Jump to content

Remove One, Delete One


Akali

Recommended Posts

So we've had a few threads as of late that's just pooled into toxicity, arguments and whatnot. 

 

So here's my question!

If you could add a rule to the server and remove one rule, what would it be? Also you gotta think up some cool name for it that doesn't sound weird.  


Remove: Mine would have to be Rule 12, Crime Free areas. People can get into trouble in a bank, in a police station, it doesn't really matter. I don't understand how there's some strange forcefield that stops criminal activity from occurring just because it is happening in a place surrounded by cameras. It should still happen but obviously the person doing it is gonna get caught.

Add:  I would name Rule 21 "Fighting Chance/Last Stand (or something cool idk)" which is basically a rule where if you are caught in a totally unwinnable situation such as trapped in a car with LSPD aiming guns at you, or you're caught in a situation where you're heavily outnumbered and you raise offensive action to stop the situation from happening? That's totally fine. But if you die? That's game over for the character you currently have.

This is to stop people from deliberately getting into unwinnable situations, raising a gun to stop the consequences from happening such as prison, losing items, etc.

Please don't let this thread go toxic. 

Edited by Akali
Link to comment

My issue with you advocating for Rule 12 to be gone is where is the line drawn? I actually partially agree that it's almost too encompassing and could be laxed in areas. But to remove it entirely would take away from realism. There is already ample oppertunity for thieves to pray on some areas like ATM's which aren't protected by this rule.

 

But what thief is realistically going to hold somebody up outside of an active police station or bank? The rule is built to reasonably compensate for the fact we're in a roleplay server that can't always accurately potray employment and presence in places where in any realistic scenario; there would be. Most players use ATM's anyway, so I don't personally see a reason for banks and police stations to be immediately drawn as 'fair game'.

 

edit:
"People can get into trouble in a bank, in a police station"

Really? I'm sure you can show examples if I questioned this of one or two incidents but this is so extremely unlikely, a bank sure. But allowing people to do criminal actions inside of a police station is a little silly.

 

And how does the cashier at the bank react to this? Is there a script for them to immediately contact the police. Cause realistically it makes no sense otherwise. This rule is here for a good reason.

Edited by KaythPlus
Link to comment
1 minute ago, KaythPlus said:

My issue with you advocating for Rule 12 to be gone is where is the line drawn? I actually partially agree that it's almost too encompassing and could be laxed in areas. But to remove it entirely would take away from realism. There is already ample oppertunity for thieves to pray on some areas like ATM's which aren't protected by this rule.

 

But what thief is realistically going to hold somebody up outside of an active police station or bank? The rule is built to reasonably compensate for the fact we're in a roleplay server that can't always accurately potray employment and presence in places where in any realistic scenario; there would be. Most players use ATM's anyway, so I don't personally see a reason for banks and police stations to be immediately drawn as 'fair game'.

 

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Akali said:

Remove: Mine would have to be Rule 12, Crime Free areas. People can get into trouble in a bank, in a police station, it doesn't really matter. I don't understand how there's some strange forcefield that stops criminal activity from occurring just because it is happening in a place surrounded by cameras. It should still happen but obviously the person doing it is gonna get caught.

Never happening. Currently our one city with a population less than one thousand is somehow committing three times more murders than the entirety of Colombia. Removing restrictions would make an already bad situation immensely worse.

 

This is a discussion best reserved for the suggestions forum.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, DasFroggy said:

This is a discussion best reserved for the suggestions forum.

Don't agree. I think the OP posted this with the intention of fun hypothetical rules. Pointless giving the suggestion team a whole lot more to look at when most of them are just nice rules for discussion but with no real thought about implementation and so on. It's a fun concept, but not nothing to bog the suggestion team with.

 

  

Just now, Phased said:

Point of the thread is what would YOU remove - people on this forum need to stop taking everything so literally and putting up a defence to something that's not even being suggested lol.

What? ... What are you on about? Nobody is doing that lol. It's a discussion thread..? We're just discussion the OP's choices. Opinions and conversation, isn't that what this section is? Don't get toxic, we're just giving opinions.

Edited by KaythPlus
Link to comment

I honestly think that Rule 6) Character Rules has an absolutely bizarre take on character ages, particularly how no characters are allowed to be under 16 unless they intend to get involved with a gang faction. It always seemed absolutely bizarre to me that in a server that has made the decision to not mark itself 18+, and has reservations about allowing characters under 16, on the other hand makes it the one exception to allow teens under 16 only if they're made for the purpose of being systematically abused, bullied, brainwashed and radicalized into violent crime, but you can't make a normal 14 year old that is a classmate of that one gang kid that just decides to stay in school.

 

And it's not like I'm offended by teen gang initiation stories, teen violence or gritty hood stories. It all just connects to your question of what rule you'd add: just make the server 18+. Can it be enforced? As much as you can enforce the fact that the base game is meant for adult audiences anyway, I guess, but paying lip service to the idea of this server not being 18+ while the rules explicitly make exceptions to allow for violent, graphic and systematic abuse of underage characters is a bit bizarre to me.

  • Upvote 4
  • Applaud 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, KaythPlus said:

 

What? ... What are you on about? Nobody is doing that lol. It's a discussion thread..? We're just discussion the OP's choices. Opinions and conversation, isn't that what this section is? Don't get toxic, we're just giving opinions.

Both of the replies above mines are arguing against OP's choices - it's not suggestion, you don't need to tell them why their choice wouldn't work lol.  It's not toxic to tell people they don't need to argue against everything they see lmao.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Phased said:

Both of the replies above mines are arguing against OP's choices - it's not suggestion, you don't need to tell them why their choice wouldn't work lol.  It's not toxic to tell people they don't need to argue against everything they see lmao.

Just because two people discuss and debate two opposing sides to a suggestion doesn't make it an argument. It wasn't us arguing, so theres that. I only wanted to point out trivalities of the rule the OP may not have thought of. The OP even states "it should still happen but obviously the person doing it is gonna get caught." implying they disagree with the current implementation. If you've an issue with us discussing something somebody has said in the discussion section then I don't know what to say to you honestly. You're the only one here turning this into a big deal and derailing the topic. We were just happily discussing matters related to the thread. You do you, I guess.

Link to comment
  • Wuhtah locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
  • Create New...