Addressing crime in character

[DLimit]

2 minutes ago, DasFroggy said:

 

Except that there's no way to know if they'll honor that little arrangement. It's essentially accepted fact that most people are going to see upwards of three to five bodies a day, so what's the likely outcome when four people armed with equipment specify engineered for killing and nothing but, approach you, in a city where more people die each day than accounted for in the total national weekly average in most third world countries?

 

Which brings us back to the question, are we going to accept the unrealistic crime rate and all the implications that come with it, or are we going to crack down on the unrealistic crime rate?

 

Something tells me people are going to opt for the status quo of realism only when fun for some.

Rules state that IC is IC. Cannot void any thing, in game, unless an admin permits it. Hence, the IC crime should be treated as IC crime.

[DasFroggy]

Just now, DLimit said:

Rules state that IC is IC. Cannot void any thing, in game, unless an admin permits it. Hence, the IC crime should be treated as IC crime.

 

Which is why this discussion is taking place, as the crime rate has reached a point where the only possible IC response is in contradiction to the rules. If we're going to accept an unrealistic crime rate, people shouldn't be punished for unrealistic responses to said unrealistic crime rate.

[DLimit]

5 minutes ago, DasFroggy said:

 

Which is why this discussion is taking place, as the crime rate has reached a point where the only possible IC response is in contradiction to the rules. If we're going to accept an unrealistic crime rate, people shouldn't be punished for unrealistic responses to said unrealistic crime rate.

When people address these case studies of "Legal characters" getting ajailed for shooting back at armed gunmen. Here's the questions that I have:

1. Was it 1 v 2/3/4/5/6 situation? Was the legal armed defender out-gunned?

2. Is the legal armed defender actually trained on how to use the firearm? Most gun-owners haven't even practiced in the shooting range, and easily crack under pressure, causing them to be unable to react effectively to a hostile situation with a firearm. Studies have shown that these same people have panicked and been shot at during "mock" robberies. Gang-bangers, on the other hand, more than likely have engaged in shoot-outs (depending on the region). On top of all of this, average gang-banger is probably under the influence of some sort of drug that would make them react more rapidly to such a situation, especially when they already have the upper-hand with a firearm aimed at them.

In the end, it's all relative to the situation... isn't black or white. I believe this is why admins ASK for each person to state their character backstory before forming their verdict. In all of the reports that I've read? It seemed justified.

P.S.: Haven't slept in the past 24 hours, so pardon my poor grammar.

Edited October 26, 2021 by DLimit

[DasFroggy]

7 minutes ago, DLimit said:

Was it 1 v 2/3/4/5/6 situation? Was the legal armed defender out-gunnded?

 

If that many are approaching you, visibly armed with weapons for killing, in a city where upwards of five to ten people are killed every day, it's extremely likely anything but a violent response will lead to being killed, possibly even I'm a horrific fashion. 

 

7 minutes ago, DLimit said:

Is the legal armed defender actually trained on how to use the firearm? Most gun-owners haven't even practiced in the shooting range, and easily crack under pressure, causing them to be unable to react effectively to a hostile situation with a firearm.

 

The panicked reaction is usually to draw their firearm and attempt to use it. People are punished for this in this community.

 

7 minutes ago, DLimit said:

In the end, it's all relative to the situation... isn't black or white. I believe this is why admins ASK for each person to state their character backstory before forming their verdict. In all of the reports that I've read? It seemed justified.

 

The backstory is that they live in the most dangerous city on the planet. They know that a lot of people die to violent crime, but when they decide to panic and be fearful...

 

...oh, sorry! Not sorry. You're not allowed to actually legitimately panic in a realistic fashion if it's inconvenient. You have to exclusively follow one specific course of action, because we've arbitrarily decided that's realistic, even though it rarely creates actual fun and engaging scenes.

 

But nevermind the unrealistic crime rate. Can't be bothered with realism, because how would that be fun?

Edited October 26, 2021 by DasFroggy

[DLimit]

16 minutes ago, DasFroggy said:

 

If that many are approaching you, visibly armed, in a city where upwards of five to ten people are killed every day, it's extremely likely anything but a violent response will lead to being killed, possibly even I'm a horrific fashion. 

 

 

The panicked reaction is usually to draw their firearm and attempt to use it. People are punished for this in this community.

 

 

The backstory is that they live in the most dangerous city on the planet. They know that a lot of people die to violent crime, but when they decide to panic and be fearful...

 

...oh, sorry! Not sorry. You're not allowed to actually legitimately panic in a realistic fashion if it's inconvenient. You have to exclusively follow one specific course of action, because we've arbitrarily decided that's realistic, even though it rarely creates actual fun and engaging scenes.

 

But nevermind the unrealistic crime rate. Can't be bothered with realism, because how would that be fun?

