Staff changes in how 3.4 is treated

[Walker]

So the staff team decided that it is now 3.4 if you as a civilian attempt to help the police while they are being shot or something like that. No one decided it would be a good idea to notify players regarding this change considering it was previously allowed/not punished for.

Someone should really make a thread for changes in how things are enforced @Bolli @MrLewis

 

[joR]

Ban me!!!!!! I'm chief vigilante when off duty smh.

 

[CodezBlack]

The only thing that annoys me about the staff team is the whole "Staff Discretion" thing. Similar to what Feng said.

The rules are so open and really just a pile of shit. Same goes for the punishment for rule breakage. One might let you go off with a verbal warning, while others will perm ban you because they don't like you.

I also think that there should be guidelines on each rule that staff should learn from and follow. Same applies to building bases. One staff member fly's in and says "Aye this is alreet" and then in the next hour another staff member comes on and goes "This barricade is 47.9 centimetres off this wall therefore its unsupported" and then just throws it across the room without even letting the owner pick it up. This is also bad for the staff team because if a staff member comes on and be's 'soft' and lets people off and then another 'strict' staff member comes on and gets rid of it could give that staff member a bad name and cause people to dislike him.

Basically all I am saying is that the whole "Staff Discretion" thing should be removed or at least reworked as theres too many opinions leading to too many invalid shit stinkin bans.

 

[joR]

Before this turns into a bashing session which will NOT get this anywhere, let's keep it civil like it is. Valid points have been raised which I'm sure can be addressed by the staff team.

I feel it would be a good idea to make some guidelines on bans, which of course don't always have to be followed if there are aggravating factors such as previous history, conduct, intention etc etc.

 

[Chrissy]

Before this turns into a bashing session which will NOT get this anywhere, let's keep it civil like it is. Valid points have been raised which I'm sure can be addressed by the staff team.

I feel it would be a good idea to make some guidelines on bans, which of course don't always have to be followed if there are aggravating factors such as previous history, conduct, intention etc etc.

what you chatting you said you thought the staff team were shit earlier smh

 

[Walker]

Didnt want a beefy thread this is just a informative thing so people dont get banned for helping police not knowing its against rules

 

[joR]

Didnt want a beefy thread this is just a informative thing so people dont get banned for helping police not knowing its against rules

Yeah right @Walker

 

[Chrissy]

I don't like the way the staff team works at all and I personally think they should all be demoted and retrained under the direction of a new head admin because I don't think @Bolli is up to the job.

​

 

[Teemo]

This might give me a warning or ban from the foums, but hey! that will just prove my point of most staff being biased cry babies who cannot take any shit without calling 911 and tell them they have been RDM'ed.

I think this was also a point raised by Tyla.
I do partially agree some staff members can be very biased towards org members or enemies of that org.

 

[Chrissy]

Actually, ignoring my bait post above and for all I bash the staff team a I'd argue that there's actually less bias prevalent now than ever before in most cases. Corrupt people are weeded out generally quite well, such as Tyla and @Jordan.

 

[joR]

Actually, ignoring my bait post above and for all I bash the staff team a I'd argue that there's actually less bias prevalent now than ever before in most cases. Corrupt people are weeded out generally quite well, such as Tyla and @Jordan.

 

[Chrissy]

 

[Riekelt]

Isn't it pretty much common sense? It has never been allowed to help out the Police. In most cases it's illegal too. I think it's a good thing that staff members have their own discretion, as there are so many factors to weigh into determining a punishment.

 

[M]

What's changed?
https://perpheads.com/threads/dispute-mark-2.16155/

 

[Walker]

What's changed?
https://perpheads.com/threads/dispute-mark-2.16155/

3.4 - Joined in an active shootout when he was not involved what so ever. He decided to try to aid the cops by shooting the criminals however breaking laws and involving himself provided him with no benefit what so ever.

is different to running over a single criminal thats shooting a cop in order to save his life is it not? As I understand tom joined a gunfight with the intention of shooting criminals which endangered his life. Taking out one criminal and saving a lone officer (as an example) isnt really risking your life if you take him by surprise.


Off Topic: This thread was meant to be about staff creating a thread to inform people on what they decide on in meetings, not to roast bans they make.

 

[Fusions]

One might let you go off with a verbal warning, while others will perm ban you because they don't like you.

Hmmm i wonder who the one is that perms you because they have a grudge. HMMMMMM FUCKING HMMMMMM hmm mmm hkohdzshndnshksndhi

 

[Imperial Watch]

Some rules are just inherently too broad
In some ways that is a good thing and a bad thing as it allows situations to develop without too much external force but also the fact that they are based on admin discretion. When staff members' discretions conflict, it would very obviously result in many disgruntled players as the hypothetical (and from my experiences real) situation mentioned earlier, i.e the construction scenario, occurs with many players not knowing up from down because of too many "opinions" on how things like that should be done.

As in differences in punishments, I personally believe not having strict "guidelines" for bans is more advantageous than disadvantageous as it allows to exercise human judgement rather than just say "it says in the book that killing one person for no reason is 3 day ban and you killed 6 people so 6x3= 18 and that is a 3 week ban for you my good friend ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ "
Naturally, the judgements enforced by the staff members are also subject to criticism as sometimes it can easily be perceived that sometimes they are just overreaching when it comes to what they ban people for.

 

[Smeris]

So the staff team decided that it is now 3.4 if you as a civilian attempt to help the police while they are being shot or something like that.

what the actual fuck is this bullshit. i litteraly get assfucked if i do something unrealistic but if i do the MOST HUMAN THING IN THE WORLD(helping another human) its now breaking 3.4 @ShadowJoey i thought you were all for helping other humans

Hmmm i wonder who the one is that perms you because they have a grudge. HMMMMMM FUCKING HMMMMMM hmm mmm hkohdzshndnshksndhi

grow some braincells? what are you on about

 

[Itzryzo]

I personally think that the staff team as it is now is better than ever before, but there is still room for much improvement as always.
Transparency is key and i believe better communication between the staff and community will improve everyone's experience.

 

[JustJosh]

Sometimes it is completely stupid and one staff member says you can do something but another completely contradicts it and you are banned.