David Miller

Red = Removed Green = Added Yellow = Changed White = No change Chapter 16: Event Specific Rules 2. Conquest & Invasion 2.4. Civilians can't use armed aerial vehicles, slung armed vehicles, or AT vehicles. 2.5. Vigilantes may not camp areas to stop or arrest conquest or invasion participants (including, but not limited to, the nearest city/rebel/sheds) 2.6. Players may not go to conquest or invasion with the intention of stealing/chopping vehicles With the conquest-like event, Invasions, coming to Server One, we are reintroducing the Server One conquest rules and applying all the conquest rules to Invasions.

This rule update has a lot to cover. The staff team has been hard at work rewriting a significant portion of the rules to make them simpler, clearer, and hopefully easier to understand. Before we get too far, the goal of this overhaul is NOT to change the way the rules currently work; there are some tweaks and some new verbiage that may clarify some interpretations, but any changes should be how administrative staff have been handling the rules for some time, and not intended to change the way players and admin staff are currently handling the rules. Too many changes exist for our normal Red = Remove, Yellow = Change, and Green = added format. I will try to go over some of what we changed and why. For a full changelog, see: https://wiki.olympus-entertainment.com/index.php?title=Altis_Life_Rules&diff=12670&oldid=12663 ON TO THE SHOW: A prominent feature of this overhaul is that almost all Examples have been removed and replaced with links to a new page. This makes the rules significantly shorter and to the point. Most of the Roleplay fluff and rules related only to the R&R or APD have also been moved to their appropriate pages. Some chapters have been combined or removed, a few rules have found new homes in more appropriate chapters, and many chapters have been rearranged. RDM,NLR, VDM, meta, Combat Log, and all other traditional rules are now the first set of chapters instead of chapters 1-5, and then, for some reason, also chapters 10 and 15. The second set of chapters is roles like WPL, Vigi, and Taxi, and the last set is rule modifiers like red zones and federal events. RVD and VDM chapters have been combined because they are so similar. The War chapter was removed, becoming an exception to RDM rules. Aviation was removed and covered by RDM and VDM. Terror, HQ Takeover, and Martial law merged into Events with Gangbase and Turfs. The first section, 'Rules and Guidelines,' is now a 'Chapter' to facilitate formatting on the back end. If we go into detail about the changes in every chapter, this post will end up being more ridiculous than it already is, so here is an example of what was changed on the RDM chapter, which was most likely the most changed chapter: War was added as an exception to RDM, Warning shots are added as an acceptable engagement method against aerial vehicles. Clarifications are made about Gang tags and the fact that [Medic] tags are not considered gang tags. A note was made that various events and situations change RDM rules. Examples all got moved to the supplemental page. Probably the most significant change to RDM rules, and what is likely to be the most controversial change of the whole rules update, is the addition of: 2.7 "Engagement typically applies within 1km of the initial fight but may extend if players actively participate, travel to the fight, or move around as part of the combat. Long-range weapons may justify extended engagements, but engagement should not be used to target distant, uninvolved players. Engagement follows active combat movement, and admin discretion will be used to evaluate disputes." I could probably write a post on this change alone. The admin staff team has long held that engagement has a set distance, but we have lacked a good acknowledgment or guidelines in the rules. This rule is NOT intended to have players pulling out rulers and shift clicks to decide if they are within an engagement, but rather indicates that players should not use an engagement significantly far away to justify starting a new situation without a new engagement. This rule used to be handled by the example: " Engagement happens in Sofia, all [A] and [X] in Sofia are engaged. All [A] and [X] who enter Sofia afterwards are engaged. If the firefight moves from Sofia to rescue without intermission, then it's still a free for all for [A] and [X]." This indicated there was a distance component to engagement, but it left a lot up to interpretation, disagreement, and confusion, especially as Sofia Rescue was moved around and people started calling it a hospital instead of a rescue. While it might sound like a major change, we hope this new rule will actually be pretty minor and will help players understand what the administrative team considers when considering the scope of an engagement. Most other chapters should be straightforward, with wording changes and examples removed, but essentially the same content as before. Players should notice alot more links in the rules, that take them to a new page: https://wiki.olympus-entertainment.com/wiki/Altis_Life_Rules_Supplemental This is where our examples and some added context for many of the rules went. The administration team is meant to edit this page as new examples or gray areas are pointed out to try to keep the rules page simple and clear while also providing extra clarity to those who might appreciate it. If anyone has any questions about the changes, please submit a general inquiry with the staff team or message me directly. I want to acknowledge that mistakes may have been made in this process, so minor tweaks may be needed. If you notice any issues, don't be afraid to send them along. https://wiki.olympus-entertainment.com/wiki/Altis_Life_Rules Thank you for reading and for playing Olympus!

