Removal of Raid rule 14.5

[User 12049]

That rule has ben added for a reason, and calling the police to you on purpose Is just a horrible Idea as you can keep on killing them.

So I wouldnt see any reason of having this removed. You shouldnt promote agressiveRP that much and this rule Is a perfect border for having It a bit Into a order.

I never said anything about calling police on myself?

Why shouldn't we be promoting agressiveRP? It's a RP that everyone enjoys and enjoys how it once was. 

You can still perform passiveRP if you want as agressiveRP has never intruded into passiveRP and if it does then an admin will most likely intervene

[Conn]

It's not unrealistic.
If I wanted to break in to the SWAT floor, I would want to call out SWAT so I could sneak in easier.
People do it in real life

[Link]

It's not unrealistic.
If I wanted to break in to the SWAT floor, I would want to call out SWAT so I could sneak in easier.
People do it in real life

Hm, good idea. Lets draw attention to ourselves so we can sneak into a building.

The 'SWAT floor' in real life would still have government employees working there, even when a full dispatch would be in force. If anything, the officers and workers would be even more attentive as there is a situation at hand. If the attacking force was to move in, there would be a gun battle against the attackers giving the SWAT team enough time to retreat back to the HQ and flank them. This would result in the attacking force being squashed into fire from two directions and would consequently lead to a defeat. So, this time without the blatant sarcasm, bad idea.

In relation to the op, the whole point of being a criminal is to be inconspicuous - you obviously wouldn't want the law enforcers to have information on your operation, would you? You wouldn't parade outside of your HQ armed to the teeth with lead propellers in the faces of the government*, because it simply compromises your objective to make a profit out of circumventing the laws of the land. You would want to remain as hidden and covert as possible, which is why this rule is completely justified and prudent.

I do accept there have been exceptions in real life, however this is either down to criminal stupidity or extreme mastermind planning, both of which are an outlier on the normal spectrum. If you consider either of these to be relevant to your roleplay, contact and administrator and they could potentially loosen the rule considering your circumstance and roleplay you were planning on doing.

As for your claim of this being a 'semi-serious- roleplay server, yes, you are correct. However as stated above in this post, I believe the exclusion of this rule moves us more towards the boundary of non-serious roleplay, as the actions perceived have no justification to the cause of the organisation or any fundamental roleplay value that would enhance the server's objective, unless you actually do.

*Providing the government at the time didn't legalise small handguns/private ownership of firearms.

[User 12049]

In relation to the op, the whole point of being a criminal is to be inconspicuous - you obviously wouldn't want the law enforcers to have information on your operation, would you?

Your point is valid however, this is not the server you're playing on. This is semi-serious, I don't see you complaining that you can spawn a car from mid-air, you can pull any amount of ammo from your back pocket, that you know how to use a medic kit, that you won't die from being shot in the head etc. Your view contradicts how the server is run and with the point you have made I don't understand why you would be playing on the server considering there are loads of things that are unrealistic.

You wouldn't parade outside of your HQ armed to the teeth with lead propellers in the faces of the government*, because it simply compromises your objective to make a profit out of circumventing the laws of the land. You would want to remain as hidden and covert as possible, which is why this rule is completely justified and prudent.

Who says that we are wanting to make profit? This is a very big assumption and the reason for having guns on display is different depending on the situation. I choose to have my guns on display to defend my profit. How is defending my property unjustified and prudent?

I do accept there have been exceptions in real life, however this is either down to criminal stupidity or extreme mastermind planning, both of which are an outlier on the normal spectrum.

This is yet again your assumptions. Equally, how is it not our mastermind planning? I personally am yet to lose a defense at slums which shows my 'mastermind planning'? Just because something doesn't lie on the normal spectrum doesn't mean that it's unrealistic. This is a game, in real-life I don't own a gas mask, in fact I would say it is 'an outlier[sic] on the normal spectrum.' but yet again you seem perfectly fine with this.

If you consider either of these to be relevant to your roleplay, contact and administrator and they could potentially loosen the rule considering your circumstance and roleplay you were planning on doing.

I would prefer the rule to be removed completely as no paper and infraction would lead to banning and no admin would allow someone to break a rule as that would be improper administration especially for agressiveRP.

As for your claim of this being a 'semi-serious- roleplay server, yes, you are correct. However as stated above in this post, I believe the exclusion of this rule moves us more towards the boundary of non-serious roleplay, as the actions perceived have no justification to the cause of the organisation or any fundamental roleplay value that would enhance the server's objective, unless you actually do.

How does it not? The rule has not been in place for 5 years and yet you haven't cared? How could you even make such a statement? Have you considered FL non-serious roleplay for 5 years then?

