acer

Denied Ban is up in literally 10 minutes, and Garnet won't get to this in time. @AlexConway lock and move!

Every rule that you've stated was already a rule besides the intoxicated one, which Jake has stated several times that we can ban for that reason. Red rules are rules that already existed, green rules are new ones. Intoxicated/high rule is only in effect if they are being a nuisance, it is to prevent a situation of "oh well I didn't know what I was doing", so we just give out relative bans. Usually no more than 12 hours. Any rule that was posted by Garnet I have elected to not remove, considering that he posted it for a reason, I really only re-worded his rules at the most. So any red rule is one that Garnet himself posted and it is currently a rule, so the consensual RDM rule, base camp rule, and clan tag rule, have all been posted by garnet, and I assume that all of them have some sort of basis considering that it's something he posted.

Description: Hello anybody reading this post, to any of you unaware, myself and the staff team have been working on rule revisions to help better the server. These revisions include unwritten rules, clarification on rules, and many other quality of life changes that the community wants to see happen (at least the staff team anyways). This doc has been ongoing for about a week now, with MANY people throughout the staff team commenting their opinion on rules, and what they would like to see edited/revised/specified within the rules. It seems that we've come to a halt as to what to add, and I personally think that the doc has come to it's end. I am asking that you also leave anything that you would like to see in the rules within the comment section. I would like this post to continue to work towards the betterment of the server for as long as we think it should. I'll leave the ability to comment on the doc allowed, so that the community can also give their feedback. Myself and the staff team will evaluate what we think should be added, and will continue to edit/revise the doc as we see fit (until it either gets denied or accepted that is). Huge shoutout to @Fonza, @Theos, and @Salmon, they were the main ones that helped me write this doc up to it's current state. I also ask that you don't spam the comment section with idiocy, if that happens I will have to limit it to view only, and any speaking on this topic will have to be in the comments of this post. Any further evaluation as to what will be actually implemented into the server would be up to Jake and Garnet to discuss, as these are merely suggestions of course. Thank you all in advance for the opportunity to work with you guys in an attempt to benefit the community overall, I'm sure this doc will continue to grow with community feedback at it's core. I look forward to working with you guys! Reasoning: Add unwritten rules, clarify existing rules, and many other topics that haven't been covered that we think should be. Additional Information: Here is the link to the doc, the first section is what has been removed/added/revised, and the second section is the full rules including the revisions.

Accepted The way that you and Tuna both describe the situation, is not NLR. By the current rules of MilitaryRP, the following is NLR: "Do not NLR (New Life Rule): Do not use info from your past life unless it was written or shared before your death." You didn't use info from your last life, you just went back to the location. Tuna also admits that he doesn't currently have any evidence on the matter. Different servers have different NLR rules, so Tuna will not be at fault for this. @Fonza please lock and move! | @Jake please remove the warn!

You called a raid, and after tons of people complaining in OOC falsed it. Regardless, what you did would've resulted in a warn. You falsed it 40 seconds after the fact, after several people had already started shooting. Adverting a raid and then falsing it 40 seconds after doesn't change the fact that you literally called raid, partook in a raid, and then called it false after the fact. Had you falsed it right after, it would've been different, but you only falsed it after tons of people complained in OOC, and even tried to say that "it was only one minute". If not FailRP, RDM, but that doesn't change the fact that you were warned. There was a group of us outside Tali base at the time, and we killed two people, and one of us got killed as a result, and it was most definitely through the fault of a false raid.

Fairly certain the idea would be anyone near/on a cap point would be KOS. @bishopil please elaborate, I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Quite literally only preference, it's been g3a3 for a while now and Tuna wants something different. Absolutely unnecessary, just something that Tuna wanted thrown in here lol.

proggy's pretty cool, laggy mic tho... on the real, everybody sees the grind proggy puts in. good shit man, keep it up

+1 Welcome back BK manager.

Description: Remove the speed boost from the Gamemaster job. Reasoning: Speed boost literally only provides negatives, and isn't needed for the GM class. The only thing that this does is make it so you can’t RP while on GM, making it hard to run events from a leading standpoint. Obviously you can get somebody in-character to lead for you, but it would be MUCH easier if you could have NPCs spawned in, as well as run a debrief. Additional Information: N/A

Unfortunately, there isn't SHIT for WAC Russian helicopters. I looked through a decent bit, and there is really only attack helicopters, which you only really need one of. Other than that, there's some dogshit transport helicopters that will be worse than the current one on the server. Only place where there is any type of decent Russian helicopters is LFS, and I assume that Garnet doesn't really want to have both of those on the server, especially when LFS is easy as all fuck to fly.

