![[TC] Gaming Forums](https://forum.city-driving.co.uk/images/logo.gif "[TC] Gaming Forums"){kind=logo}
+- [TC] Gaming Forums (https://forum.city-driving.co.uk)
+-- Forum: General Information (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: General Discussions (/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+---- Forum: Server & InSim Suggestions (/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+---- Thread: MED rules (/showthread.php?tid=12262)
Pages: 1 2
MED rules - Barney - 2014-05-22 10:44
MEDs have the benefit to speed to calls, but therefore should absolutely stick to road laws when not responding.
also it should be strictly and under any circumstances forbidden to get into a chase as a MED/RES, else revocation of rights.
or has anyone ever seen a speeding/running/drifting ambulance in real life?
it was rather obvious that tows gonna die, since u are allowed to speed as a med when responding, and no one really cares about the rules...
everyone i chat to keeps responding "but i can be chased, so i can speed".
but imho the rules are pretty clear stating "Repeated violations may be punished by admins.".
And also excessive may be punished, and getting into a chase is imo pretty excessive.
but its just too wishy washy with "expected", "encouraged", "may be punished", "will not be enforced as strictly"...
i think the rules should be much harsher(no speeding at all whilst imho leeway is ok, no chases at all), however in punishment or maybe duration of punishment/revocation of rights(1 week? 2weekws? 1month?) one might be not so strict,
but atm its just like there arent any rules... only speeding meds and no more tows. (of course exaggerated, not every1)
and no, i dont want to report every speeding med, but maybe at least stricter rules to point at.
cheers, b
RE: MED rules - Connor - 2014-05-22 11:32
I must admit you make a point about not seeing speeding or drifting MEDs irl but that's been made many times and everyone always says the same thing "its just a game, why take it so seriously?" Well aren't we trying to make this cruise server the most realistic with the resources we've got?
I don't think we'll be able to 'revoke' rights as such because then would mean some sort of training system but if MED licenses could be temporarily revoked that would good.
And if the MED excessively disobeys the rules then this should turn to a revocation of their license so they have to pass the MED test, but maybe after having their license revoked they have to wait like a week to re-read the rules.
I think this way we'll less 'nooby' MEDs wanting to speed and put their sirens on.
RE: MED rules - Chuck - 2014-05-22 11:36
I just read over the rules again, and I must say they are fine as they are. They perfectly express how MEDs are expected to behave. You say Meds should not drift, but that already forbidden by the rules. So why change it?
Getting chased does not mean someone excessively violated a road law. Just a few kph too much or missing a stop line can easily get you into that situation.
What you say can only end in two situations:
a: MEDS may not run and pay directly -> Unfair
b: MEDS must obey all laws like cops -> More reports and grief for no plus in gameplay
IMO, the way it is now is best, and the system keeps itself a natural balance between the power of cops and meds.
RE: MED rules - Dan - 2014-05-22 14:43
(2014-05-22 11:32)Connor Wrote: I don't think we'll be able to 'revoke' rights as such because then would mean some sort of training system but if MED licenses could be temporarily revoked that would good.
I believe it's done by revoking their licenses so they are forced to take the MED test if they are interested in wanting to do the role again. Enforcing a time period would be more effective, as it allows them to think 'hang on, what did I do wrong?' so they don't consider doing it again in the future - similar to that of the cop system; they have a mere call down period before they're allowed to part take in training. Moreover, it gives them time to revisit the manual and rules to see what they did wrong and to assist them when retaking the respective test.
(2014-05-22 11:36)Chuck Wrote: They perfectly express how MEDs are expected to behave. You say Meds should not drift, but that already forbidden by the rules. So why change it?
That's completely contradicting in itself. The rules only state what is expected of medics, when really all the rules should be enforced to their full potential, so why are these particular rules looked upon lightly and only "expected" of the roleplays?
RE: MED rules - Chuck - 2014-05-22 15:08
"Expected" does not mean it's optional.
RE: MED rules - Dan - 2014-05-22 15:09
"Expected" is it being likely to happen - which always isn't necessarily 100%.
