hnood190
-
Posts
402 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Forms
Articles
Posts posted by hnood190
-
-
-- Closed
-
-- Closed
-
-
-
Much love. You're a good shiba
-
Closed
This post just seems to be causing problems in the community, and people already told you to take this into the staff complaint section if you have any problems with a staff member.
Regards,
~The Community Team
( @Ice Cube @JamieB @Riph @15inb @Sprickles @Coolchoccy ) -
-
+rep epic store
-
Hmm, well then if you received the receipt, then it's nothing we can do. Only roast would be able to do something about it.
-
Have you tried going in-game, doing !store and pressing "Missing tokens?" on the top and press "yes"
-
-
Just now, Chriss said:
Looks very nice.
Has this been confirmed to be legible rules so staff can enforce or help with insight?
Yes, check credits. Riph confirmed it with me.
-
Just now, Turtle said:
Yeah I understand, some of the rules are pretty vague but at the same time they can't be too long so there just needs to be a balance which can only be found by seeing what problems arise. In relation to the LTA thing, I meant that getting evidence of the person who has been reported being knowledgeable of them being reported and therefore leaving the server/going AFK would be the tricky thing to get(if that makes sense lol)
Yeah, I feel you bro. It's pretty difficult. I just put it there for the sake of examples.
-
24 minutes ago, Turtle said:
I feel like most of these are pretty self explanatory, especially 1.3 and 1.7 -- if someone is AFK when needed for a sit usually I just put text screen up saying something along the lines of '/pm Turtle when you're back, if you leave you will be banned for LTA.' However I think that it would be difficult to prove that someone had the knowledge of them being reported and as a result left, and if that evidence was apparent it would just be common sense to ban them. IMO Rule 1.7 is pretty blatant in its meaning when it says 'third party software ', it already covers everything.
Yes, I understand, they're self explanatory. I made this because some people still have questions about these types of things. It's just to make things more clear. And having the knowledge of being reported is a rare scenario, but it has happened before, it's just an example after all.
-
I've been working on this document because I saw that people needed rules to become more clear.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sO34r3LjKP7DppoMccBULbkNewRf9xAhRVu32FRpJdU/edit?usp=sharing
I chose google docs to make it easier for me to edit things and can add people to it to if I need to.
PS. If there's anything I've forgotten or left out, or you just don't understand clearly. I'll try to update the document and answer your questions. I am also thinking of making more docs like this about cloud gaming. Already got some things in mind, but tell me what you think this community needs.
-
This is so sweet, thanks very much guys ❤️ And ice cube is truly an amazing staff member.
-
-
There are LOTS and lots more secret/unique places when you have the ability to noclip through walls.
-
Just now, Chriss said:
Not too sure if this is sarcasm or not with all the capitalisation. I just think it would be useful to have some sort of unique/special job to allow for the use of snipers in role play context. Say you see a group of Gangsters with guns but they’ve put them away. Get a sniper on a roof top, they be over watch. You and the boys rock up. Ask them to face the wall, if they move then bang. Sniper shoots the cunt that moved.
In my opinion that would be a good compromise in terms of allowing CPs to work effectively.
It wasn't sarcasm, I always loved the idea of making swat snipers able to KOS under specific terms like you mentioned.
-
1 minute ago, Chriss said:
However I just think it would be a lot better if a rule was in place stating if it is in the laws then citizens have been warned. Then it doesn’t render swat sniper job useless.
Yes, I would LOVE to see a rule stating that swat snipers can KOS from afar if someone is breaking a law and it states in lawboard that Swat snipers can do so. It'd be a LOT more fun and useful for CPs, and also would be encouraging for people to get VIP so they can also just pop people's head off for breaking a law.
Yes, I'm totally with you on that one, I'd love to see it added, but I doubt it highly.
Just now, Chriss said:Pretty sure this isn’t allowed or is it in the process of being defined in the rules. But yeah I get what you mean my dude ❤️
Meant like from the PD window if some people are planning a raid or like raiding a base and swat snipers fall back to pop defenders heads off.
-
4 minutes ago, Chriss said:
BTW I’m not trying to be an awkward prick by keep questioning. Just trying to get a clear understanding of the rule as a lot of people don’t really interpret the same..
It's totally, fine, don't even worry about it. I'm happy to share knowledge with others.
5 minutes ago, Chriss said:It just seems like staff are on different pages with the rule. Yes Jamie has clarified it. However I was told off other A+‘s in the past that I can KOS a for having a gun out.
Then I hope they can read what Jamie has said and fix their view about that rule.
5 minutes ago, Chriss said:Plus, if you now cannot KOS for them having a gun out, it renders the swat sniper job semi-useless. Surely this could be changed to allowing them to KOS if it is written into the laws that if you have a gun out you will be arrested/killed. Then it is a warn but it also makes CP not signing their life away.
I understand, it makes swat sniper semi-useless, that's true. It only makes it useless to the killing part, SSnipers can do a lot. Like defending/raiding from afar, Have an almost non-spottable point of view where they can take their time on their shots if someone just starts killing CPs or does something to provoke KOS. Or if someone is resisting arrest, they can pop them easily.
-
Just now, Chriss said:
If there is someone with a gun out, i’m expected to run up to them. Ask them to drop it and if not then they’ll shoot me. Basically signing my own death wish if this is the case.
I understand it sounds kind of hilarious when you put it that way, but basically, yes. It's to give a kind of balanced advantage to both parties, you can't just kill/arrest people immediately. that'd be unfair, and you can always have your gun out while doing so ( the warning ) So if they start shooting/pull the gun out/keep it equipped then you start arresting/shooting. I believe it's balanced to a fair point.
-
4 minutes ago, Chriss said:
Which one should I listen to. You or the rules?
I have had the same confusion about this as you have. I've asked Jamie about it and he confirmed it to me.
I believe the rule's pretty clear to me. Why? Because it doesn't use past tense, it says "Unless they pull out a gun" then the 10seconds warning is gone and you have to arrest/kill immediately after the warning.
-
It's like this, if someone pulls out a gun, you tell them to put it away, if they don't put it away, you arrest them. You don't immediately arrest them for having the gun out for like 1 second or without warning, you must always warn them before arresting. Though, if as you said, 3 gangsters walking around, I'd say you should warn them to not pull their guns out. If you see them pulling their gun out after warning, like some time after and in the same life, you arrest them, if they resist arrest/shoot at you, you KOS. I don't think time matters, what matters is the new life rule, are u in a new life or are u in the same life? That's what matters.
hnood's store
in Trading
Posted
-- Closed