Would just like to state that this is my stance as well, before somebody decides to disagree with the support that I haven't given.

I'll look for some helicopters for VVS when I get home (if I remember). To my knowledge, all of the RU WAC helicopters on the server you guys currently have. It would have to involve adding more WAC addons, which obviously would benefit the server in general.

@Jackal not gonna go quote your entire post, but let me dumb down the situation for you considering that Yurri seems to have done a poor job explaining what happened. Yurri was a no-name who came on the server, cheated, and got banned. He later ban evaded, never cheated again, became staff, lead factions, all that shit, and then got caught.

Description: More player slots for both VVS and AFSOC as well as a squad, fixed friendly fire in war, general rule questions, and an AFSOC weapon change. Reasoning: Considering the fact that VVS and AFSOC are both first life, and are no longer under the event section, they deserve more player slots for the faction. Player limits would be decided by the faction leader, not the hard server limit, and honestly that’s how it’s been working. We’ve had more than the theoretical limit for a while now, and having more slots for each class would just be a quality of life change. We would also like a squad in the /squad menu, I assume this was just overlooked when it was first implemented, but an addition of that would be great. Fixed friendly fire in war for both AFSOC and VVS would be amazing. The ability to play war or even exist during war without being killed by friendlies would make the faction MUCH more enjoyable. This would also come with the ability to capture points, hopefully at least. As a faction, AFSOC has been wondering whether the imposed rule of no playing war is up to staff discretion, or faction leader discretion. It isn’t explicitly stated in the rules anywhere (to my knowledge), so an elaboration on that rule would be great. With Jake being super admin and faction leader, we were never sure whether that was a staff thing or a faction thing, hopefully we can come to a conclusion. With this question there also comes a more broad question, is AFSOC/VVS to operate COMPLETELY like other factions in regards to the rules now? Considering that it is no longer an event faction, I would figure this is the case. If these questions could be cleared up by Garnet or Jake, that would be amazing. Tuna, the current AFSOC leader, is requesting a weapon change for AFSOC. This is more-so a personal preference rather than a blaring issue that Garnet must deal with, so this comes last in terms of priority. Additional Information: cw_ber_msbs Weapon that AFSOC is suggesting their new primary be. This change would be from g3a3 ----> msbs on the operator and headhunter classes. If @Kurtle could give his insight on these changes as VVS COL, that would be much appreciated.

Completely different scenario, if you weren't around for it and/or won't care enough to read and realize that, maybe you shouldn't comment. Not to disagree with your comment at all, just saying that if you are going to compare them in that capacity, it's not too fair to Yurri.

Not sure why Yurri even added that sentence there at the top, that wasn't true at all, and was never true. In response to you Horse, everybody did remember him as a good member of the community, I don't know anybody that was a die-hard Yurri hater. There wasn't a single -1 on the ban appeal, everybody was in support of Yurri at the time. Like I said, not sure why both you and Yurri decided to portray it as other-wise, it simply wasn't true at all lol. In general, his impact on the community is seen as positive, just as a clarification.

Just like last time, would love to see it accepted, doubt it will happen. Good luck.

-1 There was a rather recent incident where you continuously argued with staff on whether a veteran is allowed to break the rules or not, simply because he was a veteran. I'm not comfortable having somebody with that ideology on the staff team.

hopefully an MRP LOA too!!! stay safe fetn, take care

666

Making suggestions for changes based on something that isn't even in the server yet probably isn't a great idea. If it becomes an issue I'm all for it, but as of right now we have no clue if it's necessary or not.

His appeal was accepted, he should be unbanned.

I know that DRP is different, but in-character racism/homophobia is strictly prohibited as well. We see it as an excuse to act in an extreme manner. Like I previously stated, we've been instructed to handle punishments in the way we see fit based on the person's actions. For example, saying something like "gays r weird" would call for a different punishment than calling a group of people "f*ggots". I agree, the overhaul should be placed in the rules section for MRP, but that's a different conversation. The overhaul posted by Garnet actually gives more leniency than before, which I'm sure wasn't the plan.

It is your job to read and be aware of server rules. If @Fonza could elaborate on the verbal warning, I'm all for it.