Jump to content

Smilesville

Members
  • Posts

    802
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Smilesville

  1. Now do gang related child murders. Or depictions of criminal drug use by children. Or literally half of the base GTAV game. Like I mentioned elsewhere, underage players (including you) don't belong here - no matter how much they (or anyone else) wish they did.
  2. The gun and ammo limits aren't even remotely realistic, so why are they a thing? If a particular segment of the player base behaves poorly, shouldn't we deal with that instead of hamstringing the entirety of the playerbase? I feel like this is a constant theme.
  3. And my point is that it's really not our problem if you decide to flagrantly ignore the warnings of the base game's rating. An epileptic shouldn't walk into EDM concerts, a diabetic shouldn't enter an eating contest, and minors shouldn't play GTA. Those who choose to ignore the warnings will suffer the consequences. If your being a minor has nothing to do with the suggestion, then don't bring it up in the suggestion thread. The very fact you decided to mention it seems to indicate you believe it should factor into the decision. Again, I really don't see a problem with segregating content by tags, but I'm making abundantly clear that underage players don't belong on this server. You can't say "name me one strip club that doesn't have titties" and expect an answer. "Heavy city roleplay" is typically going to involve themes you're frankly not old enough for yet. You're going to have to find another setting.
  4. Do the dildos depicted in the base game discomfort you? What about the colorful dialog from Trevor and others? My point is this: seems to me you've got all this backwards. I'm not opposed to separating ads by NSFW tags, but let's be clear: venturing into an adult space doesn't mean the adults should be made to tone everything down for you. You've adopted the risk of discomfort by playing an M rated game and further venturing into an online community connected with it - and no matter how much server management may wish otherwise, GTAV is not a game for minors - period. In my opinion, you really shouldn't be here to begin with. There are plenty of roleplaying spaces that don't involve mature subject matter by default.
  5. Resident devil's advocate, here. Full disclosure, I don't think this is a bad idea, necessarily - but this seems like a solution in search of a problem. Are we worried about unrealistic item reuse? People RP giving each other things that don't have in-game script representations all the time. Won't an expiration date attached to items encourage people to simply avoid "wasting" money on the script item altogether? I'm seeing a few things that could go wrong without much of an upside.
  6. It's a server wide problem for anyone forced to interact with the general public - ergo the empty streets. Rather than reform rules surrounding robberies as it pertains to taxi drivers specifically, why not amend them for the entire server?
  7. Reports on top of reports are absolutely not the answer. How can you say things will be resolved in less than a month when the majority of CK appeals in the subforum have been there longer than that? I even see one glaring example that's been idle for more than half a year. What you're saying is just not supported by the evidence. Even if we accept your statistic, 10% is still a really bad number to be waiting multiple months on. Let's err on the side of caution and allow those characters to live if they elect to file an appeal since the process takes so long. I personally think outside CK's are a failed experiment from the 2000's, but if y'all want to keep the system, it's clear we need to fix appeals.
  8. No, they're just accepted for reasons that will never be explained to you using a rubric of judgment that is highly subjective. I suspect everyone here lamenting a lack of CK's will change their tune immediately when their main character is assassinated and they have no idea why. Good luck getting through the appeals process in less than 6 months. A system that broken doesn't need to exist if we refuse to fix it.
  9. I would contend that this isn't exactly the appropriate solution to the problem, though - but I've talked about that ad nauseam in other threads. Artificially preventing resources from being stored in vehicles isn't particularly realistic either.
  10. I mean, when you catch 100+ people actively using and spreading cheats among their factions and let them off with a warning, that really shouldn't be a surprise any more tbh.
  11. Come on, it's not like they used cheat software to give themselves an advantage over everyone else and undermine community trust when relations between players are bad as it is. Y'all seriously need an interior meeting about standards and what's actually bannable.
  12. I love the vibe you're pitching - but I'm not gonna lie when I say I think it'd run right up against the reality of the server. Clubs don't have armed guards because it's fashionable, it's because you've got gang bangers who think it's good RP to ignore the doorman, waltz into a club, then start punching people when someone has something to say about that. Or 14 year old bodybuilders whose players show up specifically to start a fight with your staff. Or extortionists who'll just wait until you're closed to burn you down anyways. The lack of creativity isn't explicitly the server's fault - but the way it's built, and the way it absolutely refuses to curb this unrealistic jackassery does discourage unique concepts.
