Questions concerning RoE and IFM

[Tank]

Hello,

 

I was involved in a conflict dubbed as a PK war and thus a lot of questions have popped up in my brain.

 

1) Do the Rules of Engagement only apply to CK wars? The RoE thread is not clear enough in this regard, I think. There's no distinction between these two wars as they are named conflicts on the thread.

2) Since there seem to be no rules covering this, are factions allowed to war another without the other party knowing who's attacking them?

3) Can a faction continuously PK members of a different faction based on their visible affiliations? Even if these members have already been PKed?

4) Can factions force or coerce another faction to shut down after a PK war?

 

Thanks.

[Kipps]

In answer to question 3), I would say no. It's immersion breaking to see somebody your character's just killed walking around unharmed days later. But it's also the nature of the game. Just because it's silly doesn't justify killing them over and over again - treating them like a zombie and killing them repeatedly would be even more immersion-breakingly stupid than just suspending your disbelief and pretending they're somebody else who isn't a rival. 

 

If you're unhappy with somebody roleplaying 'consequences' adequately, you need to address this OOC by, for instance, agreeing to terms of victory and defeat. You can't just keep murdering the same person in violation of server rules until they respond in a way you consider appropriate OOC. If you could murder people for bad roleplay, I would run out of ammo within about 12 seconds of logging into the server. 

 

So, basically, if the Rules of Engagement don't say differently, I think that a PK here should be treated a PK like in any other circumstances. Otherwise you'd just have endless killing sprees, which would be totally stupid.

 

I'm also going to say that the answer to  question 4) is no too. I think factions should have the opportunity to roleplay the consequences of a loss, and that this in itself can be fun roleplay, and that these consequences don't necessarily need to involve shutting down. In real life, there are normally terms a losing group can start abiding by in order to prevent further bloodshed/complete annihilation. It's not supposed to be like a CSGO match where killing the other team is the end in itself. 

Edited August 2, 2020 by Kipps

[Dashing]

1) ROE is basically a means of taking steps towards initiating a CK war. Conflicts must still abide by the ROE.

2) Not really sure what you mean here, if your faction is "at war" then I'd assume you'd know who youre in a conflict with, right? If someone in your faction brought on the conflict themselves, it doesn't make you immune to getting attacked by the rival faction if their reasoning is justified.

3) If someone has been PKed, no they shouldn't be targeted again. But yes, if there is a completely valid reason to target faction members based on affiliation then you can get attacked. 

4) That can only be done through a CK war.

[Artz]

Well, there is rules for factions going to war. For a war to even happen, you have to have conflict and it has to be reciprocated from either side in one fashion or another. Let's say that Chamberlain Street gang 1 attacks Forum Drive Streetgang 2, no one dies, but the aggression has been made, by (for example) shooting at them. Now Forum Drive Streetgang 2 gets mad and they wait a few days before shooting up Streetgang 1. Streetgang 1 has a lot of enemies and is not sure who it was in specific - yet they are still at war, because now the aggression has been reciprocated. When and if Streetgang 1 finds out, they can now use this information and plan more attacks - that is the rules for PK wars, as far as I have understood it, and that does mean, that if you put yourself in a situation where you take something, from someone you don't want to take it from, or anger someone you know you shouldn't - go the diplomatic route, fix your issues quickly. 

The whole, "Can I have affiliations and still get attacked on my own turf" question is a hard one, because look at it like this. Player A is killed in a gang attack and is now out of the war, but since it's a PK war, he's still on the block - even though he can't participate in the war aggressively anymore, he can still defend the block and if he is present while the hood is being attacked, he can and will defend, he just can't ride on the opponents. This puts player B in a little bit of a pickle, since player B might know that player A has been killed out of the war - yet if he shoots at his homies, he knows that chances are that player B, who hangs out with the enemies and sports their colors will shoot him. So, there the question is, will he put himself in that position? Because, if  you are war with someone and I know a large gathering of them are verified, but they hang out with a few unverified, you have to remember, chances are they are young G's earning their way.

 

So, that means, if you are on the block during a war, you sport their colors and their crest, even though you've been PK'd out of the war, you should consider, that chances are you might get shot at - is it malicious? I'd think no, in most circumstances, but it's all about being caught slipping. On the other hand, let's say you've been PK'd out of the war and the enemies roll up on you alone - are they then breaking rules? Absolutely, in my opinion.

[Tank]

1 hour ago, Dashing said:

1) ROE is basically a means of taking steps towards initiating a CK war. Conflicts must still abide by the ROE.

2) Not really sure what you mean here, if your faction is "at war" then I'd assume you'd know who youre in a conflict with, right? If someone in your faction brought on the conflict themselves, it doesn't make you immune to getting attacked by the rival faction if their reasoning is justified.

3) If someone has been PKed, no they shouldn't be targeted again. But yes, if there is a completely valid reason to target faction members based on affiliation then you can get attacked. 

4) That can only be done through a CK war.

