[[MRP] US Officer Class Weapons]

+1

As it was accepted that Afghan Commander whitelists should get 2 primary weapons, their faction's main weapons, it should also be implemented on US-side. It's simply a balance.

RP-reasoning (for those who want RP reasons) is that Afghan forces really shouldn't be better equipped, with more guns to spare, than the US Army.

[Whu's Staff Application V2]

-1

I know you were a decent staff member before, however since your return to the Server I'm not sure on you returning to Staff at the moment. On the forums there's already been a few times you've ignored the rules regarding responding to Appeals. The reason why I'm putting a -1 for that is they are simple rules to follow, and whilst there's not really been any issues with you in-game since your return, I'm not sold on you returning to the staff team at this time.

[Theos LSAC Bot Appeal]

"My apologies for the false ban detection by the Leys Anticheat. On 10/05/2021 I had turned off all detections that were showing potential of false detections, however, the creator (Leys) insisted I turn on a method that I raised concerns regarding, and it seemed to have gone on a rampage of banning everyone on the server. This situation will not arise again as that detection method was removed, and only the conservative (100% chance of positive detection) methods were left on the server - albeit less effective.

The creator of the Anticheat has been notified, and all players affected have been unbanned." - Garnet

 

@Fonza Please lock and move

[Froster's Ban Appeal]

"My apologies for the false ban detection by the Leys Anticheat. On 10/05/2021 I had turned off all detections that were showing potential of false detections, however, the creator (Leys) insisted I turn on a method that I raised concerns regarding, and it seemed to have gone on a rampage of banning everyone on the server. This situation will not arise again as that detection method was removed, and only the conservative (100% chance of positive detection) methods were left on the server - albeit less effective.

The creator of the Anticheat has been notified, and all players affected have been unbanned." - Garnet

 

@Fonza Please lock and move

[Enjoi Ban Appeal]

"My apologies for the false ban detection by the Leys Anticheat. On 10/05/2021 I had turned off all detections that were showing potential of false detections, however, the creator (Leys) insisted I turn on a method that I raised concerns regarding, and it seemed to have gone on a rampage of banning everyone on the server. This situation will not arise again as that detection method was removed, and only the conservative (100% chance of positive detection) methods were left on the server - albeit less effective.

The creator of the Anticheat has been notified, and all players affected have been unbanned." - Garnet

 

@Fonza Please lock and move

[Krab's Ban Appeal]

"My apologies for the false ban detection by the Leys Anticheat. On 10/05/2021 I had turned off all detections that were showing potential of false detections, however, the creator (Leys) insisted I turn on a method that I raised concerns regarding, and it seemed to have gone on a rampage of banning everyone on the server. This situation will not arise again as that detection method was removed, and only the conservative (100% chance of positive detection) methods were left on the server - albeit less effective.

The creator of the Anticheat has been notified, and all players affected have been unbanned." - Garnet

 

@Fonza Please lock and move

[I have been banned for no reason]

"My apologies for the false ban detection by the Leys Anticheat. On 10/05/2021 I had turned off all detections that were showing potential of false detections, however, the creator (Leys) insisted I turn on a method that I raised concerns regarding, and it seemed to have gone on a rampage of banning everyone on the server. This situation will not arise again as that detection method was removed, and only the conservative (100% chance of positive detection) methods were left on the server - albeit less effective.

The creator of the Anticheat has been notified, and all players affected have been unbanned." - Garnet

 

@Fonza Please lock and move

[Cpt.ben's Ban Appeal]

"My apologies for the false ban detection by the Leys Anticheat. On 10/05/2021 I had turned off all detections that were showing potential of false detections, however, the creator (Leys) insisted I turn on a method that I raised concerns regarding, and it seemed to have gone on a rampage of banning everyone on the server. This situation will not arise again as that detection method was removed, and only the conservative (100% chance of positive detection) methods were left on the server - albeit less effective.

The creator of the Anticheat has been notified, and all players affected have been unbanned." - Garnet

 

@Fonza Please lock and move

[Knick`s LSAC Ban appeal]

"My apologies for the false ban detection by the Leys Anticheat. On 10/05/2021 I had turned off all detections that were showing potential of false detections, however, the creator (Leys) insisted I turn on a method that I raised concerns regarding, and it seemed to have gone on a rampage of banning everyone on the server. This situation will not arise again as that detection method was removed, and only the conservative (100% chance of positive detection) methods were left on the server - albeit less effective.

The creator of the Anticheat has been notified, and all players affected have been unbanned." - Garnet

 

@Fonza Please lock and move

[Fortification Tablet Suggestion]

+1

Could make some events very interesting. So long as the tablet is only added to the server, and not specific classes, so it can be given with /giveweapon for events, then yeh.

[OreoDoggo's GM application V2]

-1

I still have some minor concerns over your behaviour on the server, and the events you've suggested aren't too detailed. Whilst the events seem simplistic so explaining them to players would not be difficult, 2 of them just sound like a Raid with a side-objective of RP. 

[LSAC Bot Permissions Change]

Description: Currently the Anti-Cheat Bot automatically bans people it interprets as cheating. In order for this system to work most effectively, it will require lengthy fine-tuning as stated by reviewers of the Bot and the Bot's own automatic message. As of right now, the Bot is not fine-tuned enough to the setup of the Server and it's addons for the Bot to be given permissions to immediately ban. The Bot should be setup in a manner where it flags up suspicious players, with the reasoning why the Bot has flagged them, and this information is provided to the Staff team (in some form or another) so they may spectate the Users flagged. This will mean that any further issues over the configuration of the Bot won't be as impactful as they are now and won't require Garnet's immediate attention.