  13. Yeah, I'm not talking about loans. What MJ is saying (I believe) is that players themselves could develop a system of credit. After all - the point of credit is to determine the level of risk involved in loaning an individual money. Of course, there are good reasons it hasn't happened yet. Developing reliable credit takes longer than the server has been around - much less its characters - and speeding up that process makes it fairly worthless as an indicator of reliability. It may be convenient for you to be able to take out credit, but the state of the server is such that no investor in their right mind would spend on that.
  14. Except they don't want IC to be IC, or we'd have a bill signed tomorrow expanding prison sentences from days to months - or years. "OOC protection for me, but not for thee" seems to be the theme, here.
  15. Hey, don't be mad at me. You played yourself. Where's the violent crime in the quote you cited? "Simple assault" is threatening to punch someone, or slapping someone. Is that your excuse for robberies taking place in line of sight of the Mission Row PD? The fact of the matter is that the "broad daylight" argument makes sense if what we're going for is realism with regards to the way we play the game - but are we going for Heavy RP, or are we going for GTA Online Lite? The ability to commit crimes without regard for the time of day or how densely populated an area would realistically be seems to indicate to me that we want GTA Online Lite. If that's the standard, and What You See Is What You Get, then so be it. That's how you get maxed out locks and alarms with nobody carrying anything for you to steal. Mess with the alarms, and you'll have the return of car stashes as people flood their car inventories with all their property stuff right before a server reset. Stop them from doing that, and they won't bother owning anything you want to steal at all. I mean, to restate the obvious. You played yourself.
  16. The study you're citing actually shows the reverse. People do care about what they're caught committing in broad daylight - which is why more serious and violent crimes are reserved for... night time. That was the explicitly stated conclusion of the study - further compounded by the exception being the weekend. What changes between 2pm on a weekday and 2pm on a weekend? More people are out and about. The data you're citing is not showing what you're alleging it does unless you want to claim that criminals all have meetings on the weekends that keep them from committing crime.
  17. Burglary and robbery are both classified as a violent crime under the ACCA; it's not a "simple property crime." Way to blow your own point out of the water.
  18. Nope. Sorry. Alarms aren't designed to be fair or give anyone a chance to "win." Crews who actually conduct robberies are going to know police response times and plan accordingly. If you have to pop in and emote (lingering an appropriate amount of time to have reasonably conducted the action) and then pop back out, do it - don't sit there pinging the admin over and over. Or better yet, do what burglars do and avoid properties with alarms altogether. Whichever.
  19. I specifically meant the point at which the burglary starts. I agree requests take entirely too long to accept, and the system could use work on that front.
  20. Alarms aren't designed for you to have a chance to win. Sorry. It's not an OOC meta that LS is a crime ridden hellhole, it's just the natural outcome of the oversaturation of crime. This is a back and forth that will never get resolved. You can say there are countermeasures against alarms. I can say there are a suite of home protection installations that aren't available to homeowners. You can say those are not realistic for LS houses to have. I can say there's no real world example of a city with LS's crime rates to tell us what realistic would look like. There's no end in sight. There are methods to mitigate your risk from alarms - use some ingenuity to find them. You won't be able to rob every house you want to, but if you're smart, you won't be caught. The system is fine.
  21. Such a bully. 😔 My hope with the first post was to bring to light the trouble that could come along with excessive zeal in this regard - even putting aside the matter of falsified reports, a lack of a meticulously outlined standard has the potential to stir up more toxicity than a zero tolerance policy would solve. I'm not opposed to the idea that we can approach him to resolve issues with harassment, but I've witnessed initiatives like this breed toxicity on this server before. It can be immensely helpful if done correctly, it's true - and if my criticism helps refine that system even a little, I'll be happy. Bridging the divide between players would involve making changes to the server and its rules that some people would undoubtedly be very unhappy with at first, in my opinion. I do believe it's possible, it's just a matter of aligning everyone's OOC incentives in the same direction - but I'd prefer to leave that discussion to another thread or seventy. Striving for perfection is fine, but we have to temper that desire with the knowledge that we'll never achieve it. If we're capable of something close to it, however (and we are,) I think it'd be worth the effort of creating.
