Character
Rules
Events
Map
RP Points
Proplimits
Statistics
Steam Group
Members
Hall of Fame
Team
Bans
Blacklists
Warnings
Changelog
Content
02-21-2013, 03:26 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 01:01 AM by Fearless Community.
Edit Reason: Checked Encoding
)
I hate rules. For most of you this shouldn't come as much of a surprise considering how much I complain about them. Here's the thing though... One type of rule drives me up a damn wall to no end, and that would be any rule with the basis of "random".
Before we get on a tagent regarding how I'm some sort of freedom-fighting mingebag, lets take a moment, and think about random.
Random is not coherent. Random cannot exist unless something is truly random(non-coherent/not initiated with purpose). So one rule which should bite everyone's asses, but it doesn't, is the rule regarding "Random Death Match".
Now how do you judge Random Death Match? Do you judge it from the Victim's Perspective or Shooter's Perspective? Most admins judge it from the Victim's Perspective, where in the case anything can be deemed random.
This is a major issue.
Now one of my favorite theories, is the Broken Windows Theory. Which states that actions happen in society thanks to social normality and fear. The social normality in CityRP(and others), is that the gamemode is centered around a Cops Vs Robbers system, and some players are trying to be "passive". Now, as myself... It's impossible to be Passive in CityRP. In some shape or form, you are supporting contrafarming, or supporting the crusade against it. End of.
But back to BWT, so if the social normality and entire aspect of the gamemode is centered around being violent to create passive, does it come as any odd sign that right there someone has already got a reason to explain why they do things? In some cases completely ruling out any rule regarding "Random"?
As an example of this were gonna discuss the old cookie-cutter example of PlayerX shooting PlayerZ.
From this example we devise that PlayerX did do "aggressive roleplay" but at the same time he was financing "passive roleplay" industries. He also had a reason for attacking someone, which all though it's not an acceptable reason(dumbity dumb), it's still a reason... But wait! We forgot to explain what happens after the chef was robbed of his fish/money!
The first instance provides that PlayerZ is now financing "PassiveRP" within the server, and in some cases the incident which was committed by PlayerX could be seen as helping create "PassiveRP" within the server. At the same time though, PlayerZ has put down contraband, and is now also financing "AggressiveRP".
One problem with the latter though... All markets related to destroying the contraband are considered Passive, but the actual destroying of contraband is considered Aggressive. Somewhat like the Broken Window Fallacy, but we'll nickname this the Valhalla Fallacy
But what relation does this all have to random deathmatch? Well what has happened could of been proclaimed from a victim's perspective as being random. Even though as we can tell, reason and intent did exist, and the user which committed the act could be seen as having some form of humanitarian aspect to him. He outright created Passive Roleplay by doing Aggressive Roleplay.
Within the cases of gamemode mechanics, their was also influence on PlayerX to commit this act of bloodshed. He did have ways to get 14K, but most of them would still have the same foothold of aggressiveness, and therefore it blanks out any matter of saying, "He could of just ran a shop!" because either way you look at it... He's creating and aiding aggressive roleplay.
With this entire concept in mind, any rule which has "random" as it's main doctrine of judge, is susceptible to bias, because theirs no outright rulebook saying judge from the shooter or victim's perspective. The only true measure to applying this rule rationally would be changing it to MDM, or Mass Death Match. This can also be said for several other rules such as "Random Raiding", "Random Arresting", and otherwise. All these rules could be rationally applied with different names/concepts, and some even could be simply enforced inside of game mechanics and in roleplay.
Just remember, the pull of a trigger always has a reason.
Before we get on a tagent regarding how I'm some sort of freedom-fighting mingebag, lets take a moment, and think about random.
Random is not coherent. Random cannot exist unless something is truly random(non-coherent/not initiated with purpose). So one rule which should bite everyone's asses, but it doesn't, is the rule regarding "Random Death Match".