It's all relative to the scene, though. I've seen situations where "civilians" have shot and murdered or injured armed robbers, before. They were justified since it seemed realistic for the situation. However, if the "victim" is out-numbered OR are at a major disadvantage in a situation, then drawing the firearm is the worst option as it would lead to death. It's never black or white, and the server permits proper usage of one's licensed firearm if RP'd properly.

It's not as black and white as people make it out to be.

EDIT: Now, hypothetically, if one were one of those "concerned legal citizens" that decided to invest in a firearm for one's safety... I'm talking about the most "civilian of civilian". The whole "I don't smoke weed because it's illegal" group... do you think they'd be mentally or physically equipped to yank out a firearm on a suspect in such a heated situation? Did they train in the range for it? Even then, would range training be enough for a real-life stressful situation? Probably not.

That usually applies to most "civilians" in the U.S... probably even within San Andreas.

But, back to the original statement, though. Not every civilian or scene is 100% the same, and certain acts are justified while others are not. It's not "legal v. illegal". Criminals get the whole "It's unrealistic" argument when a 14-17 year old yanks out the glock and aims it at 10 officers. Same applies to civilians with criminals. Both sides can get CK'd for it. Same even applies if 5 open-carrying citizens were competing against 2 gang-bangers... the gang-bangers would be punished for not fearing for their lives. It's never been one-sided.

Doesn't matter whether S.A. is "like Iraq"... are the citizens really equipped for it? In Blaine County? Good chunk of them DO engage in community policing, in a sense, and it's RP'd effectively as these people hunt in the forest and shoot in the range, daily. Half of them are illegal posing as legal. Want to know something about Blaine county? They protested towards the government to be permitted to open-carry firearms. They took IC action to reduce crime in the region. It's working. Maybe, the city-dwelling civilians should try protesting to the government, like many of us have been saying since day one.

The admins permit it. It's just whether the act was realistic, or not.

Edited October 26, 2021 by DLimit

[DasFroggy]

3 minutes ago, DLimit said:

However, if the "victim" is out-numbered OR are at a major disadvantage in a situation...

 

They should still be allowed to panic. It's a fear response, people won't think clearly and they'll make poor decisions, one of which is defending themselves. Will they get shot, killed even? Probably! But they should have the choice to panic.in such a way.

 

Except that they can't panic. There is a hard OOC limit that says they can only.panic one way, "for convenience".

 

7 minutes ago, DLimit said:

I'm talking about the most "civilian of civilian". The whole "I don't smoke weed because it's illegal" group... do you think they'd be mentally or physically equipped to yank out a firearm on a suspect in such a heated situation?

 

A lack of training is all the equipment anyone needs to not understand how exactly drawing a gun can make a situation infinitely more dangerous. As someone trained and experienced in interacting with the general populace and assessing their threat potential to my posting, it is rarely anything but the lack of training that makes a person dangerous and prone to exercising lethal force when inappropriate.

 

This idea of knowing stuff? ...like when to draw a gun, or assess when it's too dangerous? That's stuff you TRAIN to know. It doesn't come naturally, and a lot of shootings occur precisely because people don't understand that their position is not optimal for drawing a weapon and surviving.

 

11 minutes ago, DLimit said:

the server permits proper usage of one's licensed firearm if RP'd properly.

 

The sever permits a meta that can force compliance even though it's unrealistic, but doesn't bat an eye when the crime rate starts shutting down community roleplay enough that a "why is the city so empty?" discussions start popping up every month or so. The server is okay with unrealistic crime, but punishes realistic responses to the unrealistic crime. You're right, it's not black and white, it's mostly.one-sided black.

 

13 minutes ago, DLimit said:

Not every civilian or scene is 100% the same, and certain acts are justified while others are not. It's not "legal v. illegal".

 

I agree with this. It's civilian and criminal versus bad RPers. The only reason we even have to discuss this is because there is a section of poor quality roleplayers that are leaning on the outdated meta for every possible gain they can get.

[free]

1 hour ago, DasFroggy said:

 

Five hundred world points says that if pulled over, they'd shoot the cop because they were afraid of going to prison.

It happens in real life too. Here you go , only in this case the suspect didn’t have it his way

 

[DLimit]

7 minutes ago, DasFroggy said:

 

They should still be allowed to panic. It's a fear response, people won't think clearly and they'll make poor decisions, one of which is defending themselves. Will they get shot, killed even? Probably! But they should have the choice to panic.in such a way.

 

Except that they can't panic. There is a hard OOC limit that says they can only.panic one way, "for convenience".

 

 

A lack of training is all the equipment anyone needs to not understand how exactly drawing a gun can make a situation infinitely more dangerous. As someone trained and experienced in interacting with the general populace and assessing their threat potential to my posting, it is rarely anything but the lack of training that makes a person dangerous and prone to exercising lethal force when inappropriate.