1) So the guidelines about initiating a conflict and such are still relevant for PK wars?
2) What I mean is this: two allied factions are seemingly on good terms. One faction suddenly kills five members and hides any evidence. The faction victim of this violence is unaware of their attacker. The attacking faction proceeds to hunt down and kill any member with visible affiliations. It's not a war, no, but is something like this allowed? To me it's already breaking RoE since one faction did not retaliate.

3) It was suggested that the attacking faction would continuously murder anyone with visible affiliations even if they have been killed before. As an example, anyone wearing an Hells Angels patch is a kill on sight target . Which leads to my fourth point.

4) The attacking faction is not telling anybody to close but surely by continuously killing another faction is coercion to shut down?

 

1 hour ago, Artz said:

Well, there is rules for factions going to war. For a war to even happen, you have to have conflict and it has to be reciprocated from either side in one fashion or another. Let's say that Chamberlain Street gang 1 attacks Forum Drive Streetgang 2, no one dies, but the aggression has been made, by (for example) shooting at them. Now Forum Drive Streetgang 2 gets mad and they wait a few days before shooting up Streetgang 1. Streetgang 1 has a lot of enemies and is not sure who it was in specific - yet they are still at war, because now the aggression has been reciprocated. When and if Streetgang 1 finds out, they can now use this information and plan more attacks - that is the rules for PK wars, as far as I have understood it, and that does mean, that if you put yourself in a situation where you take something, from someone you don't want to take it from, or anger someone you know you shouldn't - go the diplomatic route, fix your issues quickly. 

The whole, "Can I have affiliations and still get attacked on my own turf" question is a hard one, because look at it like this. Player A is killed in a gang attack and is now out of the war, but since it's a PK war, he's still on the block - even though he can't participate in the war aggressively anymore, he can still defend the block and if he is present while the hood is being attacked, he can and will defend, he just can't ride on the opponents. This puts player B in a little bit of a pickle, since player B might know that player A has been killed out of the war - yet if he shoots at his homies, he knows that chances are that player B, who hangs out with the enemies and sports their colors will shoot him. So, there the question is, will he put himself in that position? Because, if  you are war with someone and I know a large gathering of them are verified, but they hang out with a few unverified, you have to remember, chances are they are young G's earning their way.

 

So, that means, if you are on the block during a war, you sport their colors and their crest, even though you've been PK'd out of the war, you should consider, that chances are you might get shot at - is it malicious? I'd think no, in most circumstances, but it's all about being caught slipping. On the other hand, let's say you've been PK'd out of the war and the enemies roll up on you alone - are they then breaking rules? Absolutely, in my opinion.

I see you are speaking from a gang role-play perspective. I definitely agree with everything you have said. From the example I speak of, there was no retaliation, nor a way for the victim faction to figure out who's attacking them. Yet, all of the faction excluding 3-4 members were killed. When I pointed out the RoE, I was told that it only applied for CK wars which sounded weird, since that'd make PK wars completely void of any rules or regulations.

 

Based on your replies, if they are true, there was never a war to begin with. So my follow-up question is:

 

Can a faction wipe out another faction without the other party knowing IC who the attacker is? Bear in mind, the victim faction was never approached with any sort of diplomacy, no intimidation tactics were deployed, it was simply straight up slaughter. Which means there was also no retaliation.

 

[Artz]

Just now, Tank said:

Based on your replies, if they are true, there was never a war to begin with. So my follow-up question is:

 

Can a faction wipe out another faction without the other party knowing IC who the attacker is? Bear in mind, the victim faction was never approached with any sort of diplomacy, no intimidation tactics were deployed, it was simply straight up slaughter. Which means there was also no retaliation.

 

 

If you are asking me, can a faction wipe out another faction, without the first ever figuring out who they are, yes. I know guys who are capable of doing this scriptly. If you are asking me, if a faction can eradicate another faction with no previously established contact, with no sense of who they are and with no reason, then from a rules perspective, absolutely not. Did I understand the question right?

[Tank]

Just now, Artz said:

 

If you are asking me, can a faction wipe out another faction, without the first ever figuring out who they are, yes. I know guys who are capable of doing this scriptly. If you are asking me, if a faction can eradicate another faction with no previously established contact, with no sense of who they are and with no reason, then from a rules perspective, absolutely not. Did I understand the question right?

The first answer is what I was looking for. In an event such as that, does RoE apply? Is there any sort of "war" while this is occurring? Using the word war here as it was defined in the RoE thread.

[Artz]

Just now, Tank said:

The first answer is what I was looking for. In an event such as that, does RoE apply? Is there any sort of "war" while this is occurring? Using the word war here as it was defined in the RoE thread.

I would say no. If you removed the entire faction in one foul sweep, then there is not anyone left to fight the war, so by doing that you effectively would have won. If you on the other hand are talking about one group continiously harassing and attacking a faction relentlessly, despite never getting attacked back, I'd hope they had a very good reasoning behind, because it'd just be excessive at that point. I am not sure how the latter would work with the rules, but I can't imagine it'd be accepted unless there was a new reasoning behind every single attack.. But in that case, I do feel like you'd probably know who was attacking.

[jesscatXD]

L&A.