Rule 2.8
#21
(04-03-2019, 12:38 PM)General Rickets Wrote: Criminal was stopped because it does not accurately describe what you are role playing nor does it show or explain any of your past, present or future intentions. It fails to show any affiliations with anyone which became a very large issue just like it did with Classified.

Case study

Bob Jim and Fred are all criminals they have not roleplayed together but since they all have the same job title they help each other out in a raid. Admin Frank comes along to deal with the obvious rule infringement that occurred but is unable to prove anything because Bob Jim and Fred all have the same job title.

-support to allowing these lazy ass jobs such as thug and criminal, what’s wrong with creating a gang with some backstory or being a petty thief or thinking of a job title which actually tells people what you are role playing as?

The main issue with it is that in reality we don't see detailed gangs with decent backstory, if any backstory at all in the vast majority of cases.

In reality a criminal can burglar homes, assist in raids, assassinate the dictator, rob people for $500 in alleyways, etc. 
This allows for more freedom for said player.

If I'm a "Thief", if the situation were to call for it In Character, I wouldn't be allowed to kill anyone still in majority of cases. That'd be RDM.
If I change my job title to anything more appropriate so I can take some action, I'd be powergaming.
The specific criminal job titles really limit you to what you are and are not allowed to do.

So how do the players, including staff members, fix this?
We set our job title to "Pukka Gang - Best shooter" and all of a sudden magically we can do anything mentioned above.
There's no background on the gang, no decent roleplay behind it.

I can agree atleast these wouldn't allow for your administrative situation to happen, but in general I still find it quite a silly concept.
I did say we can brainstorm over other solutions other than just allowing "criminal" and "thug" again.
It was simply the most straight forward solution, but I'm assuming everyone here is open to other and/or better suggestions.
If you got any, suggest away fam.


Messages In This Thread
Rule 2.8 - by Random - 04-02-2019, 02:28 PM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by Agorith - 04-02-2019, 03:07 PM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by Chumps - 04-02-2019, 06:21 PM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by Grizzly - 04-02-2019, 09:16 PM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by Marve Fleksnes - 04-03-2019, 06:30 AM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by TheSiphon - 04-02-2019, 06:06 PM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by Random - 04-02-2019, 07:05 PM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by rino - 04-02-2019, 08:41 PM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by TheMJ - 04-02-2019, 11:24 PM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by DVN - 04-03-2019, 08:38 AM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by Tomo - 04-03-2019, 11:14 AM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by Agorith - 04-03-2019, 11:26 AM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by Tomo - 04-03-2019, 11:43 AM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by Agorith - 04-03-2019, 11:56 AM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by Tomo - 04-03-2019, 12:04 PM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by Agorith - 04-03-2019, 12:14 PM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by PhantomSolaris - 04-03-2019, 11:19 AM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by TheMJ - 04-03-2019, 12:28 PM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by General Rickets - 04-03-2019, 12:38 PM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by Agorith - 04-03-2019, 12:54 PM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by Random - 04-03-2019, 12:58 PM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by General Rickets - 04-03-2019, 12:40 PM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by Agorith - 04-03-2019, 12:56 PM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by Random - 04-03-2019, 12:54 PM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by General Rickets - 04-03-2019, 06:36 PM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by General Rickets - 04-03-2019, 06:45 PM
Rule 2.8 - by TASSIA - 07-31-2019, 11:28 PM
RE: Rule 2.8 - by TASSIA - 09-11-2019, 09:59 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)