What's new
By:
Filters
Roleplay UK

Join the UK's biggest roleplay community on FiveM and experience endless new roleplay opportunities!

Rules Feedback

(7.2.5) You may not write in sidechat that you are robbing the bank. This is your operation with the friends/members that are there with you. You may not call for backup, only those on site at the beginning of the heist may take part. The Police may return after NLR timer is up however non-whitelisted civilians may not.

I believe that this rule should apply to both the Treasury and the RBA International Reserve, not just the Treasury as I believe that many roleplay situations, such as negotiations,  at the reserve can be negatively effected by this and result in an overall bad experience for everyone involved. As stated for the treasury, this is your operation with the friends/members that are there with you, and it should not be ruined by others trying to interrupt your roleplay.

 
(1.9) Providing a false age when applying to join a whitelisted faction in order to circumvent the age limits is punishable by a ban.

Although this may be the rule which i am currently banned for, i have spoke to people and they and I have decided that this rule is a rather odd rule.

First of all, lying to join a whitelisted faction doesn't mean you had bad roleplay, it doesn't mean you false initiated or RDMed.. The worst possible outcome of lying to join a whitelisted faction is you waste some peoples time in interviews, which is no different to if you got denied in your interview. I got banned for 1.9, and i can agree that i should be blacklisted from the faction, however just because i "lied" about my age to get into a faction, doesn't mean i abused my powers in that faction, doesn't meant that i am a bad roleplayer. What im trying to say is that 1.9 shouldn't have a place in the community rules, at most it should be faction rules. I would say i am a good roleplayer, i did well in the NHS, i did well as a PCSO.. But my journey was ended short, because i added 1 year to my NHS app, despite the fact i am old enough anyway. Besides, there is no way they know my real age, unless i share a birth certificate or ID, which is too personal to share over the internet. I believe 1.9 should be removed, because at the end of the day if you lie about your age to get into a faction, it doesn't have any negative effect on the community. In fact, while i was in the NHS i helped many people, as the only medic online, i helped people with writing applications, so i caused a positive effect for it, and as a result, i get banned. I've never done anything wrong in this community before, being impatient and sending my app 15 days before i was old enough to do so. Does that mean i should be banished from the server? Thats like putting someone in prison for 15 years because they stole a pack of bourbons from Asda (other stores are available), when people who have been put up for hate crime only have 8 years.. Does it make sense? So, does 1.9 make sense? 

 
  • Facepalm
Reactions: Ant
@mouldykipper rule 1.9 is in place to protect under 16’s, factions and the community as a whole. As much as you would probably want to debate about it, it is a rule that is NOT going to change moving forward. It’s not based upon a persons roleplay or what they’ve done for the community, it is based upon their age and what detrimental affects that could potentially have should something go sideways.

 
Samatlewis said:
@mouldykipper rule 1.9 is in place to protect under 16’s, factions and the community as a whole. As much as you would probably want to debate about it, it is a rule that is NOT going to change moving forward. It’s not based upon a persons roleplay or what they’ve done for the community, it is based upon their age and what detrimental affects that could potentially have should something go sideways.
Click to expand...
Yeah i can understand that and i'm not moaning because of my ban, that is fair, but the rule itself i don't think should have a place considering if you ban someone from the server because they applied for something and they're not old enough is not protecting them nor the community. All it takes is a blacklist and thats good enough. RPUK has a great community, and we have made under 16's here. But banning them because they want to try a faction? The problem is there is no way of proving someones age. For all you guys know i could be 25 i could be 9. But the flexibility of ages that RPUK offers means that there is a great community here. Not all under 16's want to grief or harm the community, and if you are letting them on as CIVs but banning them if they try to join a faction, is that not contradictory? They have more power as a Civilian to cause grief, then they do as a medic. And for example the police had a young recruitment system, that worked quite well, and many oppurtunities were made through that, and although few arguments were caused by it, its no different to those caused by fully grown adults, who have heated debates about who initiated wrongly, etc. The 1.9 rule is effectively taking away the freedom and liberty that this community has. Not many communities will cater for under 16's. Now, myself and others cannot get their head around the fact that you get banned for it. Like i said, a Blacklist is appropriate, as that will stop under 16's from causing problems with whitelisted roles. I hope you can see my take on it, i'm not here to cause arguments i just want my voice to be heard, this is a great community, but rules such as 1.9 make this community inaccessible to many. And thats not what RPUK is about. We are about roleplay, and fun. Not about your age, your gender, your race. Whoever you are, wherever you have come from, you are welcome here, to roleplay, within the community.

