Rule Suggestion (3.4 Putting your Life at Risk)

[ICEKILLER_99]

Suggestion Topic: 3.4 Putting your Life at Risk
Suggestion Description: Currently, you have to immediately surrender whenever a gun is pointed at you (apparently)

I believe it wasn't enforced like this previously and you had to wait for a certain command, but I've been punished for stalling under GP as I did not see the chats from the officer and thought they only had their gun pointed at me, which I believe is what the staff went off of.

I personally don't think it should be the norm to have to put your hands up whenever someone is gunpointing you without the need of a command, as it leads to situations where you have to wait for the long surrender animation to finish in order to proceed with what you were doing. There are situations where you need the person to do something else other than putting their hands up and it prolongs the whole situation if they decide to surrender without being told to.

I've also seen people putting their hands up and watching instead of running away during shootouts, which is fucking stupid.

OR IF DENIED

Include something that mentions this in 3.4, because currently there is nothing in the rules that states you have to surrender immediately when a gun is pointed at you.

Why should this be added?:
- Option 1: Leads to less misunderstandings, back to how it used to be (?)
- Option 2: Actually includes an unwritten rule in the rules

What negatives could this have?:
- Option 1: Might increase stalling?
- Option 2: None, all it does is include something in the rules that is already being enforced

 

[Collier]

I'm confused, the current rules only force you to surrender when you are ordered to at gunpoint, what are you suggesting exactly?

 

[ICEKILLER_99]

I'm confused, the current rules only force you to surrender when you are ordered to at gunpoint, what are you suggesting exactly?

I was told by multiple staff members that you are supposed to surrender when you have a gun pointed at you, doesn't matter if you were ordered to or not.

I was also just banned for this as I looked at an officer pointing his weapon at me waiting for a command (which came through text but I hadn't seen as it was in the middle of a shootout cough cough mic policy)

 

[Acerius]

I was told by multiple staff members that you are supposed to surrender when you have a gun pointed at you, doesn't matter if you were ordered to or not.

I was also just banned for this as I looked at an officer pointing his weapon at me waiting for a command (which came through text but I hadn't seen as it was in the middle of a shootout cough cough mic policy)

I don't get where your first point comes into play because you've just said that you were given commands, you just didn't see them because you weren't reading chat, so do you have any examples of where what you're purporting has happened or been the case?

Also, regarding your microphone policy point, it has long been established that the Chiefs of Department can grant exemptions and allow people who are unable to use a microphone for a specific reason to play as an Officer but not progress to any higher rank or specialist roles:

 

[ICEKILLER_99]

I don't get where your first point comes into play because you've just said that you were given commands, you just didn't see them because you weren't reading chat, so do you have any examples of where what you're purporting has happened or been the case?

Also, regarding your microphone policy point, it has long been established that the Chiefs of Department can grant exemptions and allow people who are unable to use a microphone for a specific reason to play as an Officer but not progress to any higher rank or specialist roles:

I mean I'm not here to discuss my ban I was just using it to make a point but it's whatever

The person we are talking about here actually happens to be a Senior Officer but thanks for your input on the mic policy.

 

[SomeUser]

Just a little thing as we where confused but again this is up to discression @A1L (we where discussing another case of this)

 

[Acerius]

I mean I'm not here to discuss my ban I was just using it to make a point but it's whatever

I mean it seems this suggestion is more of a direct response to what @A1L said in the denying of your dispute rather than a suggestion with any real merit, hence why I asked for any examples of where what you're saying occurs has happened.

From my reading I'm also fairly certain @A1L did actually explain in the shoutbox that his denial response did not mean what you have inferred in this suggestion.

The person we are talking about here actually happens to be a Senior Officer but thanks for your input on the mic policy.

Semantics aside regarding rank, the general principle of exemptions from the microphone policy has been there for a long time, so moot point.

 

[ICEKILLER_99]

I mean it seems this suggestion is more of a direct response to what @A1L said in the denying of your dispute rather than a suggestion with any real merit, hence why I asked for any examples of where what you're saying occurs has happened.

From my reading I'm also fairly certain @A1L did actually explain in the shoutbox that his denial response did not mean what you have inferred in this suggestion.


Semantics aside regarding rank, the general principle of exemptions from the microphone policy has been there for a long time, so moot point.

I don't have any examples but I have been told TODAY by multiple staff that this is the case

 

[money]

It never mentions having to surrender. You just do whatever it takes to minimize the chance of them shooting you. So sitting still and waiting for them to either let you go or tell you what they want. You can optionally surrender if you want
If you don't read chat that kinda be on you...

 

[ICEKILLER_99]

It never mentions having to surrender. You just do whatever it takes to minimize the chance of them shooting you. So sitting still and waiting for them to either let you go or tell you what they want. You can optionally surrender if you want
If you don't read chat that kinda be on you...

ok let me look at the chat mid shootout


this can be closed as apparently i have been lied to by the staff. this will be taken note of and i will be pushing for legal consequences.

 

[FatGeorge]

I was told by multiple staff members that you are supposed to surrender when you have a gun pointed at you, doesn't matter if you were ordered to or not.

I was also just banned for this as I looked at an officer pointing his weapon at me waiting for a command (which came through text but I hadn't seen as it was in the middle of a shootout cough cough mic policy)

I can vouch that some of the (newer) staff members have used this logic and said similar things to me. Good suggestion Ice man

 

[ICEKILLER_99]

I can vouch that some of the (newer) staff members have used this logic and said similar things to me. Good suggestion Ice man

thank you

 

[Clarky]

ok let me look at the chat mid shootout


this can be closed as apparently i have been lied to by the staff. this will be taken note of and i will be pushing for legal consequences.

victimized

 

[Mini]

Depends on context really, someone aiming a gun at you in the Forrest isn’t really going to be asking you where the drug dealer is or do you want a cuppa etc so it would be reasonable to assume they are going to want you to surrender to mug you, similar concept applies if you have just committed a crime and see an officer gun pointing you, it should be common sense to stop what you are doing and either wait for a command or simply surrender. Most of 3.4 is just common sense but it appears that common sense isn’t as common as it should be. Nevertheless I agree that there should be some further clarification on this in writing to avoid further confusion.

 

[sza]

I've also seen staff put people in a coffin for not immediately surrendering when 0 commands were stated (or commands that were not possible to be privy to from the key perspective), so adding awareness to the wording of the rule can't hurt for both staff and players sake. I'll be honest though, it's pretty blatantly clear already as it's written.

Right now, in both the written rule and the guide made specifically for 3.4, it explicitly references "direct order" and "comply with the order" implying to most that you only have to comply when those are present. Like Mini said above, there are definitely cases where you really shouldn't need an order since its common sense, but if it should always be understood that you only comply when an order is present, we just gotta be more consistent as staff in our interpretations/rulings.