hoc your own terms onto rule 3.4, if it only says it’s valid to kill police to prevent discovery. It does not specify whether it has to be in a property or not, to claim otherwise would require proof and that burden is on you.

No that’s illogical because it’s an obvious false equivalence. Intentionally planting drugs in the street is not remotely close to hiding them in a forest or a sewer. In any case, 3.4 requires players to take reasonable action to prevent risk to freedom or life so planting in the street would be unreasonable while hiding them in discrete locations is reasonable.

It would also be unreasonable to kill cops/civilians over publicly accessible drugs, which risks your own life and freedom by doing so. Because you did not take measures to protect these drugs within a property. If you kill someone for finding your drugs in a public location, you are risking your own freedom as it isn't self defence/defence of property. If you molotov the body, firefighters will get alerted to the area, are you then going to kill then firefighters to prevent discovery? No. That would be 3.4 and 2.5.

 

[MalekIsWeird]

It would also be unreasonable to kill cops/civilians over publicly accessible drugs, which risks your own life and freedom by doing so. Because you did not take measures to protect these drugs within a property. If you kill someone for finding your drugs in a public location, you are risking your own freedom as it isn't self defence/defence of property.

That condition is not actually represented in the rules. The rules only mandate that players took precautions to avoid unreasonable risk to freedom or life. Therefore choosing a discrete location, even if it isn’t a property, is a reasonable form of avoiding detection and hiding drugs in sewers is reasonably inconspicuous.

If you molotov the body, firefighters will get alerted to the area, are you then going to kill then firefighters to prevent discovery? No. That would be 3.4 and 2.5.

That’s a strawman argument

 

[iiTzWasParsnip]

That condition is not actually represented in the rules. The rules only mandate that players took precautions to avoid unreasonable risk to freedom or life. Therefore choosing a discrete location, even if it isn’t a property, is a reasonable form of avoiding detection and hiding drugs in sewers is reasonably inconspicuous.


That’s a strawman argument

I mean you're either gaslighting or just trying to justify already killing people. Just do what you want and see how it works out for you lmao

 

[Collier]

Being able to grow in the sewers is an intended feature. I do agree, however, that the rules of engagement for forest growers are unclear and could use some work. I think it makes sense for players who go looking through the sewers to treat interactions with growers similar to raids, where people who appear to be guarding drugs or camping for muggings can just be shot.

I'd be open to suggestions, however, as prowling the sewers for combat is just not how I play the server. So rather than changing the growing rule, I'd rather see 2.5 suggestions as to how we should handle this.