authorizations

[raged]

rogue units have only caused drama and shit in the past and dont see why we  should allow it now

should stay un-authorisable

i thought one of the main ideas of the reboot of hl2rp was less admin intervention and more IC consequences

http://www.catalyst-gaming.net/index.php?topic=27217.15

see here

[Lone Wanderer <??"?]

rogue units have only caused drama and shit in the past and dont see why we  should allow it now

should stay un-authorisable

again, when did my rogue unit cause drama? you guys always just assume shit when it comes to stuff, and it's always just a blatant no. Have you guys ever considered tackling the people that just constantly complain about stuff instead of just saying no to roleplay? Because it's getting really old hearing "No, we aren't going to allow this because someone is gonna complain". Then tell that person to shut up, grow a pair, and play nicely or they're going to get the boot. Because I'm sick and tired of hearing people's bullshit honestly, because there is no reason why a unit shouldn't be able to leave the CCA for a perfectly legitimate IC reason.

Take, for example, a unit that never really was loyal to the CCA at all. What if they joined under a fake loyalty, and were a plant for a Resistance group they were apart of? Say they just act the part the whole time, and eventually, they get found out. Are you saying that, since it's 'going to cause drama', that they should suck it up and get executed? Are you saying that the totally legitimate situation of them avoiding capture, fleeing the Nexus, and possibly fighting/killing units that pursue them is not allowed? Because that'd be pretty fucking stupid to do all that work, all that subterfuge, just to say that they can't even defend themselves at all.

Which brings me to a whole other thing; not all units are even going 'rogue'. Some units just defect. Yet everyone instantly makes the assumption that a unit leaving the CCA is going to give weapons out, kill their division leader, blow up a HAP, etc. That only happened, what, a grand total of one time that I can even remember?


Rogue units should require an admin's approval, yes. But if a player brings up a perfectly valid reason for either going rogue or just defecting, saying no purely based on it causing drama is just fucking stupid. Because I certainly wasn't aware this was a guided roleplay session where the dungeon master tells me that I can't exercise the basic idea of running away from a situation where I'm guaranteed to get killed, when the clear, logical option is right in front of me.

[rBST Cow]

rogue units have only caused drama and shit in the past and dont see why we  should allow it now

should stay un-authorisable

i thought one of the main ideas of the reboot of hl2rp was less admin intervention and more IC consequences

http://www.catalyst-gaming.net/index.php?topic=27217.15

see here

ouch


raged is right. less admin intervention in roleplay will greatly lower drama and make the general atmosphere better. nothing should be limited by ooc factors. if something is realistically feasible, why should anyone stop that?

[Teitoku Ippan]

still sticking with no rogue units should be allowed because it only caused more shit than it did good

EDIT: imo it would require owner auth but ye

[Statua]

Less admin intervention doesn't mean no admin intervention.

[rBST Cow]

Less admin intervention doesn't mean no admin intervention.

Admins should intervene when rules are broken. If no rules were broken, don't intervene. Admins have no buisness destroying/interrupting rp if someone didn't break a single rule. If someone acts like an idiot and wants to spit on a units shoes(this is just an example), don't pull him aside and say you cant do that because that's failrp(which it really isn't, anyone can spit on someones shoes), let him suffer the concequences in character. He will get beat up by the unit and thrown in jail or whatever the unit decides. If some moron is power gaming and whatnot, then ya, step in, but just because your friend is getting killed that's no reason to stop the role play.

[Teitoku Ippan]

but it would be failrp and then admin intervention is needed, it was really dumb seeing someone everyday going up to a unit and spitting on them or some stupid shit

[rBST Cow]

but it would be failrp and then admin intervention is needed, it was really dumb seeing someone everyday going up to a unit and spitting on them or some stupid shit

Who cares if he's spitting on someone's shoes? It's realistically feasible to walk up to someone and spit on his shoes, so why should that be restricted on the server? I'm sure it would get annoying, but don't you think if someone spat on your shoes IRL you'd be annoyed too? If the guy becomes so much of a problem to the CCA and that's all he does, then take a gun and shoot him in the head. Let him suffer the IC concequences. Let units deal with it so they have something "fun" to deal with, because admins would have just stole that scenario/situation that could have been fun to a unit. I sure as hell know I'd rather deal with that than aimlessly walk in circles around plaza aka patrol.

[Teitoku Ippan]

fail to see how being spit on every single day by citizens is fun and how that would be legit rp

[rBST Cow]

fail to see how being spit on every single day by citizens is fun and how that would be legit rp

If the citizen is doing it every day then take him into the nexus and amputate him?

[Teitoku Ippan]

again you didnt read what i said properly

every single day by citizens

[BltElite]

Cow, your using different examples that don't tie into a proper rogue unit RP. Less admin intervention will mean mainly in smaller things as examples you gave, not within large scale happenings such as a rogue unit. You can't just think oh its stopping RP, you have to look at all sides of what that rogue unit will cause, and its something you don't want to happen every two days - hence a regulation on rogue units.

[Statua]

Failrp is broad and very subjective. It takes a few braincells to determine what is fail and what is not. A general guideline to follow is "is this realistic? Can it be done?" so yes you can spit on a units boots but don't complain when you get pk'd by amputation. I personally won't void the rp but i will pm the unit suggesting he find a way to amputate the citizen.

If you do something stupid that will most likely get you killed and you icly get killed, I'm damn right gonna pk you. I'll be more lenient on the deaths that are more of wrong place wrong time.

[rBST Cow]

Cow, your using different examples that don't tie into a proper rogue unit RP. Less admin intervention will mean mainly in smaller things as examples you gave, not within large scale happenings such as a rogue unit. You can't just think oh its stopping RP, you have to look at all sides of what that rogue unit will cause, and its something you don't want to happen every two days - hence a regulation on rogue units.

If a unit goes rouge and decides to rob a citizen for his tokens, let internal affairs investigate it and deal with it properly. Why should admins stop the possible interesting roleplay? Or what if some unit decided to use his powers to get into the CWU hospital or something and steel some morphine so he can get high? Why stop units from going rouge when they can create good rp? You guys are under the assumption that every rouge unit is going to try and shoot the sec in the head when he's not looking. I'm not saying there shouldn't be an auth system for it, but if there was, then there needs to be a smart and sensible way to go about it. Admins tend to metagame a lot harder than the regular citizens, I've seen this first hand and have looked in logs (when I had acess) just to prove my point.

[smt]

you cant ask for evidence for one thing then say ", I've seen this first hand and have looked in logs (when I had acess) just to prove my point." without evidence for another

If a unit goes rouge and decides to rob a citizen for his tokens

that should never happen LOL, i think peoples ideas of what a rouge unit should be is skewed