 
Don't see anything related to what was posted here prior to the meeting hence why I'm asking 

 
mouldykipper said:
Yeah i can understand that and i'm not moaning because of my ban, that is fair, but the rule itself i don't think should have a place considering if you ban someone from the server because they applied for something and they're not old enough is not protecting them nor the community. All it takes is a blacklist and thats good enough. RPUK has a great community, and we have made under 16's here. But banning them because they want to try a faction? The problem is there is no way of proving someones age. For all you guys know i could be 25 i could be 9. But the flexibility of ages that RPUK offers means that there is a great community here. Not all under 16's want to grief or harm the community, and if you are letting them on as CIVs but banning them if they try to join a faction, is that not contradictory? They have more power as a Civilian to cause grief, then they do as a medic. And for example the police had a young recruitment system, that worked quite well, and many oppurtunities were made through that, and although few arguments were caused by it, its no different to those caused by fully grown adults, who have heated debates about who initiated wrongly, etc. The 1.9 rule is effectively taking away the freedom and liberty that this community has. Not many communities will cater for under 16's. Now, myself and others cannot get their head around the fact that you get banned for it. Like i said, a Blacklist is appropriate, as that will stop under 16's from causing problems with whitelisted roles. I hope you can see my take on it, i'm not here to cause arguments i just want my voice to be heard, this is a great community, but rules such as 1.9 make this community inaccessible to many. And thats not what RPUK is about. We are about roleplay, and fun. Not about your age, your gender, your race. Whoever you are, wherever you have come from, you are welcome here, to roleplay, within the community.
Click to expand...
I'll answer this and leave it at that.

The reason under 16's aren't allowed into whitelisted factions is far less to do with the maturity levels of people within this age range and is more to do with safeguarding.

When you join a whitelisted faction you represent an (albeit small) part of the community. You become somebody who has filled in a form to say that they wish to contribute to the community by playing as a certain role. While this to some may seem insignificant, trust me when I say, it's not. Unfortunately, the internet is a reckless place and as most will know, any information that is placed onto it never dissapears. Whilst this is useful in some cases, it means that those who are perhaps vulnerable to "attack" are more suseptible. The 1.9 rule is therefor in place in an attempt to reduce the risk of any form of "attack" that could take place within this community, it is in your best interest as well as our own to prevent this from happening. We understand that it is indeed annoying but you'd be much better off waiting until you reach the age of 16 and getting into a whitelisted faction than lying and ending up getting yourself banned eh?

For more information on the topic, refer to this website.
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/keeping-children-safe/online-safety/

As Samat has informed you, the rule is here to stay. No more arguments on the topic please & thanks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
(7.2.3) The Police will always send in a unarmed negotiator in a marked police car who will drive up to the entrance and make himself known. This is part of the treasury robbery process. You can either start roleplay with the negotiator, or decline negotiations by asking him to leave. You cannot kill him - he must leave, and if killed it is bannable. You also may not kidnap the negotiator.

Only applies to HM
Click to expand...
There is no HM anymore, if a new player might try to do a RBA Treasury then dont know whats gonna happen

 
I've been referred here by @DjHolyChirst regarding my feedback on the recent abuse of the blue zone rules by Police. 

https://www.roleplay.co.uk/topic/104467-bluezone-escaping/

Recently lots of the Police force have been fleeing the the blue zone and locking themselves in mid-gunfight, usually taking valuable vehicles with them like Hunters and storing them to avoid loss. 

If we take this situation outside of blue zone rules, and look at general sever rules if this was turned the other way round, these are the server rules that would be broken :  

(2.6) Combat storing, such as storing a vehicle whilst you are being chased or to prevent roleplay will result in a ban.

(6.0.1) You must not abuse the boundaries of any marked zone on the map. Using the boundary to troll/taunt or temporarily gain protection is forbidden.

(6.1.6) You must not exploit the green zone to avoid ongoing hostile roleplay. Retreating into a green zone is forbidden. (this last one is a comparison)

Why should this be any different for Police?

My suggestions to fix this situation would be the following (and are open to discussion) 

1. Implement rule 2.6 to apply to Police blue zones.

2. Implement rule 6.0.1 to apply to Police blue zones. 

Therefore the blue zones still remain open for safe Roleplay scenarios, however any hostile situations are not to be taken there, as it is a clear breach of server rules and an unrealistic representation of hostile roleplay. 

 
OG Styx said:
I've been referred here by @DjHolyChirst regarding my feedback on the recent abuse of the blue zone rules by Police. 

https://www.roleplay.co.uk/topic/104467-bluezone-escaping/

Recently lots of the Police force have been fleeing the the blue zone and locking themselves in mid-gunfight, usually taking valuable vehicles with them like Hunters and storing them to avoid loss. 

If we take this situation outside of blue zone rules, and look at general sever rules if this was turned the other way round, these are the server rules that would be broken :  

(2.6) Combat storing, such as storing a vehicle whilst you are being chased or to prevent roleplay will result in a ban.

(6.0.1) You must not abuse the boundaries of any marked zone on the map. Using the boundary to troll/taunt or temporarily gain protection is forbidden.

