ChrisRid

As others have said, if you were to build a base for someone and then add them as a prop-Buddy (found under the utilities tab) they can use the Adv. Dupe to copy and save that base to place down later. In the past I have out down props for people when I haven’t been basing out of my own prop count, like printer racks etc. I haven’t done it for money though so that’s a good idea lol.

+1 Dint mind the idea of a hammer being added. Maybe link an addon that you’re proposing to be used? I am however strongly against replacing the machete.

+1 I think it would make a lot of sense, and while I can understand why it's been denied previously, it would be interesting to know if Shank's suggestion offers a way of making it work without having to add every CC to the system?

-1 It wasn't that long ago that the skybox was changed to have the day / night cycles which was long awaited for. The server is meant to be vanilla (and while I know it's strayed a little) having a Halo skybox is just too far removed from what you'd expect of a DarkRP server.

+1 Good idea! It would certainly make for a unique and interesting prestige class.

This has already been added as an extension to the strip club:

You're a great guy and it's sad to see you go mate, but I hope that you manage to achieve everything that you want to and I look forward to catching up when we get a chance. If you ever feel like coming back then you'll have my referral. Take care in the meantime

DENIED You were banned originally for hacking, then later on you were further banned for ban-evasion which was automatically detected by the console. If you felt your ban was unjustified then you should have appealed your ban within 30 days. Your ban will remain. @Shin_Tsukimi @stretchy @Glorbnob @FlameSoul @GrosCave Please lock and move.

Neutral As it stands, staff can already use their discretion and go with anything from a verbal warning up to a permanent ban. However the maximum amount of time a staff member can ban for this, is capped by their rank, so VIP Mod+ can ban up to 2 weeks without further approval, then admin+ can ban up to 6 months without further approval, and managers can go permanent. So in a sense, this is already possible, but depending on a staff members rank, they may just need approval to go for the full permanent ban. The only think I would say is that I do agree with the current system of capping at certain ranks, because every situation is unique and experience is the best way of ensuring that not every player gets a permanent ban. The way I tend to go about it (and depending on severity), 2 weeks is good for first offences, multiple offences is when I’ll start handing out months-long bans, and multiple repeated instances is when I’d seek a manager for special approval of a permanent ban. I think we do a top-job on Garnet of keeping on top of racism or other toxic behaviour, compared to a lot of DarkRP servers we’re among the best at taking care of these situations and ensuring people know it’s not tolerated, while keeping a calm and professional, fair approach at all times. To summarise, it kind of already is like this, but with rank caps (where approval is needed by higher ups) and I think the system works well, but I’m not against being stricter either, but without being overly trigger-happy on the ban button.

+1 This is a pretty good idea, it makes sense for the Mayor to be in charge and ensure that the police are following their guidance and could really boost the overall dynamic of the PD as a whole. My only input would be to clearly define what's acceptable as reasoning for a demotion? In other words is it totally down to the Mayors discretion, or does there need to be sufficient reason for demotion? If there needs to be a reason, how can it be logged for the purpose of FailRP reports? And if it's totally the Mayors discretion then how do we identify someone who's abusing the powers? As Smileeface said, there would need to be some kind of timer to prevent the same person from joining straight back again which makes a lot of sense, and ideally this would be in terms of preventing them from joining the job as opposed to a rule if possible. I also feel that the Police Cheif should somehow be involved in this, maybe not as the one to demote necessarily, but given that they are literally the Police Cheif, it makes sense for them to have a say in what's going on with their officers or risk becoming a redundant class. What if (just an idea) the Police Cheif and Mayor must both agree to demote someone in order for it to happen, to avoid potential abuse? If there isn't a Police Cheif then the Mayor could still act alone perhaps?

Congratulations to everyone who's worked hard through the final month of the year to help keep our favourite server as awesome as always A big congratulations to @stretchy on being promoted to DarkRP director! It's absolutely well deserved after how much time and effort you put into DarkRP, you're the man! Super happy for you mate. A huge well done to our MVP's @1998Corolla , @IAmCam and @Wendoly for hitting some crazy sit counts, you guys should be proud! I wish everyone a very happy New Year and here's to another month! Cheers

Just to be very clear here, using the Adv. Dupe to spawn in no-collided props (while the no collide tool is restricted) is by definition an exploit. There's no grey area as to whether it's against the rules to exploit or use loopholes to get around restrictions, which is why co-collided props are currently against the rules. As I mentioned before, if it were allowed then why would the no-collide tool be restricted in the first place? Lack of enforcement is what you're referring to which is a separate issue entirely, and has many factors involved (such as diffusion of responsibility that you're displaying, personal bias, incorrect precedents set before, a 'can't beat them join them' mindset) which makes life a lot more difficult then it needs to be. I would imagine in the case where you say Proggy saw it, I feel it's likely he didn't realise it was no-collided or I'd guess he would have spoken to you. Without his expressed view on the situation, I don't think it's wise to speculate on his thoughts around it, especially when saying his view is encouraging exploitation which I doubt.