Reasoning: This allows Staff to be aided by the Bot, and act as a failsafe to prevent Cheating bans that are not warranted.

Additional Information: -

[Theos LSAC Bot Appeal]

In-game name: Theos
SteamID (https://steamid.io/): STEAM_0:0:130146048
Staff members in-game name: LSAC Bot @Nutter
Staff members SteamID (/id (name): -
Date & Time of incident: 5th Oct. - 4:15am
Timezone: BST
Ban Reason: Cheating
How long were you banned for?: Perm
Proof of Ban: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/737510775119151115/894785490132303882/unknown.png 
What happened? (include any proof): Was just chilling on the server, shot at a few people, other than that did nothing notable
Why should your ban be removed?: I maintain that I don't cheat. As stated by the Bot's ban message, it needs to be configured differently to every Server and it's not configured correctly to MRP to warrant it have the permissions to automatically ban.

[Knick`s LSAC Ban appeal]

@Nutter will need to deal with this appeal due to it being from the bot.

He has stated on other appeals however that what you get banned for is not necessarily what you did the moment before a ban.

[Kidnapping AFK Players]

Personally I find the Kidnapping of AFK players incredibly cringe. It's sad to see it happen.

In regard to a rule, the idea has been floated among staff too, but the concerns brought up would be determining if someone is actually AFK. We would need to define AFK in the context of being Kidnapped. The most logical form of this would be to state people who have their job set to 'AFK' and are not visibly contradicting that job title would be considered AFK, but this wouldn't apply to every scenario. People don't always set their job to AFK, also sometimes someone can go AFK moments before being Kidnapped and so it is unreasonable to assume the Kidnappers definitely knew.

In my opinion, Kidnaps are a RP scenario, but if someone is AFK then there is no RP occurring so why bother.

[Cpt.ben's Ban Appeal]

Since this is a bot ban, as with the other appeals, @Nutter will need to deal with it

[An addition of the defibs back to base support roles]

-1

My reasoning for this is I don't feel it's too necessary for base factions to have Defibs, and there's many situations where they can be abused. 

Defibs, in my opinion, should be considered a more specialised equipment, and therefore being exclusive to SOC (or donator classes) makes sense. I understand that base faction members may feel disadvantaged against SOC who do have Defibs, however base factions should be pushing with numbers, and people rarely Defib instead of engaging pushing enemies.

[Removal of "Anti-Cheat" Bot]

The issue right now is the bot really should be analysed in detail. I know there's a few ban appeals awaiting Garnet's response already, but reasons for kicks matter too. I say this because if a new player comes on to the server, and the bot is kicking people for reasons it shouldn't be, then the bot could harm the server's intake of players.

I'm not sure on the removal, I personally haven't had issues with the bot and as far as I'm aware the issues are limited, but I think it's something that will need quite some time dedicated to in order to ensure it is set up right for the server.

[DennisB's Staff application]

+1

Firstly I'm glad you have edited your application since Salmon's comment, that's always a good sign that someone is willing to change their application based on the feedback they receive. 

Whilst we don't interact directly very often, your behaviour is not an issue from what I've seen and heard, and you deserve the chance to be a T. Mod, and hopefully take full advantage of that and become a valuable member of the Staff team.

[[MRP] Rule Revisions]

A TLDR: MRP has 2 threads for Server rules, as well as unwritten rules, and one of the pages doesn't get updated. This doc is updated and includes unwritten rules.

I'm obviously a +1 on this, combining all our rules onto a single forum post would be a lot more helpful for the community to understand the rules, and for staff to enforce the rules. Whilst there can be adjustments for layout of all the rules, for in a forum post, the content is all there. Providing it would be posted by an active Executive (so Garnet doesn't have to update it himself) this would be great for the long-term too.

[[MRP] Skirmish]

4 minutes ago, shrimp said:

This used to be the 2nd ROE.

Not debating that, but this is a competitive conflict where US can't automatically shoot an Afghan model, so Afghan could cap everywhere technically and not be killed if they kept keys out.

That was not the situation before, because wartime allows shoot on sight

[[MRP] Skirmish]

On 9/22/2021 at 2:57 PM, bishopil said:

• Afghan with their keys out, outside of their FOB, are considered civilians during this time, but if they draw a weapon or already have one out, they are KOS for the US. 

So technically could Afghan just get away with capping skirmish points, no weapons out, US can't kill them?

[[MRP] Skirmish]

Should've put this in my earlier comment but how would the rewards be handed out? Would it need to be handed manually by a staff member, or automatically by the server for having an objective claimed at the end of the timer?

The reason I'm asking if you suggested the usage of claims during Skirmish, but if, for example, a faction used a claim in Skirmish and incidentally capped the location would they also then get the reward at the end of the Skirmish?

[[MRP] Skirmish]

How would this work on Taiga v3, which appears to be the next map coming and presumably isn't too far away.

Referring to Skirmish objectives

[MilitaryRP Update [09/21/2021]]

12 hours ago, HonestDog_ said:

so will there be any new US classes added or what on this

This is from a suggestion that only changed RU to Afghan.

Any changes or additions to US were not included, so if you want one you'll have to suggest it