  22. I prefer overcomplication to oversimplification, frankly. If we're able to root out instances of harassment for which we have logs to verify them (the forums and GTAW discord are two such mediums) that's well and good - but that's not what I'm talking about here. There have been instances in the past where individuals have been banned over private discord messages - and that's entirely inappropriate for the reasons I mentioned. One such reason is: you didn't write this. But there it is. I made this in the span of two minutes. You absolutely cannot trust screenshots relying on data you cannot independently verify - especially without offering the accused a chance to rebut the accusation. If it sounds like I'm mentioning a specific incident, it's because I am. I'm glad we agree that we need clearly defined lines, though - because I certainly believe you've crossed that line several times. You probably think the same of me. And that's precisely why we need objective definitions and standards - if only to have a clear point at which we can affirm we need to reign ourselves and our strong opinions in. Whether the post is consistent with Nervous' personal behavior or not, I won't pass up an opportunity to applaud and emphasize a good point when I see it (or call out a bad point when I see it, such as the inappropriate leniency with regards to the latest massive cheating outbreak.) I think it's important for everyone to take a step back and recognize we're not at 100% all the time. Managing a team is stressful, a team of volunteers more so - I can certainly understand those stressors momentarily getting the better of someone and prompting a rant.
  23. As a quick preface to my quibbles, I think a better community is something we should all strive towards - or at very least, have our minds open to. While I may disagree with the diagnosis of the issue within the post to which this one references, it goes without argument to say that our objectives do not differ. To foment the development of a more welcoming and understanding community will undoubtedly be hard work for all of us, considering where we stand today - but I doubt anyone would argue that the effort isn't worth the eventual payoff. Like Nervous, I myself discovered my love for writing (and roleplaying, by extension) at a young age - a passion that saw me jumping communities, genres, management styles, et cetera for the past 15 years at least. I have seen what works and, more importantly, what causes a community to break apart. As usual, I wholeheartedly support the "what" of the message as we all should, but the "how" of the bullet points in the announcement is what causes mild concern along with a few other management choices. I really only have a few major concerns to bring up: Harassment reports. My earnest belief is that this is a realm in which we have to tread very carefully. Not only do I worry about the inevitable over-extension of a small group of people handling such reports for a server with so many players daily, I believe this is a misdiagnosis of the core issue. Fabricated evidence is also a potential concern - firsthand, I know how easy it is to bring down a severe punishment on someone without affording them the chance to defend themselves on the basis of an altered screenshot. We should definitely not tolerate harassment in the community, but I fear a hardline approach coupled with the volume of reports will mean that investigative nuance is lost - and when people are wrongly punished, toxicity naturally follows. I would urge management to consider seriously the balance between report confidentiality and the rights of someone accused to defend themselves against allegations - including reviewing the evidence against them. If the revelation of that evidence results in more harassment after the accused distributes it or retaliates against whoever has filed the report, you have all the more evidence against them after that, don't you? The alternative is that those players who are willing to lie, cheat, and fabricate information hold the deceptive power to see someone removed from the server without so much as a chance to address the allegations. Again, I would strongly caution management to err on the side of transparency with regards to the accused and accuser, rather than secrecy. Thread locking. I'm not saying it should never happen, but if I'm being frank, it happens far too often on the forums here. I'm not talking about threads that have devolved into flaming contests - I mean discussions in which the locking administrator takes the opportunity to have the last word before shutting down all debate on a particular topic. I do not believe this is healthy for the community - specifically when it comes to discussions that veer in the direction of becoming suggestions. Regardless of whether a particular idea has been rejected in the past, why lock down the discussion? We'll never find effective countermeasures to the issues barring the implementation of an idea if debate concerning the mere concept is shut down entirely - and it does tend to foster resentment when those working on the discussion are shut down on a whim. This extends to topics that staff expects will devolve but have not yet; I would encourage staff to give the community the opportunity to subvert their expectations. My hope is to foster a constructive conversation about how we can bridge the divide and extract toxic elements without throwing the baby out with the bath water, as it were - because for every community that's broken apart due to fractures, just as many have done so because of overzealous attempts to combat it. When we say we have a zero tolerance policy against toxicity, we need immaculate specificity regarding how we define toxicity - else the door is open for wildly varying standards between individual staff members (which fosters the very same toxicity we're trying to fight.) We should all have the same goal - and my hope is that we can extend each other the benefit of the doubt going forward in working towards it.
  24. Considering the state of CK appeals, this is not a reasonable position to take.
  25. You are actively making the server worse for everyone and should not be here.
×
×
  • Create New...