Rule Suggestion (3.4 Putting your Life at Risk)

[Ary]

Suggestion Topic: 3.4 Putting your Life at Risk
Suggestion Description: I suggest adding onto the Rule and specify that any given command from the police under gunpoint should be treated as any other gunpoint situation.

In my special brain 3.4 didn't automatically mean that i have to comply with police orders under gunpoint if i'm unarmed.

The logic behind it is that in RP, citizens trust that the Police force won't shoot unarmed civilians even after doing crimes such as speeding or have a warrant out for something non-lethal. Even if it were lethal, i am unarmed and so i assume i can try to run away from the cops, even at GP.

I had to receive a warning / talk to moderators before understanding that GP is GP, no matter who is behind the gun.
It does break my immersion quiet a bit, but rules are rules.

So my suggestion is to please complete the rules with adding one more line to it, specifying that when Police GP you, they are not exempt from the rules and whoever denies commands under GP from Police will be punished for 3.4

Why should this be added?:
3.4 being more specific and saving time in 3.4 cases regarding incompliance with GP from Police.

What negatives could this have?:
none

 

[Locksmith]

The reason you have to comply with orders under gunpoint, even from police even if you may be unarmed is because there is still a chance you will be shot if you flee, the risk isn't just magically alliviated just because you are unarmed. You state that the rules do not specify this in this suggestion, stating that " they are not exempt from the rules and whoever denies commands under GP from Police will be punished for 3.4" however this is already within 3.4 as it states "To not comply with reasonable orders given under the direct threat of a lethal weapon pointed at you"

 

[Ary]

Yes I understand the rule is "complete", i just believe a couple extra words wouldn't hurt and would alleviate future problems and reports. Not many but some.

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

we could do this:
"To not comply with reasonable orders given under the direct threat of a lethal weapon pointed at you, such as a mugging or commands from the police force."

 

[Locksmith]

There is no need to make the rules a longer read then necessary, especially since it is very explicitly shown there. I think this would just be an unesscary change as it is very obviously stated within the rules.

 

[Ary]

It's a suggestion i wouldn't and most of us wouldn't benefit from. 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000 might make a difference, especially for new players.
The question you should ask yourselves is how many cases of 3.4 did we have because people didn't follow police orders under gunpoint.
If there are substantial amounts of such cases, maybe a small change in the rules will actually help the moderator and admin team on the long run.
I have no data to go off from, you do though.

 

[Floppa]

It's a suggestion i wouldn't and most of us wouldn't benefit from. 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000 might make a difference, especially for new players.
The question you should ask yourselves is how many cases of 3.4 did we have because people didn't follow police orders under gunpoint.
If there are substantial amounts of such cases, maybe a small change in the rules will actually help the moderator and admin team on the long run.
I have no data to go off from, you do though.

What about the cases though? People get their deserved punishments which is from warning to ban.
I really think its common sense to understand this rule already, nobody should be in doubt.

 

[Ary]

Well try to put yourselves in other people shoes. I actually found out only after receiving a warning, it could have been avoided.
It is not common sense, after you read the laws and SOP's from the police force. As they do teach not to shoot unarmed civs.
I said all my points, if you all disagree than so be it. I learned my lesson so i don't need a reform of the rule.
I made this post for future new players and for the admin team in hopes to save both of those groups time and energy in the long run.

 

[Sharkster]

Just comply when your under gunpoint it really isnt that hard

 

[money]

This is already stated in the rule. You just added an exclusion in your head based on your own beliefs without actually reading the rule. If you didn't have to comply with police pointing a gun at you, it would be stated.

 

[Ary]

Well my point is valid / invalid depending on how many report cases the admin team had to deal with because of this.
Because of people not "knowing" they have to comply to Police orders under GP.
If its a warning a day its too much, if its a waning a week, seems reasonable but even that number could go down to one warning every 2 weeks or less.
We are talking about cases where the people genuinely didn't know they were breaking the rules, just like my case.

 

[sidd]

Respectfully, it's just common sense.

 

[DanielRabbit]

Suggestion Topic: 3.4 Putting your Life at Risk
Suggestion Description: I suggest adding onto the Rule and specify that any given command from the police under gunpoint should be treated as any other gunpoint situation.

In my special brain 3.4 didn't automatically mean that i have to comply with police orders under gunpoint if i'm unarmed.

The logic behind it is that in RP, citizens trust that the Police force won't shoot unarmed civilians even after doing crimes such as speeding or have a warrant out for something non-lethal. Even if it were lethal, i am unarmed and so i assume i can try to run away from the cops, even at GP.

I had to receive a warning / talk to moderators before understanding that GP is GP, no matter who is behind the gun.
It does break my immersion quiet a bit, but rules are rules.

So my suggestion is to please complete the rules with adding one more line to it, specifying that when Police GP you, they are not exempt from the rules and whoever denies commands under GP from Police will be punished for 3.4

Why should this be added?:
3.4 being more specific and saving time in 3.4 cases regarding incompliance with GP from Police.

What negatives could this have?:
none

The rule 3,4. WHICH I GOT BANNED FOR. Is fine enough, I don't think any changes should be made.

 

[Ary]

Makes me feel like I'm the only one that had to receive a warning for a genuine misunderstanding. If the reports on this matter are so low, than this post really doesn't matter.
I made this thread because I thought this is a pretty common mistake that people do.

Respectfully, it's just common sense.

 

[Ary]

The rule 3,4. WHICH I GOT BANNED FOR. Is fine enough

Are you talking in my name? Im confused about this reply?

 

[Allen Kennedy]

Perpheads Help

help.perpheads.com

^ We have a handbook for this sort of thing.

 

[DanielRabbit]

Are you talking in my name? Im confused about this reply?

I think it is already simple and fine enough. I don't think any changes should be made towards it.

 

[Ary]

Perpheads Help

help.perpheads.com

^ We have a handbook for this sort of thing.

Thats actually great, thanks for sharing.

PS: After reading, i must say this is not relevant to this specific scenario as the document doesn't specify the police GP situation.
It is after all a great read and post that i will keep in my bookmarks.

 

[Goonsberg]

This is like saying we need a full translation of all the rules, including braille

 

[Ary]

This is like saying we need a full translation of all the rules, including braille

Literally 6 extra words to a 100+ words rule

 

[phoondos]

its common sense dude