Unless you have an alt account, there aren't any reports from this account you're posting from... I can post a screenshot if you want.

You haven't made a report since May of 2023.

It depends on the situation. We don't compensate for many of the things a player might compensate for; we only compensate for losses. but the 'No comp' has no effect on the compensation, if it would normally be eligible for comp, its still eligible for compensation after saying 'no comp'.

I don't fully understand your question. Players can comp each other and refuse compensation more or less as much as they want. Some admins will let players compensate each other after the fact for a ban reduction or removal, but it's not guaranteed, and you would probably want to discuss it with the banning admin beforehand. IDk if that answers the question. if not LMK.

The implication that American history starts with Columbus is a bit dismissive. You could have used the Declaration of Independence, targeted United States history, and gained 300 years.

Red = Removed Green = Added Yellow = Changed White = No change Reduced and Lifted Bans Reduced Bans A reduced ban will still count towards your current ban time. This means that even if you appealed a 2-day ban and the admin decides to reduce it to a 1-day ban, your next ban will be a 3-day ban. Reduced bans can only be shortened by a maximum of 3 days or half the ban, whichever is longer. https://wiki.olympus-entertainment.com/wiki/Ban_Times#Reduced_Bans This change addresses a growing concern from the player base about repeat rulebreakers receiving lighter punishments than would otherwise be reasonable. All bans, including those longer than three days, can still be "-lifted" to zero days when incorrectly placed or other circumstances justify a full recall. This change only affects "-Reduced" bans and does not guarantee all reductions will be a half-ban reduction. Examples: 1, 2, and 3-day bans can all be reduced to 0 days, AKA time served. 5-day bans can be reduced to 2 days. 7-day bans can be reduced to 3.5 days. 14-day bans can be reduced to 7 days. 30-day and permanent bans can be reduced to 15 days. Some permanent bans like misconduct or duping have pre-established higher minimum lengths and are unaffected by this change. 1,2,3,5,7,14,30, and permanent bans can still be lifted to 0 days when appropriate. https://wiki.olympus-entertainment.com/index.php?title=Ban_Times&diff=11561&oldid=11560

It's valid. Most threads are Dante or @ Milo XD, plus we complained about him in the beginning.

Taking over a thread about @ CaloomClark to complain about @ -dante- hello? Mr.Condescending ass question. This is the roast of Caloom and we will not be silenced!

YEAH LETS MAKE THIS ANOTHER THREAD ABOUT @ -dante- !!!!

we are waiting @ CaloomClark ! The people demand answers for your crimes!

@ -dante- You didn't even do anything this time and your still a shit admin XD

I didn't really look into that part because it wasn't being discussed in this thread. I have no idea what he thought related to not being a PO. I also didn't know it was over 20 minutes between waves and just assumed for the sake of explanation it was something between 5 and 15 minutes. If you believe he knowingly provided false information in a dispute to get money or a ban you definitely should report him for dispute abuse. Im more looking to explain the dispute didn't look like he was making up fake rules, but It very well could have made up a fake situation.

