Rules need to have more elaboration.

[MCGSCEFFAAWHETJH55555]

Earlier today, Stomper scammed me of 71k for an M82 in public. I was about to use 3.3 since it didn't seem to be realistic. However, I was told by a mod and MrLewis that 3.3 refers to realistic actions related to movement and combat. I feel that rules like 3.3 are not clear enough and need a rewrite in order to be more specific and useful. As of right now, the rules have extremely broad meanings that the players of the server may interpret it as something else entirely.

 

[Panda]

First of all if you're going to say he broke the rules by not acting realistically it would be rule 2.1. Could you also please explain to me why is it unrealistic to scam someone?

 

[MCGSCEFFAAWHETJH55555]

First of all if you're going to say he broke the rules by not acting realistically it would be rule 2.1. Could you also please explain to me why is it unrealistic to scam someone?

Please read the first sentence properly. It was in public. As for 2.1, Lewis explained that even if I did use that, it's based on administrator discretion. That's not the point, though. I'm not talking about that issue specifically. I'm using it as an example that some of the rules have too broad meanings.

 

[DilanTheSkrub]

I scam people in public all the time mate, it isn't against the rules. Haven't you seen people do it in public before? All you need to do is ask for the money for an item, get the money, then run.
@Samuel Sheppard will blow you for $1,000
No scam at all
Promise.

 

[MCGSCEFFAAWHETJH55555]

I scam people in public all the time mate, it isn't against the rules. Haven't you seen people do it in public before? All you need to do is ask for the money for an item, get the money, then run.
@Samuel Sheppard will blow you for $1,000
No scam at all
Promise.

Still, the example is seriously not the main part of my point. I just think the rules need more elaboration because the way it is right now, I was told that it was interpreted in another way.

 

[Mage]

Please read the first sentence properly. It was in public. As for 2.1, Lewis explained that even if I did use that, it's based on administrator discretion. That's not the point, though. I'm not talking about that issue specifically. I'm using it as an example that some of the rules have too broad meanings.

But it's pretty simple to understand the rules? Some of the most major rules, it's just common sense, for example don't do stupid shit if you wont gain anything from it etc. If you are referring to 2.1 vs 3.3, section 3 of the rules are all in-character rules which like Lewis said refers to movement and combat. 2.1 However is just in-general doing stupidly unrealistic shit for example running for mayor just to run the poll and then resigning - it's an unrealistic scenario. Other than that I can't understand why you would say the rules need more elaboration, they seem quite clear in my opinion.

 

[Fasool]

Scamming you is not under 3.3. You can scam people in-game, but there are some rules that don't allow certain scammers to get away with it. For example, remember those days where everyone would open a bazaar shop and allow in "big boy bets". If someone opened a shop and started scamming EVERYONE then this would fall under rule 2.1 and they will get a punishment for it. This is because you don't simply open a shop and start scamming everybody, you should do it realistically. There are also scammers that got punished for 2.5, and that is because they scammed the person multiple times and not for simply 10K, but for an amount from 50-200K. That's all I wanted to say really, if anything this could only be qualified as excessive if you think so. For me it's not, but that's my opinion. Other than that I don't see it as unrealistic.

 

[M]

3.3 refers to realistic actions related to movement and combat.

This should be of no surprise to you. The description is pretty damn clear:

To be within this rule, the actions associated with scamming you should be done realistically, no reference to location is made at all - merely the execution.

In general, the rules cannot be any more specific as this is a serious roleplaying server; the rules in place (albeit sometimes specific, such as no escaping cuffs without assistance) generally forbid something unless justified appropriately.

 

[Daigestive]

I scam people in public all the time mate, it isn't against the rules. Haven't you seen people do it in public before? All you need to do is ask for the money for an item, get the money, then run.
@Samuel Sheppard will blow you for $1,000
No scam at all
Promise.

-phone

Scamming minors offering blowjobs = InstaPermBan.

 

[danny]

You shouldn't really have difficulty understand different rules, I can understand some may get confused however it should not be a major issue.

There are people within the community, such as @Prepper and @LEWIS 088 (just to keep him happy), who have no warnings or bans on record, or people who have not had any warnings or bans in a year+. If the rules have not been elaborated enough, then how are people able to follow them?

If there IS something you don't understand about them, ask a staff member, however I really don't feel they that hard to understand to the extent where certain rules need to be elaborated...

 

[Ayjay]

This is a roleplay server, that's all I really need to say to you.

I dont understand why you think scamming is so unrealistic, it happens.

 

[LEWIS 088]

On phone at work. @HolyShititsDannyD I've got no warnings or bans also and have 77 days playtime. It's really not hard to follow the rules. I'm an idiot and I managed fine.

 

[MattIs]

I agree that the rule needs re-wording however it's a roleplay server. This shit happens in real life, so it can happen on here too.

 

[jay_]

I've been here since late 2013 and I've had hardly and bans or warnings.

Oh wait, I'm not Daymon. I'm a happy Chewbacca.

I don't see why you struggle to understand them though. Most of my bans I know mainly what I did wrong after I did it. Only If I knew before

 

[MoronPipllyd]

I appreciate your concern, your request seems pretty specific and honed in to 3.3 if you want to create a thread that suggests specific changes that are concerning you feel free to post a suggestion for an amendment to 3.3. Simply saying 'rules are unclear' isn't really good criticism there's nothing we can do with that unless we know exactly what your issue is.