 

This idea of knowing stuff? ...like when to draw a gun, or assess when it's too dangerous? That's stuff you TRAIN to know. It doesn't come naturally, and a lot of shootings occur precisely because people don't understand that their position is not optimal for drawing a weapon and surviving.

 

 

The sever permits a meta that can force compliance even though it's unrealistic, but doesn't bat an eye when the crime rate starts shutting down community roleplay enough that a "why is the city so empty?" discussions start popping up every month or so. The server is okay with unrealistic crime, but punishes realistic responses to the unrealistic crime. You're right, it's not black and white, it's mostly.one-sided black.

 

 

I agree with this. It's civilian and criminal versus bad RPers. The only reason we even have to discuss this is because there is a section of poor quality roleplayers that are leaning on the outdated meta for every possible gain they can get.

My recommendation is this... Blaine county spoke with Hoffman and other politicians to permit open-carrying firearms AND to relocate more Law enforcement up in county. This allowed both community policing AND increased police presence in the region. The city should protest this to the government and discover methods towards reducing crime in the region.

Poor RPers will always exist. Report them, and the problem is solved. 

Treat the IC crime as IC crime, and undergo countless IC means towards reducing it, while we're at it. 

Know what I'd like to see? More strikes... shut down the ports, shut down trucking companies, shut down liquor stores etc... to convey that the masses want to "STOP THE VIOLENCE!". Nothing wrong with direct-action via blockades and strikes. Try it.

Edited October 26, 2021 by DLimit

[Amellis]

8 minutes ago, DLimit said:

Poor RPers will always exist. Report them, and the problem is solved. 

The thing is, the rules are shielding them... If someone aims a gun at you, out of fear for your life, your natural response can be to... Run away. This is a realistic scenario and people very rarely get murdered for it for reasons that don't exist in game... Many people WILL hear the shot, you're likely to be recorded at any point prior, during and after the crime, you leave many evidences behind that forensics can actually work with, but most important: You'll likely get caught and spend YEARS in jail.

 

Now, you do that in GTA:W, /report for DM and the rules say you PG'ed by not fearing for your character's life. The thieves walk away with it because the investigators have nothing but a corpse and a few casings and even in the stupid, extremely highly unlikely scenario where you get caught, you're sent to jail for a few days and boom. Free to do it again with nothing but an extra charge for the next time you get caught, if it even happens.

 

And hey, it's powergaming for the victims but not for the thiefs. They clearly are fearing for their lives by killing someone simply because they had to ask for their wallet twice...

 

Edit: With this I kinda sound like I only support one side. That's not the case, I support ROLEPLAY. That is NOT roleplay. We already have davis gangbangers scouting houses in Vinewood Hills. One of the richest parts of one of the riches countries in the world. Why? PF licenses and no witnesses.

Edited October 26, 2021 by Amellis

[DasFroggy]

5 minutes ago, free said:

It happens in real life too. Here you go , only in this case the suspect didn’t have it his way

 

 

I didn't see one single headshot, or deaths in the span of half a second of the first shots fired.

 

In almost every example you can provide, I guarantee that persons leaving their car to fire upon an officer at their vehicle, need upwards of fifteen seconds to entire minutes to successfully kill an officer. 

 

In GTAW, gunmen kill the officer usually with nigh 100% accurate hits and before the officer can even understand what's happening.

 

Your example is little more than proof of how bad GTAW police stop shootings are in terms of roleplay quality. Play to win and nothing but.

 

4 minutes ago, DLimit said:

My recommendation is this... Blaine county spoke with Hoffman and other politicians to permit open-carrying firearms AND to relocate more Law enforcement up in county. This allowed both community policing AND increased police presence in the region. The city should protest this to the government and discover methods towards reducing crime in the region

 

Assuming the staff don't shut down the legislature and OOC declare the new measures 'too disruptive' to be allowed, that'll just result in more complaints about things being 'too tough' for criminals. It'll get shut down and we'll be back where we were, with people telling us to try it again, only to be told by staff that we shouldn't have been allowed to try it in the first place.

 

If you get me a unanimous admin agreement that any legislation can be passed to fight crime without any OOC interference, I'll take your suggestion seriously, and fight for legislation to put an end to the rampant crime.

 

7 minutes ago, DLimit said:

Treat the IC crime as IC crime*

 

*unless the IC response does not adhere to the one unrealistic response that the rules have mandated as the only allowed response. 

 

We can't respond IC to the IC issue if we're punished for trying to be realistic about our IC response.

 

3 minutes ago, Amellis said:

in the stupid, extremely highly unlikely scenario where you get caught, you're sent to jail for a few days and boom. Free to do it again

 

I'll do you one better, you can find the person that had you arrested, and kill them.