Jump to content

peasoup

Platinum Donator
  • Posts

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

18

1 Follower

About peasoup

Personal Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Almost never, because you barely have the government infrastructure to respond adequately to protests. There's hardly an executive to speak of, local or state. There have been legislative measures passed in response to IC pressure, but mostly because the politicians felt like it made sense, not that the IC pressure affected them in any real way, since they're constantly undermined. On top of that, people are bad at politics and the demographics of the server are profoundly unrealistic, so it's really hard to have realistic elections or realistic protests anyway. When the overwhelming majority of people involved in a protest against police violence are actually violent gang members, it becomes a caricature, for example.
  2. It's because it's an IC issue that it doesn't apply to existing CCW permit holders. It's not about OOC fairness of who applied first, it's because the rules being followed are different. They got their CCW when the issuing authority was following a different set of criteria, which doesn't mean their existing CCW permits are going to be revoked retroactively unless someone ICly decides to, I guess.
  3. You can always carry the gun illegally. You can put the gun away somewhere in the truck while within city limits and wear it openly when you cross outside city limits if you want. There are options. You could take it as an IC issue. Gun laws have been altered by the IG Senate before. I get the feeling LFM and IFM wouldn't let the Senate mess around with this too much, but maybe you can get more explicit criteria. Or just tweak the application and apply again and hope for the best, it seems to be a bit inconsistent.
  4. That is not the law in San Andreas, I think mostly because that's not the law in California, where you do have to provide a reason. Then it's up to the local issuing authority, and in some counties it's especially hard to obtain firearms, in others not so much, it depends.
  5. Outside city limits, they can open carry. Within city limits, open carry isn't allowed, so they have to apply for concealed permits, which aren't handed out to everyone. It's not unrealistic. Of course, San Andreas, unlike California, weirdly votes for Republicans, so in theory gun laws should be more lax than California. Which they are in some ways, see open carry above. But on the CCW front that won't happen because there's a lot of outrage about PF usage.
  6. Yeah, it's not unrealistic, though they should spell out the criteria more specifically, maybe. But is your life specifically in danger, or just your stuff? That sort of thing can be used as a kind of criteria, since you're not supposed to murder someone for crimes against property.
  7. I've always felt there's also a lack of crime outside of factions or groups that aim to become factions. I know a lot of factions also encourage development outside of crime, but the fact you're in a faction might channel things into making crime your primary focus. And a lot of people do crime without being associated with any sort of organized group, in RL. They just do crimes of opportunity, or they need the money, but that doesn't mean they're in an actual gang or OCG or anything like that. It's just Bob and Tom stealing from the warehouse Bob used to work in or something like that. My legal characters end up interacting with criminals quite a bit, knowingly or not. Pretty much all of them do drugs, weed at the very least. Sometimes they do a few misdemeanors on the side to supplement their income. I've also played in an illegal faction, but mostly all of those would count as civilians. I do feel like the separation is too stark and "illegal" is assumed to be "illegal faction".
  8. I do. I play along, it's fine. The problem is that it results in poor portrayal. Because normal citizens of LA don't have this much crime happen to them on a regular basis, especially not in some of the locations where it happens in game. So it's really hard to know how to portray it realistically. Realistically, my characters wouldn't go outside, or they'd move out of Los Santos or something. I'm not sure if that's a reasonable expectation. But it's GTA, so there's going to be unrealistic amounts of crime, and that's fine once you stop taking the notion of "heavy RP" too seriously. But the types and locations of crime matter, and that's what this rule change does, it tries to portray LS more realistically as an American city, which in turns should allow people to treat the map and behave in a more natural way, by defining what is and isn't acceptable. People complained about the rule that kept people from South LS to drive into Sandy and Paleto Bay to mug random people. People complained about the rule that banned muggings done with dirtbikes. Did these things cripple illegal RP in any way? Did they even discourage robberies entirely? Not really. People just like to complain.
  9. How am I supposed to develop after the seventh mugging? Or being robbed twice in one week, two attempted robberies in one day. Am I pretending to be in fake LA or am I pretending to be in some kind of favela? How should my character react to this? How should I react to being kidnapped off the supposed equivalent of the Santa Monica pier, loudly, by a sedan full of guys with guns, pointing them out in the open without a care in the world? My characters aren't rich, they aren't flashing wealth to justify the kind of risk that would realistically mean. Do I RP the locations as their LA equivalent or do I portray the actual crime rate I witness? Do I ignore the "RP at all times stuff" and develop selective amnesia?
  10. Across multiple characters, across time, everything from 10k to a little under 200k, most in the 20k to 60k region.
  11. I think the suggestion someone made about having a forum or some other venue to propose a concept OOC and gauge interest for it might help with this. It's no more metagaming than people agreeing to form a faction together, and it lets you cast a wider net than just your immediate OOC friends. Even proper portrayal of a thing as common as a nightclub or a restaurant feels like a niche interest.
  12. I mean, my character complained to yours every now and then about being robbed. It wasn't daily, but there were weeks it happened twice, and days where she had to dodge two attempts and get chased around the city or all across the country. The first couple of robberies, sure, development. The ninth? I'm not counting the time she got shot or all the car thefts and murders she witnessed, just muggings and attempted muggings. If you're not aging up, having close to twenty of those in one IC year is hard to RP. Who would even live in LS anymore? It's why she doesn't. That and all her friends being dead.
  13. I am guessing the bit in Grapeseed is the airport?
  14. This is already part of the rules, thankfully! "In instances where there is a secluded area close to a No Crime Zone, e.g. an alleyway next to a bank, this is not covered by a No Crime Zone." So I assume the same applies to the restricted crime zones, even more so.
×
  • Create New...