"I AM THE FACTION LEADER AND I MAKE THE CHOICES!!!" "IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM GO TO DAVID MILLER!!" "ANOTHER ADMIN WITH NO RULE KNOWLEDGE"

[Pseudonym 251]

Pseudonym here 1 month later to provide peak commentary on this issue after the fact:

A few times, I've seen a guy landing a blackfish at like kav square or whatever. Then I text him: "Store your blackfish or die". Then he flies off, and text back calling me a dick for preventing him from storing his blackfish. If he stored it, I don't think any admin would ban or punish or warn him or anything. And I wasn't going to report him for it anyway. But there was something in his mind where he was like "I'm initiated against, therefore I can't store", even though the initiation is explicitly telling him to store.

I think a relevant problem to this is the text based engagement system. Rather than being a more gamified engagement system. A gamified engagement system would be something like: Imagine if whenever -A- initiates on -B-, all -A- and -B- were notified, so that everyone gets the message like: "-A- Adam initiated on -B- Bob", and then maybe tell -B- how far away Bob is from them when he got initiated on.

The current text based system is more based around roleplay. You can use the text messages to talk back and forth with people, or to engage on them. And when you think about it from a roleplay perspective, those are the same thing. IRL, if someone says to you: "Give me your money" then shoots you, you don't get to say "ahah u forgot to add or die retard comp 250k or ban". But with Olympus engagement, you generally have to use a demand + consequence structure, which is almost always power gamed to a simple "hands up or die". And that leads people to assume that any demand + consequence message would entail some of the same implications of a standard "hands up or die" message, which I believe is incorrect.

If I tell someone in Kav square "if you pull out a minigun qilin i'm going to kill you", depending on the context of that situation, that doesn't meant they shouldn't be allowed to store their hatchback, but If it was a more generalized total engagement like "hands up or die" then yeah they shouldn't store their hatchback at all.

All of this is basically to say: I think the standard "hands up or die" text, and maybe a few other common ones, should be gamified into another system on the server, that notifies all relevant parties about the engagement, and that the text system should be left for more specific demand + consequences. So if you send a medic the general initiation through this new game mechanic, then yeah that medic can't redeploy or store vehicles. But if you send a more limited engagement just telling them to leave or die, then more implicitly as long as they are following that, they are fine doing anything else as they are complying.

 

[Secret Agent 168]

On 10/1/2025 at 3:46 PM, xsmitherz said:

I thought for sure this was gonna be APD related, thank god it's just the medics

 This one time at APD camp 

[Tman15tmb 1935]

Holy fuck.. (1 month late but that shouldn't surprise anyone)

Admins, it's not rocket science. Either they broke a rule or the accusation is stupid and the report is dismissed. Stop with the, "well yes.. but..". You dummies have turned a basic black and white rule set into retarded gray areas with how often you edit and rewrite what was once common sense. This isn't Congress, not everything has to be two sided.

I was around when it was basically the 10 Olympus commandments, now days you dummies have rewritten or reworded the Bible so many times you're confusing yourselves haha.

 

I think we can all agree no rule was broken based on the R&R handbook. If you tell a medic to leave and they leave the area then what's the issue? If you want a medic to stop what they are doing but you're thinking about using them as a hostage then tell them to stop and put their hands up. Seems pretty simple to understand. Hopefully Marcus called you all a bunch of idiots, endearingly of course..

 

[Marcus 1417]

7 minutes ago, Tman15tmb said:

I think we can all agree no rule was broken based on the R&R handbook. If you tell a medic to leave and they leave the area then what's the issue? If you want a medic to stop what they are doing but you're thinking about using them as a hostage then tell them to stop and put their hands up. Seems pretty simple to understand. Hopefully Marcus called you all a bunch of idiots.

I explained it to the player that telling the medic to leave or die, and the medic uses the redeployment it is not combat logging as a medic as they are moving on to the other calls around the map. The medic complied with the demand, which means there is no active engagement because the medic listened.

[David Miller 828]

2 hours ago, Tman15tmb said:

Holy fuck.. (1 month late but that shouldn't surprise anyone)

Admins, it's not rocket science. Either they broke a rule or the accusation is stupid and the report is dismissed. Stop with the, "well yes.. but..". You dummies have turned a basic black and white rule set into retarded gray areas with how often you edit and rewrite what was once common knowledge. This isn't Congress, not everything has to be two sided.

I was around when it was basically the 10 Olympus commandments, now days you dummies have rewritten or reworded the Bible so many times you're confusing yourselves haha.

 

I think we can all agree no rule was broken based on the R&R handbook. If you tell a medic to leave and they leave the area then what's the issue? If you want a medic to stop what they are doing but you're thinking about using them as a hostage then tell them to stop and put their hands up. Seems pretty simple to understand. Hopefully Marcus called you all a bunch of idiots, endearingly of course..

 

I don't understand your position here.

 "either you broke a rule or the accusation is stupid." but also "Not everything has to be two-sided"

So there is or isn't a situation where the accusation is stupid, but is also technically a rule break?

Your solution for too many gray areas is to remove some aspects from the rules and leave more open to admin interpretation, adopting a 10 Commandments-style approach?

The reason this situation worked out the way you agree with is that Marcus, as Director & an admin, was allowed to make a nuanced decision, more or less indicating it's not as simple as you're making it out to be. If he just blindly followed a simplified version of the rules, would this not be against the rules? And if he was allowed to make his own decisions, but it wasn't written in the rules, would that not create more gray areas?

[Tman15tmb 1935]

7 minutes ago, David Miller said:

I don't understand your position here.

 "either you broke a rule or the accusation is stupid." but also "Not everything has to be two-sided"

So there is or isn't a situation where the accusation is stupid, but is also technically a rule break?

Your solution for too many gray areas is to remove some aspects from the rules and leave more open to admin interpretation, adopting a 10 Commandments-style approach?

The reason this situation worked out the way you agree with is that Marcus, as Director & an admin, was allowed to make a nuanced decision, more or less indicating it's not as simple as you're making it out to be. If he just blindly followed a simplified version of the rules, would this not be against the rules? And if he was allowed to make his own decisions, but it wasn't written in the rules, would that not create more gray areas?

I think it's as simple as swipe left, swipe right. Some staff tend to overthink in an attempt to justify both sides in their explanation. In most situations, especially in this case common sense should apply.

Thankfully it sounds like a concensus was reached, that no rule was broken to warrant action being taken.

[David Miller 828]

21 minutes ago, Tman15tmb said:

I think it's as simple as swipe left, swipe right. Some staff tend to overthink in an attempt to justify both sides in their explanation. In most situations, especially in this case common sense should apply.

Thankfully it sounds like a concensus was reached, that no rule was broken to warrant action being taken.

Fair enough, I agree entirely!

The first message had me a little confused that you disapproved of how this one was handled, even though you agree with the outcome.

[Tman15tmb 1935]

1 hour ago, David Miller said:

Fair enough, I agree entirely!

The first message had me a little confused that you disapproved of how this one was handled, even though you agree with the outcome.

I think more than anything I was just looking for an excuse to indirectly bitch @ -dante- haha

And its crazy how much the server rules have expanded or been reworked sense I was staff back in 2015-2016. During my time there was a lot less staff and server rules were fairly straightforward without the need for additional context. Although I remember butting heads over engagement rules. During that time I was pushing for radical changes like entire gangs wouldn't have to engage each other via text if two gang members were already fighting. Shit was a lot different haha.