Rules Clarification

[Kommando666 1]

I would like to point out some of the rules are very vague. Would like to suggest they be more specific.

The rule that has recent come into question between a mod, a player, and I was:   

Quote

 

Section 6- Independent Rules

    6. Civilians may only be killed as part of a planned terror attack, if they do not follow direct orders, or if they pose a lethal threat (i.e. firing or pointing a weapon at you or otherwise actively trying to kill you).

 

In my opinion the use of commas following "planned terror attack," and "not follow  direct orders," tells me these are 3 separate qualifiers for lethal force and not that all 3 need to be met but any of the 3.

Now on top of that I was told by a mod that a planned terror attack can only be "some sort of bombing". I disagree with this interpretation as the rule does not define specifically what a planned attack is. I conspired with 2 fellow Independents and orchestrated a planned active shooter attack on the city of Rasmen. In my opinion this IS a planned attack and this type of attack is not expressly forbidden. I would also like to add this is a realistic threat from extremists, as I'm sure we are all very much aware of in today's world.

This misunderstanding led some heated exchanges in Teamspeak. I fully intend on following the rules and believe that the rules should be more specific especially because the consequences for breaking said rules can result in a ban, temporary or otherwise.

If anyone (staff/moderators/players) would like to weigh in on this rule, I would like to hear it.

Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,

           Kommando666 aka Rob (In game name)

[JumpyWizard 91]

+1 Totally agree with you

[Zerix 8]

"Planned Terror Attack or PTA" like mass shooting crosses with RDM.

Insurgents may attack civilians, true, but with some conditions, As an insurgent roleplaying for shariah law and for all muslims to be free, you think randomly shooting civs who might claim to be muslim is a good idea? Planned terror attacks would usually be mortars / suicide bombs / Sniper fire. I don't know what mod you were talking to. But a lot of things can count as a PTA. This PTA as I stated also comes and crosses with the RDM rule. I agree with some of what you're saying, I wouldn't mind if it ended with civies being caught in crossfires of mortars / sui vests / mistaken for NATO soldiers or Opfor. That's acceptable casualties. But if it's just Civs being killed, I can see issues.

[Kommando666 1]

17 minutes ago, Zerix said:

Planned terror attacks would usually be mortars / suicide bombs / Sniper fire.

I was engaging in sniper fire, but that's besides the point. I'm not concerned with my personal experience but more concerned with what the rules allow and do not allow.

You also stated that "a lot of things can count as a PTA" but there is no list that I'm aware of, and which RDM rule specifically are you looking at I'm not seeing one that is specific in any way.

I'm just trying to understand the rules, not trying to argue or make this an big issue, your statements seem to be your opinion which is fine but opinions are not rules. If I'm overlooking the rules you're referencing could you please point me to where I can read them?

[Complexity 29]

If civs are caught in a gun fight between you and police, that shouldn’t be counted as your fault due to them being in an area that’s under attack and chose not to lay on the ground or anything.  If you go around mass killing civs for no reason that’d be a problem in my eyes and make players stray away from the server where at any moment they can be shot without warning.  If you make it allowed that indies can shoot you, they should be able to KOS you back. 

Edited February 12, 2018 by Complexity

[Captain 48]

1 hour ago, Kommando666 said:

Now on top of that I was told by a mod that a planned terror attack can only be "some sort of bombing".

Hey, yeah that was me. I used "Some sort of bombing" as an example of a planned terror attack that could result in crossfire inthis scenario. By all means, your plan of "a couple guys, sniper rifles, and a whole load of dead NATO" is a planned terror attack, but I specified that your example of a planned terror attack would not excuse that particular incident of RDM.

[Slimbone 165]

I personally feel a "Planned Terror Attack" is anything declared in global in the name of Shariah Law. Ie

Global chat SlimBone: "Shariah Law is being imposed at truck shop and its surrounding area. Muslim brothers and sisters be warned for your safety stay away. Any others will be seen as infringing on shariah law and will be killed. Allah Akbar!"

[Slimbone 165]

1 minute ago, SlimBone said:

I personally feel a "Planned Terror Attack" is anything declared in global in the name of Shariah Law. Ie

Global chat SlimBone: "Shariah Law is being imposed at truck shop and its surrounding area. Muslim brothers and sisters be warned for your safety stay away. Any others will be seen as infringing on shariah law and will be killed. Allah Akbar!"

But be sure to repeat it say ever pay cycle so anyone freshly joining will have a chance to see the warning.

[Elijah 91]

When I was on the staff team before the server shut down we had issues with people RDMing civs in Rasman and claiming it to be a planned terrorist attack. In the end it was decided that the portion of the rule that mentions planned terrorist attacks only applies to accidentally killing civs while attempting to kill  Blufor. 

I understand that it is realistic to plan a terror attack that targets civs without warning but you should remember that everyone wants to have fun on here. While it would be more realistic it would not be more fun for the player base. Allowing people to be able to steal bank info and access other players bank account would be realistic but it would not be enjoyable. In other words, just because something is realistic does not mean it should be allowed.