[Link]

-snip-

Your point is valid however, this is not the server you're playing on. This is semi-serious, I don't see you complaining that you can spawn a car from mid-air, you can pull any amount of ammo from your back pocket, that you know how to use a medic kit, that you won't die from being shot in the head etc. Your view contradicts how the server is run and with the point you have made I don't understand why you would be playing on the server considering there are loads of things that are unrealistic.

Even on serious servers your car spawns out of the blue, even if it is at a designated area. Due to G-Mod being G-Mod, there is no working around this. Ofcourse I would prefer more realisitic alternatives but there is no point suggesting or 'complaining' about them as nothing will get done about it. As for the amount of ammo and medkit, this is a semi-serious roleplay server, as you have stated... I feel the difference between a non-serious and semi-serious community is the mind and ruleset they are given to play with, not the gamemode capabilities. For example, metagaming is against the rules which prevents anyone from using a character's name without being told it by them or an outside source. Serious roleplay servers have an in-built mechanic that ensures this, only revealing the character's name to you once you have talked to them.

Fearless is semi-serious, but still adheres to many serious rules in different ways instead of physical restrictions because it wants to give off a more casual vibe. The likeliness of the matter is, many people would stop playing fearless if there were strict restrictions on using certain items they want to roleplay with - it would be like the gasmask for everything.  I am against this rule being removed because it prevents unrealistic actions conveyed by a party.

-snip-

Who says that we are wanting to make profit? This is a very big assumption and the reason for having guns on display is different depending on the situation. I choose to have my guns on display to defend my profit. How is defending my property unjustified and prudent?

No one said you are wanting to make a profit. You asked for an opinion on the rule, not of yourself. Most real life criminals set out to make a profit and unless you state your situation in the op I have nothing to go off.

However, to justify my 'big assumption' that all criminals want to make profit, going off a data analysis tables such as this, I can conclude that my assumption is not in fact as big or incorrect as you may think. I do appreciate this pie chart is not completely accurate, however it is not the percentage of arrests I am interested in but the actual activities. Exactly 4/8 (1/2) of the activities include a monetary profit; drug offences, fraud, robbery and burglary. If you remove sex offences from the picture as rape RP is not allowed, that's 4/7. Homocide, assault and kidnapping goes under RDM, unless you have a valid reason. (Kidnapping, one of the sub categories, does also make you profit due to the 2k, however I will leave it out because it explores different territory of this argument). Immigration cannot really be roleplayed, so let's knock that down to 4/6 (2/3). The only category left is weapons, explosives and arson, which are illegal in Evocity (unless insured privately).

So, due to this data, two thirds of crimes that can be roleplayed on Fearless result in profit, and even then there are other sub-categories such as kidnap and weapons trading that could also be considered profitable too. However, for the sake of balance, I will leave those out. Moreover, that is purely attending to monetary gain. A profit is defined as 'an advantageous gain or return; benefit.', which means it could also be personal. Applying this definition to the crimes, it then covers 5/6 of the crimes you can commit on fearless, as '24.2 percent of victims were slain by family members and 53.8 percent were killed by someone they knew', leaving a 22% chance of a random attack in American homicides. This means that 88% of attacks had some personal motive and would result in a profit of revenge.

Coming back to your counter-argument, you state you 'chose to have guns on display to defend my profit'. This means you have self admitted that you DO HAVE PROFIT as you cannot defend something you don't have.

Finally, something can't be unjustified and prudent, as they essentially contradict each other. However, defending your property is not unjustified at all. If the police attack you on the grounds that they have evidence of law breakage, you have every right to rebel. It is just this art of provoking the government I am opposed to. THAT is the unjustified element of this, as, realistically, there would be no gain to drawing attention to yourself unless you, as I have already said, have a master plan behind it (I talk more about this later in this post).

-snip-

This is yet again your assumptions. Equally, how is it not our mastermind planning? I personally am yet to lose a defense at slums which shows my 'mastermind planning'? Just because something doesn't lie on the normal spectrum doesn't mean that it's unrealistic. This is a game, in real-life I don't own a gas mask, in fact I would say it is 'an outlier[sic] on the normal spectrum.'  but yet again you seem perfectly fine with this.

What about intentionally luring police to your HQ to massacre them is 'mastermind'? Any commoner could do that. The only profit I can possibly think you get from that action is mental psychopathic stimulant. It is beyond question to bring an officially more adequate force to your front door for the only reason of killing them. In real life, the heavily trained S.W.A.T. teams come out of a situation victorious almost 100% of the time, and if then don't, the attackers are hunted and prosecuted in front of a supreme court. There is simply no way of circumventing punishment for this type of behaviour realistically and if you win or not in the game, it always has real life implications.