Now how do you judge Random Death Match? Do you judge it from the Victim's Perspective or Shooter's Perspective? Most admins judge it from the Victim's Perspective, where in the case anything can be deemed random.
This is a major issue.
Now one of my favorite theories, is the Broken Windows Theory. Which states that actions happen in society thanks to social normality and fear. The social normality in CityRP(and others), is that the gamemode is centered around a Cops Vs Robbers system, and some players are trying to be "passive". Now, as myself... It's impossible to be Passive in CityRP. In some shape or form, you are supporting contrafarming, or supporting the crusade against it. End of.
But back to BWT, so if the social normality and entire aspect of the gamemode is centered around being violent to create passive, does it come as any odd sign that right there someone has already got a reason to explain why they do things? In some cases completely ruling out any rule regarding "Random"?
As an example of this were gonna discuss the old cookie-cutter example of PlayerX shooting PlayerZ.
Quote:- Now, PlayerX is someone who has contrafarmed for some time on CityRP, he's got money to blow and doesn't generally care how he blows it.
- PlayerZ is what we'll call, "the passive player" which works at a local seafood restaurant to make money for his car.
- PlayerX realizes that he actually wants something which is out of his limits by at least $14,000(BMW?), so he decides to go rob PlayerZ of his hard earned income.
- PlayerX then goes and purchases firearms/ammo, kevlar, and hires mercenaries. Therefore he's created what we call, "PassiveRP" by financing three different economies related to Gun DealerRP, BMDRP, and ClanRP.
- PlayerX then goes with his mercenaries and holds up the seafood store, and steals a great amount of fish and cash from the chef.
- PlayerZ not wanting to lose all his hard earned work, decides to attempt to stop the thieves at the door so the vanilla-wafer force(Police) can stop them.
- PlayerX promptly guns him down for blocking the path of entry/exit.
From this example we devise that PlayerX did do "aggressive roleplay" but at the same time he was financing "passive roleplay" industries. He also had a reason for attacking someone, which all though it's not an acceptable reason(dumbity dumb), it's still a reason... But wait! We forgot to explain what happens after the chef was robbed of his fish/money!
Quote:- PlayerZ who now has no fish to run his enterprise, must rely on making a loan, and spending it to replenish his seafood stocks.
- PlayerZ also lays down contraband in his home, so that he can make money back.
The first instance provides that PlayerZ is now financing "PassiveRP" within the server, and in some cases the incident which was committed by PlayerX could be seen as helping create "PassiveRP" within the server. At the same time though, PlayerZ has put down contraband, and is now also financing "AggressiveRP".
One problem with the latter though... All markets related to destroying the contraband are considered Passive, but the actual destroying of contraband is considered Aggressive. Somewhat like the Broken Window Fallacy, but we'll nickname this the Valhalla Fallacy
But what relation does this all have to random deathmatch? Well what has happened could of been proclaimed from a victim's perspective as being random. Even though as we can tell, reason and intent did exist, and the user which committed the act could be seen as having some form of humanitarian aspect to him. He outright created Passive Roleplay by doing Aggressive Roleplay.
Within the cases of gamemode mechanics, their was also influence on PlayerX to commit this act of bloodshed. He did have ways to get 14K, but most of them would still have the same foothold of aggressiveness, and therefore it blanks out any matter of saying, "He could of just ran a shop!" because either way you look at it... He's creating and aiding aggressive roleplay.
With this entire concept in mind, any rule which has "random" as it's main doctrine of judge, is susceptible to bias, because theirs no outright rulebook saying judge from the shooter or victim's perspective. The only true measure to applying this rule rationally would be changing it to MDM, or Mass Death Match. This can also be said for several other rules such as "Random Raiding", "Random Arresting", and otherwise. All these rules could be rationally applied with different names/concepts, and some even could be simply enforced inside of game mechanics and in roleplay.
Just remember, the pull of a trigger always has a reason.
![[Image: EglEnZU.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/EglEnZU.gif)