I agree completely, it's baffling to me how everyone's still going forwards with "allow the exploit" with no discussion surrounding the no collide tool its-self? Allowing an impractical exploit is definitely not the best way forwards and I'm sat here wondering what I'm missing lol. Following from your points, I'd like to change my response to the following, just to be clear to others and in hope that a reasonable discussion might come from it: -1 for allowing an Adv. Dupe exploit as an impractical way of placing no-collided glass in the server Neutral for allowing the no-collide tool While I like this idea on face value, as it currently stands a moderator can pretty reliably take their months worth of reports in one evening, and so I'm pretty against anything that unnecessarily adds to the current workload, and it goes without saying that players who have a genuine concern would be affected by those who just want a rocket-proof doorway. So while this would be fantastic if the workload wasn't so high, I don't think this is a viable option as of right now unfortunately. I'm not entirely sure what the best answer is, but it would be surrounding the idea of adding the no-collide tool back into DarkRP. I'd be interested to know the reason for it being restricted in the first place, but I'm still edging on the side of a -1 for the reasons I've previously stated, but I'm open to suggestion too, I'm not totally against the idea but still not sure it's a necessary change.

+1 Great application and I love the reasons that you've given for wanting to join the team. You've got a ton of hours in-game and are well known and trusted by many, plus referrals from both Shin and Martian which speaks volumes! You're a chilled guy who I feel would make a superb addition to the team, and so I wish you the best of luck

-1 While I feel this is gratuitous in this instance, in order to satisfy the forum rules surrounding staff applications: I'm certain you're trolling.

Neutral I think a better title for this suggestion (and the main focus here) is “Allow the use of the no-collide tool”, given that using the adv. dupe to spawn any no-collided prop in is a form of exploiting as it currently stands, and not the most practical way of building either. I'm not totally against the idea of allowing it, however I’m not sure I see the need to honestly, given that it’s totally possible to use glass to rocket-proof a base without making it no-collide. I’ve seen some great bases which use standard glass for protection in areas which would be difficult or impossible to base without it, but I’m not sure I see the necessity of it being made no-collide. The only other factor to take into account is that as it stands, only those with access to the Adv. Dupe tool are able to place no-collide glass which restricts this form of rocket proofing to VIP only, and I’m a firm believer that this tool should only be used for convenience and not in ways which affect the games balance. So I’d assume the no-collide tool would then be open to all? If the no-collide tool was allowed, it would also then bring into question all evidence for things like prop block, as it’s all too easy to say a prop was no-collided and not blocking anything. As I say, I’m not totally against the idea of it being allowed but I feel there’s greater weight potentially for disallowing it, even if many do use it already but it simply goes unreported in most cases.

-1 You haven't read the staff rules so I'll have to give you a -1 just on that basis. Some tips for your application though, try to improve the reasons that you've given for wanting to join the staff team. For example, take something that you're good at (lets say you work as an accountant) then you could say you have an eye for detail and it would help you efficiently and accurately gain information from the logs when handling reports. Use your own imagination and take a look at some of the previously accepted staff applications to give you a better idea of what others have said. The two paragraphs is a bare-minimum, and as an avid bookworm I feel you could do a lot better for sure. Impressive reaction time by the way! I don't see how it would benefit you while staffing, but it's pretty cool none the less!

I'll stick to my -1 for getting rid of a fading door for all the reasons previously stated. Just with regards to the suggestion of 3 doors and a keypadded printer vault, this would actually hurt the raider more than the baser. Imagine if you had 3 people basing together, you'd need to crack 6 keypads in total to access all of the printers (3 for the doors, plus three separate printer vaults). If you're going to suggest that the printer vault should only be one, it amounts to the same as the 4th fading door. Plus, often bases have a quick door (which actually helps the raider steal printers if they make it in) but you'd need to crack the keypad for every few printers you take out the vault, instead of just operating one quickdoor. One printer vault would also lead to confusion when it comes to who's printers are who's, I always keep mine separate to other peoples in case either of us mistake the others for our own and take the money.

I think the greater point is that they are able to improve, and we have all started out making bases which weren't all that great. It's only through having been raided, then asking other players what they do and taking suggestions, and through trial and error that we can all improve, and they aren't limited to what level they are in their ability to make a good base either. Taking away one of their doors however could prove to make things even more difficult for them than it already is, given their base is likely not setup for a favourable firefight and that door could make all the difference to them. Whereas to an experienced player, one door doesn't make a great deal of difference, providing we pay attention lol.

Similarly though, low-level players generally make bases which are much easier to raid. So when you look at equal stats of raiders and basers: New players: Make (often) easy to raid bases and are matched with their raiding ability Experienced players: Make difficult to raid bases but (with my counter suggestion) have an increased ability to crack keypads I think this would give a fair solution

Is there a single prop equivalent at all? Just for the sake of simplicity and to avoid any confusion, like for example (and I haven't looked) but say a 1x1 plate? I'd be cool with that

The use of glass is allowed, providing it's not no-collided. So for small bases that would otherwise be obliterated by rockets, glass is ok, but no-collide is not. I think it generally goes unreported, so staff don't often need to get involved. But if people see a base with no-collide glass then they're welcome to make a report

The use of no-collide glass is already against the rules as it currently stands The no-collide tool is already restricted (not allowed) and therefore the only way of having no-collided glass in the server is via exploitation of the Adv. Dupe tool. Before anyone asks, if it was allowed, wouldn't it be a lot easier to allow the use of the co-collide tool?

Neutral I'm not against this idea, and I do actually give plenty of room between my fading doors as it stands when I make a base, just to avoid anyone getting stuck and having to make a report. The reason for bot giving it a +1 is due to the ambiguity of distance, given that for many players it would be pure guess-work when trying to determine what 3 players might look like. If you could specify a prop as a more standardised and simple way of judging the distance then I may be willing to give this a +1, but 3 players is too difficult to implement as it currently stands.