+- Fearless Forums (https://fearlessrp.net)
+-- Forum: CityRP Server (https://fearlessrp.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Suggestions (https://fearlessrp.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+---- Forum: Finished (https://fearlessrp.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+---- Thread: Rule 2.8 (/showthread.php?tid=92247)
Rule 2.8 - Random - 04-02-2019
Title of Suggestion: Rule 2.8
Description
Change or remove rule 2.8.
Why?
''2.8 Custom job titles must be realistic (don't roleplay something that isn't human), specific and accurately state what character you intend to roleplay (do not set your job as 'criminal' or 'classified' for example).''
I highlighted the part that I do not agree with. For a long time players and staff have broken this rule, but there has been few issues with it because it has enhanced roleplay. I am suggesting that the (don't roleplay something that isn't human) part should be changed to (you may roleplay as something that isn't human for a story-roleplay or event) or something similar (The part could also be straight out removed..). I have participated in roleplays where there has been non human roleplays, such as: ghosts, demons and other supernatural creatures.
Thoughts?
RE: Rule 2.8 - Agorith - 04-02-2019
Personally my biggest issue with this rule lays in the following highlighted part:
''2.8 Custom job titles must be realistic (don't roleplay something that isn't human), specific and accurately state what character you intend to roleplay (do not set your job as 'criminal' or 'classified' for example).''
This specific part of the rule ends up being 'loopholed' by everyone on the server.
We see it done by staff included, aswell as myself.
"Thug" apparently perfectly allowed whilst just as vague as "criminal"
"Peepeepoopoo gang - creampie" for example, also apparently perfectly allowed within the rules.
Examples can go on.
I'd like to see this changed aswell as your specific part, that I do agree with.
+Support
RE: Rule 2.8 - TheSiphon - 04-02-2019
+support
Though it should include a line that forbids players from roleplaying as animals when it makes no sense, such as someone roleplaying as a dog while they are quite clearly a human.
But for various RP situations, things like a "Cyborg/Robot" would be nice. Same with like any sort of infected creature etc.
RE: Rule 2.8 - Chumps - 04-02-2019
(04-02-2019, 03:07 PM)Agorith Wrote: Personally my biggest issue with this rule lays in the following highlighted part:
''2.8 Custom job titles must be realistic (don't roleplay something that isn't human), specific and accurately state what character you intend to roleplay (do not set your job as 'criminal' or 'classified' for example).''
This specific part of the rule ends up being 'loopholed' by everyone on the server.
We see it done by staff included, aswell as myself.
"Thug" apparently perfectly allowed whilst just as vague as "criminal"
"Peepeepoopoo gang - creampie" for example, also apparently perfectly allowed within the rules.
Examples can go on.
I'd like to see this changed aswell as your specific part, that I do agree with.
+Support
This ^
RE: Rule 2.8 - Random - 04-02-2019
(04-02-2019, 06:06 PM)TheSiphon Wrote: +support
Though it should include a line that forbids players from roleplaying as animals when it makes no sense, such as someone roleplaying as a dog while they are quite clearly a human.
But for various RP situations, things like a "Cyborg/Robot" would be nice. Same with like any sort of infected creature etc.
Yes I agree. Animals should not be allowed to be roleplayed.
RE: Rule 2.8 - rino - 04-02-2019
+Support
RE: Rule 2.8 - Grizzly - 04-02-2019
(04-02-2019, 03:07 PM)Agorith Wrote: Personally my biggest issue with this rule lays in the following highlighted part:
''2.8 Custom job titles must be realistic (don't roleplay something that isn't human), specific and accurately state what character you intend to roleplay (do not set your job as 'criminal' or 'classified' for example).''
This specific part of the rule ends up being 'loopholed' by everyone on the server.
We see it done by staff included, aswell as myself.
"Thug" apparently perfectly allowed whilst just as vague as "criminal"
"Peepeepoopoo gang - creampie" for example, also apparently perfectly allowed within the rules.
Examples can go on.
I'd like to see this changed aswell as your specific part, that I do agree with.
+Support
^ Mhm
RE: Rule 2.8 - TheMJ - 04-02-2019
+support
I have seen some great RP's where people have roleplayed a robot or similar.
RE: Rule 2.8 - Marve Fleksnes - 04-03-2019
(04-02-2019, 03:07 PM)Agorith Wrote: Personally my biggest issue with this rule lays in the following highlighted part:
''2.8 Custom job titles must be realistic (don't roleplay something that isn't human), specific and accurately state what character you intend to roleplay (do not set your job as 'criminal' or 'classified' for example).''
This specific part of the rule ends up being 'loopholed' by everyone on the server.
We see it done by staff included, aswell as myself.
"Thug" apparently perfectly allowed whilst just as vague as "criminal"
"Peepeepoopoo gang - creampie" for example, also apparently perfectly allowed within the rules.
Examples can go on.
I'd like to see this changed aswell as your specific part, that I do agree with.
+Support
RE: Rule 2.8 - DVN - 04-03-2019
(04-02-2019, 03:07 PM)Agorith Wrote: Personally my biggest issue with this rule lays in the following highlighted part:
''2.8 Custom job titles must be realistic (don't roleplay something that isn't human), specific and accurately state what character you intend to roleplay (do not set your job as 'criminal' or 'classified' for example).''
This specific part of the rule ends up being 'loopholed' by everyone on the server.
We see it done by staff included, aswell as myself.
"Thug" apparently perfectly allowed whilst just as vague as "criminal"
"Peepeepoopoo gang - creampie" for example, also apparently perfectly allowed within the rules.
Examples can go on.
I'd like to see this changed aswell as your specific part, that I do agree with.
+Support
This actually made me laugh cause it's so true. Good points above, and from you Random. I agree!