Community Suggestion Stop banning people for info they couldnt possibly know?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
13
Reaction score
4
Points
55
Suggestion Title: Stop banning people for info they couldnt possibly know?
Suggestion Description: People are getting banned for situations where they are believing they are assisting players in a situation where they are allowed to; for example "Ten Toes", assisting an arrested/in process to be arrested player against the Cops; but the player was either freed en route, was in a car crash, or died and needed EMS. Causing players to raid PD before they arrived, or kill cops after the player was freed.

I am suggesting that there needs to be a reform on this kind of issue, why are players getting banned or removed for simply not being omniscient or clairvoyant? We are playing a game after all, if a Player believes with all genuine benefit of a doubt that what they are doing is within the rules; surely they should be looked at with better grounds?

A few examples crossed my mind and that I've been a part of.

Example A) Police arrest someone at the Bazaar for 9.5. On the way to PD a crazy Medic accidently swerves into the cops which totals the car. While the suspect was being arrested he said Ten toes and his org communicated it. His org at Suburbs then gears up and five minutes later believing that reasonable time has elapsed, raid PD. But the suspect is still with Officers on the Highway being revived. Everyone who raids PD gets banned.

Example B) Police believe a person has committed multiple Murders by accident and tell someone IC they are being given max sentence for murder. Which is "Ten Toes". An org member hears this, tells the rest of his dudes about it, they gear up and kill all the cops on scene. However, it turns out the Cop was a pistol cop; who had no DNA of the scene yet and the person was a bystander. Everyone who gets involved gets banned.

Example C) A suspect being arrested for "Ten Toes" near Bazaar gets freed during the arrest, the initial wave of people freeing the suspect all die , but the freed suspect manages to escape. Without further communication - the Cops no longer know who was originally Ten Toes and the freeing assailants are now fighting Cops under the belief they are fully within the rules - but the person is now free making it against the rules. The people who are now trying to free "nobody" all get banned for not seeing through the fog of war.

When an org member is in combat they sometimes are shit at giving comms or not and sometimes decisions are made on a hair. The wrong decision can happen and it should be understood that we shouldn't ban players for just seeing through the mist.

Why should this be added?:
- Fairness for Players.

- More understanding within the Community.

- Less bans for unavoidable gameplay.
(By this, I mean that bannable behaviour is typically gameplay that is to be avoided, like RDM / Metagaming. I dont see mistakes as avoidable, by nature they are mistakes and usually within this community if it is identified that an offender is making a genuine mistake they usually are left off with a warning and not week long bans.)

What negatives could this have?:
- I can't really think of any.

What problem would this suggestion solve?: I went into a lot of detail further above but I can expand if questioned on it.
 
Messages
995
Reaction score
2,057
Points
800
Location
Basement
You mention accountability but seem to place it in the wrong place. The person giving the incorrect information (if deliberate) should be punished. The scenario you seem to describe is to make it so organization members simply don't trust each other. Whats to stop a player at the Bazaar being detained by the Police to give a 2k ticket to scream ten toes and some random fella one-shots them but gets banned for "not being aware of the risks" or "should have done due diligence". It seems like the amount of times this shit occurs where things happen by the slim chance without a report are extremely lucky, and the way your ruleset frames this particular section of being aware is so flimsy it allows an entire clan to be banned based on the fuck-up of one or two people.

Take a recent example;
Person A is being arrested for ten years.

Person B and C want to free them, while making person D aware of the potential fight.

Person D declines to initially participate.

Person B and C attack the cops to free A, A is freed, B dies and C is seen being killed by cops, by person D.

Person A gets freed in the interim, making the situation no longer "Ten Toes" and runs away.

However at this point, the fight restarts as more cops respond and fire at B and C, D now comes to help them, but is now in "Rulebreak Mode" because he somehow is expected to know person A has run off in an entirely different direction.

Person E is asked by Person D for help after being made aware of the situation. And E joins in and kills cops.

Person D and E get banned, and no one else is punished.

Are bans really warranted in a situation like this? I dont think so.

B and C are dead who are the cops shooting at to restart the fight god damnit anthony are they fighting their demons i hate you anthony
What you stated is again not against the rules, provided D joins to help right away where information he acts on is still legitimate (arrested friend has not served sentence, and he knows he got arrested)
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,538
Reaction score
4,743
Points
740
Location
Scotland
I think you should attempt to empathise with players a bit more in this case, it's a game, people play it for fun, Perpheads can be summed up as a cops and robbers game with a lot of fluff on either side. With that being in mind, people are going to want to fight Cops (The players deliberately given free equipment in order to be cannon fodder for these players.) I have seen personally many times people go against the Cops simply because they can, I.E breaking out players cuffed, helping out when ten toes happens. To pretend this isn't the case is just denying reality. The moderation should cater to the community it's elected by.

Furthermore, while it may make sense from a Moderators perspective that players should "investigate more" 99% of the time it's unrealistic to do so, if an Org member tells you they're being raided you have a choice whether to believe them or not and if you are in the Org what reason would you have to not believe them? You're going to respond with a gun and kill the perceived raiders? Same thing with Ten Toes. If it's someone you trust to play alongside in an Org its pretty much a given you'll trust them when they tell you they're ten toes, leading to you getting banned for the whims and mistakes of others, whether intentional or not. That is bad design.

Punishments and severity for them should always be based on the intention of the player and the harm on the community it imposes. Unavoidable mistakes and miscommunication happen and approaching situations from the side where players should "just investigate more" is a bit privileged. It assumed a reality where players are literally afraid to play the game for fear one of their Org members might decide to get everyone banned one day for the fuck of it.
This is a serious RP server, god forbid you have to actually roleplay before going on a killing spree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Top