Welcome to The Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads

info Perp Rules Overhaul Preliminary Changes Thread.


->SK<-
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is absolutely retarded and needs to be discussed and re-worded.

 

This is basically saying, if you own let's say one of the motel rooms outside of the city, a person can run into your house, take all your drugs, and scream "hey you didn't give me a 5 second warning so that's RDM if you kill me".

 

Imo, it needs to be "if you're on someone's front lawn of their property, you must give them a 5 second warning to get off. If you exceed anything past the door line, you are to be shot on sight".

 

Literally makes no sense to allow them through the front door and have to give them a 5 second warning. Not sure how this wasn't discussed or re-worded before.

 

John+facepalm.gif

 

12. Prior to shooting someone that is on your property, you must give them a warning accompanied with a reasonable amount of time to leave, unless they pose a threat. (Minimum amount of time is 5 seconds before you are authorized to defend your property.)

 

Not aiming at you Sui, but can everyone please for the love of god read the rule in its entirety. I mean would it be any different if I worded it like this;

 

12. Unless they pose a threat, you must give any person near/on your property ample warning via /y and time to leave your property. Minimum amount of time is 5 seconds before you are authorized to defend your property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not aiming at you Sui, but can everyone please for the love of god read the rule in its entirety. I mean would it be any different if I worded it like this;

 

12. Unless they pose a threat, you must give any person near/on your property ample warning via /y and time to leave your property. Minimum amount of time is 5 seconds before you are authorized to defend your property.

 

The wording wasn't his problem because even with this newly worded rule he will still wants to get rid of the warning part, because he wants to make it so if whoever goes through his doors is KOS. I think that's just stupid, people will leave there property doors open too farm kills(game tracker op). If your going to leave your property door unlocked/open then thats your fault and it doesn't make sense to make it KOS.

 

I don't even understand why you keep arguing this suicide, you've always gave a warning but since you rdm'd me yesterday you've been trying to change the rule in your favor.

Edited by Arezk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John+facepalm.gif

 

 

 

Not aiming at you Sui, but can everyone please for the love of god read the rule in its entirety. I mean would it be any different if I worded it like this;

 

12. Unless they pose a threat, you must give any person near/on your property ample warning via /y and time to leave your property. Minimum amount of time is 5 seconds before you are authorized to defend your property.

 

You didn't read.

 

The wording wasn't his problem because even with this newly worded rule he will still wants to get rid of the warning part, because he wants to make it so if whoever goes through his doors is KOS. I think that's just stupid, people will leave there property doors open too farm kills(game tracker op). If your going to leave your property door unlocked/open then thats your fault and it doesn't make sense to make it KOS.

 

I don't even understand why you keep arguing this suicide, you've always gave a warning but since you rdm'd me yesterday you've been trying to change the rule in your favor.

 

Same could be said to the other side of the situation, it's your fault if you walk into someone's OWNED property when you have no business being there. You check the doors, you see if it's owned, if it is, you walk away. You don't just walk into someone's house and say "hur dur 5 second warning pls". Could be argued right back the other way.

 

(btw, i didn't kill you).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But when he makes an attempt to get out of the property, and says OPEN in chat, he still gets shot at? Like honestly its the owner's fault when you leave the door unlocked and let someone run in like that. Sure the argument can be made for apartment, motel, or the sky property, but nine times out of ten its going to be a person trying to initiate a raid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But when he makes an attempt to get out of the property, and says OPEN in chat, he still gets shot at? Like honestly its the owner's fault when you leave the door unlocked and let someone run in like that. Sure the argument can be made for apartment, motel, or the sky property, but nine times out of ten its going to be a person trying to initiate a raid.

 

Well, it's simple, DON'T run in there in the first place, then you won't get shot. Problem solved??

 

You're trying to argue the fact that they have any business in someone's OWNED property, which they don't... there's literally NO reason for someone to be running inside of someone's house unless they want to raid them, or steal there stuff. There's no positive things to them running inside.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's simple, DON'T run in there in the first place, then you won't get shot. Problem solved??

 

You're trying to argue the fact that they have any business in someone's OWNED property, which they don't... there's literally NO reason for someone to be running inside of someone's house unless they want to raid them, or steal there stuff. There's no positive things to them running inside.

stop being so trigger happy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why this is even being discussed or changed in the rules. It's too wide to be a rule, there should just be common sense sometimes

 

Walking into elevator as a civilian during a sky scraper raid is just dumb, and if you ever have been shot its been considered crossfire and your fault.

 

Change the scenario and say appartment 204 doors are wide open and you walk in to see if anyone is using it to prospect a future raid, and some guy comes out of the bathroom door and blasts you in the face, complete rdm.

 

It shouldn't be wrriten into rules, unless you can accomodate both scenarios, and if you can't just leave it out. This rule has rarley been an issue, and if it has ever been brought up, the person has always been told to stop nittpicking and to use a little common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new rules will be enacted on FRIDAY at 11:59AM.

 

Thanks to all who helped us out. This thread will be used to give credit who helped us focus our rules better! (cause ye know, my english is so very good... riiight?)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share