(6.1.6) You must not exploit the green zone to avoid ongoing hostile roleplay. Retreating into a green zone is forbidden. (this last one is a comparison)

Why should this be any different for Police?

My suggestions to fix this situation would be the following (and are open to discussion) 

1. Implement rule 2.6 to apply to Police blue zones.

2. Implement rule 6.0.1 to apply to Police blue zones. 

Therefore the blue zones still remain open for safe Roleplay scenarios, however any hostile situations are not to be taken there, as it is a clear breach of server rules and an unrealistic representation of hostile roleplay. 
Click to expand...
As well as this being implemented I would like to say that when cops spike strips PARKED  vehicles that it is straight fail/poor rp, think logically how are you going to spike a PARKED vehicle.

 
D Y L A N said:
As well as this being implemented I would like to say that when cops spike strips PARKED  vehicles that it is straight fail/poor rp, think logically how are you going to spike a PARKED vehicle.
Click to expand...
Or when the police are running around with Spike Strips fully extended. They should have to be in position & then place it, not run 100m with it out.

 
Can being knocked out while having your gun out be considered fail RP? I know as of this moment it's only fail RP if you are pointing the gun at them, but due to the nature of the game it's desyncy as hell so say your making a run from it and youre already 3m from them they can still knock you out, or say you're pointing a gun at them all they need to do is move to your side in a millisecond and knock you out before you've even started moving on the other persons screen.

It's also an excuse to 'eliminate' someone before proper roleplay has even occured, as there is no rule saying that there needs to be high quality RP before knocking someone out it's only before shooting someone that the rule needs to be considered for. For example, people can get away with practically straight away threatening to knock someone out but not shoot them, and as practically no way to defend yourself it just seems like a bit of an exploit. Counter-initiate? Get knocked out. Point your weapon at them? They move to your side and knock you out.

All-in-all, I wrote this suggestion out terribly but I think that if you have a firearm out someone should not be able to knock you out, regardless of if it is being pointed at you or not.

Also something that I don't think has been considered even though I put it up a while ago is taking a police officer hostage from a large-scale event (Treasury, RBA, Weapon Cache) - currently, it's a bit counter intuitive to send an officer to negotiate against heavily armed rebels at the RBA/Weapon Cache as there is nothing stopping them from taking that cop hostage - it's much easier and safer for us to send a force in to threaten the hostage takers much more quickly and that has been happening more and more often concurrently with the hostage taking, unlike with the Treasury where there are rules to protect them. Those same rules should be applied to all three advanced rebel activities and any more to come of similar category.

 
Ant Arni said:
stion out terribly but I think that if you have a firearm out someone should not be able to knock you out, regardless of if it is being pointed at you or not.
Click to expand...
This would just encourage fragging if there is going to be some sort of "mexican standoff" however. If you are close together someone can do that and boom its over & you have a hostage however with this its just what do we have to loose & open fire the moment initiation occurs.

 
What is the exact rules regarding returning to HM when trucks leave. Some people say that you are allowed to return regardless of NLR times when it goes into transport stage, but some say you still have to wait 15. Can we get some clearification on that. Also been informed that police are allowed to return as long as its over 1 km away but rebels are not? 

And then the whole keeping eyes in general and at HM. Some staff say keeping eyes is fine and other says that after 5 minutes of keeping eyes you still need to reinitiate. What are the clear rules about this?

This post more or less:





Ant Arni said:
Also something that I don't think has been considered even though I put it up a while ago is taking a police officer hostage from a large-scale event (Treasury, RBA, Weapon Cache) - currently, it's a bit counter intuitive to send an officer to negotiate against heavily armed rebels at the RBA/Weapon Cache as there is nothing stopping them from taking that cop hostage - it's much easier and safer for us to send a force in to threaten the hostage takers much more quickly and that has been happening more and more often concurrently with the hostage taking, unlike with the Treasury where there are rules to protect them. Those same rules should be applied to all three advanced rebel activities and any more to come of similar category.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that if they come unarmed then they can not be taken, but they usually come armed

 
Cool said:
Pretty sure that if they come unarmed then they can not be taken, but they usually come armed
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be suggesting it if it was already in the rules 😕

(7.2.3) The Police will always send in a unarmed negotiator in a marked police car who will drive up to the entrance and make himself known. This is part of the treasury robbery process. You can either start roleplay with the negotiator, or decline negotiations by asking him to leave. You cannot kill him - he must leave, and if killed it is bannable. You also may not kidnap the negotiator.

It's under the Treasury rules section and also only mentions the treasury ^^

Also in regards to cops returning to the HM, it again mentions it in the rules

(7.2.5) You may not write in sidechat that you are robbing the bank. This is your operation with the friends/members that are there with you. You may not call for backup, only those on site at the beginning of the heist may take part. The Police may return after NLR timer is up however non-whitelisted civilians may not.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top