Also, in my post I didn't claim it was unrealistic to have something extremely well orchestrated. I was just claiming it was rare, as you don't get many criminal masterminds as you did in the swinging 60s. Lets take the Hatton Garden jewellers heist for example. That is what I consider a mastermind plan, even though after years of tracking, they were caught and jailed for their actions, and their plan didn't include drawing attention to themselves, it was still elaborate and well thought out.

If anything, I'd consider what you are doing criminal stupidity as it has no gain basis, however that is just an opinion.

-snip-

I would prefer the rule to be removed completely as no paper and infraction would lead to banning and no admin would allow someone to break a rule as that would be improper administration especially for agressiveRP.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'as no paper and infraction', so I will leave that out for now. I understand you wish for the rule to be completely removed, however getting permission from an administrator will not lead to you 'breaking a rule' as they have authorised it. What I am attempting to say to you parallels the NLR rule exception. It is a well known fact that if you are accidentally killed in specific non-intentional circumstance, admins can grant players permission to go back to the place they died before 10 minutes are up and continue with their roleplay. This is because, in a situation where that external force acted, the event would not have ended that way.

That is one example on how admins can allow someone to 'break a rule' and still not get banned for it. As an example of what I am trying to convey to you, look that this:

Player: hello admin. Can I have permission please to carry out a roleplay in which our gang sets up a dummy drug trade to trick the Police into diverting their troops to that area so we can sneak our VIP through town to our base!!!

This is the sort of situation I am talking about. The gang intentionally calls the police on themselves as a distraction so another illegal activity has a higher probability of success. Raids don't always have to be aggressive, it is just simply a word used to describe an infiltration and intrusion into an unauthorised property. Therefore, the 'drug trade' won't actually have any drugs in it. You have called the police on yourselves to provide a non-aggressive alternative to what could've been a unnecessary and aggressive bloodbath. I'm sure the administrator would see the roleplay potential and sensibility in a situation like that and would therefore let you proceed.

Moreover, due to your reluctance to opt for this option, I am connoting that you don't think that your roleplay would be suitable and realisitic, therefore I cannot advise or help you with this matter.

-snip-

How does it not? The rule has not been in place for 5 years and yet you haven't cared? How could you even make such a statement? Have you considered FL non-serious roleplay for 5 years then?

Because, quite honestly, it has never been a problem before. I have been in this community since the end of 2012 and only recently has this gap in the rules been constantly attended to. When the concept was first introduced to me a few months ago, I was astonished that I hadn't seen something quite like it before, as I believed that with my hundreds of hours of experience I had seen it all. However, thinking back I had seen it once or twice, but I didn't think anything of it because it was a rare event that didn't happen commonly. I think, as a whole, the community has changed and has shifted towards a generally more aggressive play style, consequently altering the common schema of the game mode.

I've always considered FL semi-serious because things like this were not usual and, if they did happen, they were usually carried out with a roleplay basis to fit the situation at the time.

[Hitman]

Raid bating which this rule addresses is FailRP to begin with. This rule just brings it into the light and explicitly states it.

Hitman
Fearless Administrator

[Nuka]

As much as we don't get on, Ghostkiller has a point. Even on PERP, a SeriousRP server, calling out the police to distract from something else was STUPIDLY common. PERP has a bank robbery feature, so often, people would call the police to a house at one end of the map while they robbed the bank.

However, that isn't what the rule states. The rule is there to stop you from sitting on top of a wall with a Galil waiting for cops to see you, which practically everyone does anyway including admins bc they have gas masks so that makes them invulnerable to every rule ever.

[NightHawkd]

I love how the only people who have a problem with this rule are the ones that do the raid baiting. Its quite funny honestly. You speak about it being RP Ghost but each time I have seen you do it you sit on your raised platform with your guns drawn in straight view of any officer who exits the Nexus and looks that way and wait for them to raid you. That is all you do. You do nothing more then that. SO stop trying bullshit everyone and say "oh its ruining my RP!" because you never RPed with it before the rule was there anyways.

[Nuka]

^^ so true. It happens with everyone. You'll sit there in a group of gas masks, wait for cops to see, and then slaughter them all because of that damn slums apartments which IMO should be banned for use as a base

[Greed^]

I love how the only people who have a problem with this rule are the ones that do the raid baiting. Its quite funny honestly. You speak about it being RP Ghost but each time I have seen you do it you sit on your raised platform with your guns drawn in straight view of any officer who exits the Nexus and looks that way and wait for them to raid you. That is all you do. You do nothing more then that. SO stop trying bullshit everyone and say "oh its ruining my RP!" because you never RPed with it before the rule was there anyways.

I love how you're still here crying after you lost interest and resigned