The support team can help with situations where what is and isn't a rule is in question. They can't tell you if a specific situation breaks a rule, but they can assist any player in understanding what is and isn't allowed. I also think you may have misunderstood the dispute, it looks to me like the claim is you took too long to wave in, so the engagement was over and the 15-minute no-return timer should have started, not that you were required to wave in. His argument is because you took longer than 5 minutes to start a new wave, the engagement was over and the situation should have been deemed clear, and a 15-minute timer should have started before the zone could be checked again. You guys deemed it the same situation and returned even tho the 5-minute engagement timer was over. Its kind of rule skirty to avoid waving back to a situation for an extended period of time but still deeming the situation extended to the point that you are allowed to return, but its really an APD issue not a server rule so its really @ Rexo s call if that kind of thing violates the APD handbook. I don't think the person who disputed you is making up rules, just different interpretations, without a report from the dispute we cant actually tell you who was right and who was wrong, but regardless I certainly don't think this was a dispute abuse. The related rules are server rule Chapter 1 rule 7 and APD handbook Chapter 10 rule 3

What made you livid about it? what is the type of shit that is causing people to move elsewhere or quit?

Im not gonna talk ill of Sovereign because even with all the disagreements we had I do agree with you that she was pretty intelligent and cared about the server but there are some very obvious reasons her being staff would have been a bad idea. If we bent to every person who felt spurned by the server there would be no server. Nothing is stopping her from appealing her perm ban, she was obviously not serious and I would +1 her coming back, but its her decision not to come back, and I don't begrudge her that. This is the boy who cried wolf of racism. Why is everything a racist issue? It's the internet, no one would know what race you are unless you tell them. Im impressed you can go into every single fed that has occurred over the past year and say for certain the only people who were able to win were admins, because even with logs access I can't do that. Both our arguments are anecdotal, the difference is mine comes with the ability to watch feds, and I'm saying plenty of non-admin groups are capable of winning a fed, big gangs can remove their admins, and they would still win feds. The argument that admins disproportionately influence feds is a fair argument, but you guys don't want to have fair arguments, you want to throw wild baseless accusations as facts, and call racism when someone disagrees. I wish we could find 2-3 people who could do the amount of tickets @ -dante- does, day after day, week after week, year after year, and are willing to do it for no pay, no perks, like @ Milo are completely free of bias like @ Bubbaloo - Reusable P Cup , never play with gangs, and yet still know how gangs function, and how feds work, and conquest. even those 3 will probably tell you Dante doesn't want to do the amount of tickets he does every week, milo enjoys his perks, and Bubbaloo is perfect anyone who says otherwise is wrong. If you find those 3 perfect people, I am sure they would do a fantastic job as a staff team and I would happily step aside to let them. Meet me on planet Earth about our expectations, please.

Right so why would we unban her? She decided she wanted to be banned/done with the server, I respect it and wish her well.

Sov quite seriously banned herself and hasn't asked to come back as far as I know.

You closed that report before anyone responded. 221612 Revenge marked this request Resolved October 22

I mean look, man, I don't understand why you are arguing facts with me. Be critical of the server, say it's declining, or dying or whatever, I don't care, but objectively, that isn't a staff member's account and we have hit over 80 members every day in the past like 3 months, I think we peak over 100 every day. There are valid criticisms, these are just wrong. https://www.battlemetrics.com/servers/arma3/7991938?playerCount=7D

It just isn't tho....

This is just some vigi alt? What are you cooking up? I can understand the point of view, but where exactly are we supposed to get unpaid volunteers willing to do 300+ tickets a week between them, that aren't allowed to play, and still expect them to have a working knowledge of the game? especially if the server is about to end.

Usually, in these situations, people are thinking VPN... In order for a VPN to improve your ping, there needs to be a pretty major bottleneck between you and the server that isn't you, your ISP, or the server, AND the VPN has to have a way around that bottleneck which isn't guaranteed, AND the bottleneck has to be major enough that adding an extra hop to the VPN to get on a different path to the server is worth it, AND the new path has to be sufficiently fast, AND the added overhead of VPN encryption has to not cause problems. A VPN can improve Ping in very very limited situations, like 1 in 1000 situations, and the only way to know if it will really work is to try it. You will also need a VPN whitelist for our server, and because you will start showing up to the server as the VPN IP instead of your IP, you have to hope no one has ever or will ever be banned using that VPN IP, or else you get caught in the ban. TLDR: Unless your Ping is like super bad, no way to make it better. but theoretically, a VPN in limited situations can help a little.