RE: MED rules - Chuck - 2014-05-22 15:14
Neither is driving on the right side
RE: MED rules - Pipa - 2014-05-22 15:16
Id say it's fine as it is. If you see someone pushing it a bit too far then tell us or speak to him. Did so myself and it worked fine.
RE: MED rules - Chuck - 2014-05-22 15:31
I'll give you some of my interpretations, since I were involved in writing them, I can also clarify the thoughts behind them.
Rules Wrote:11.1 Proper Behaviour
Med/Res must drive with care and attention at all times.
They are expected to behave in a professional manner. No donuts, burnouts, drifting, ramming, tailgating etc.
MED/RES are playing a role. Hence they look like that role and also have to act like being in that role. All behaviour that does not belong to that role and would make it look stupid has to be refrained from. *Even if it doesn't explicitly break a road law.*
That's what this says.
Rules Wrote:11.2 Road LawsThere is still some mis-behaviour left, that doesn't immediately break with the role, or would make it look stupid, but that still violates the road laws. Ie. minor speeding, ignoring a line etc. That behaviour is ok and will be dealt by the cops. Even in real-life, an ambu driver will have to pay the fine if he does something stupid.
They are strongly encouraged to follow road laws, however this will not be enforced as strictly as for cops. If they fail to, they can be chased and fined by cops.
Repeated and/or excessive violations may be punished by admins.
Only if that behaviour gets too worse, admins will take over and issue a warning or revoke the MED's license.
And that's pretty realistic. An ambu driver (not on call) going 70kph in the city will get a fine for speeding. One who goes 200 will get a suspension from his job.
RE: MED rules - Pipa - 2014-05-22 15:33
(2014-05-22 15:31)Chuck Wrote: And that's pretty realistic. An ambu driver (not on call) going 70kph in the city will get a fine for speeding. One who goes 200 will get a suspension from his job.
I think that summed it up pretty well.
RE: MED rules - Barney - 2014-05-22 15:59
(2014-05-22 11:36)Chuck Wrote: I just read over the rules again, and I must say they are fine as they are. They perfectly express how MEDs are expected to behave.Yes, how they are expected to behave. But if they dont?
They reply: "i'm only expected, its not a strict rule, they cant punish me anyway".
What would the punishment be anyway?
(2014-05-22 11:36)Chuck Wrote: You say Meds should not drift, but that already forbidden by the rules. So why change it?Because its only expected and no one cares. i wont report a med for drfiting/speeding, especially not if it doesnt say they have to.
and some admins dont seem to care aswell. so it would be good to have somthing clear and not "expected", "encouraged", "may be punished", "will not be enforced as strictly".
(2014-05-22 11:36)Chuck Wrote: Getting chased does not mean someone excessively violated a road law. Just a few kph too much or missing a stop line can easily get you into that situation.why would it be unfair? if they want to have the benefit of speeding when responding, they have to live with it or go back being a tow.
What you say can only end in two situations:
a: MEDS may not run and pay directly -> Unfair
and as soon as a med has "failed to stop" he is for sure going to speed "exessively". and that again wont be punished by admins, but only "may be punished" and never will be/has been....
seeing that every day
(2014-05-22 11:36)Chuck Wrote: b: MEDS must obey all laws like cops -> More reports and grief for no plus in gameplay
IMO, the way it is now is best, and the system keeps itself a natural balance between the power of cops and meds.
plus in gameplay? so why all the work with rules and insim only for letting them speed when responding? wheres the plus there? and why only meds and not tows?
it just doesnt male sense at all.
(2014-05-22 15:16)Pipa Wrote: Id say it's fine as it is. If you see someone pushing it a bit too far then tell us or speak to him. Did so myself and it worked fine.
"a bit too far"... running from cops with 150 down highstreet? or 180?
yes, i spoke to some... but again no one seems to care because its not clearly stated... but ok, i the majority/tc thinks so, im fine with it, but from my understanding its pointless making theese rules and then not enforcing them.
if u say you been speaking to some1 thats nice, and i hope others will be too. just never witnessed any admin caring.
i dont want a revocation of rights for some1 going 20kph over the limit, but atm its not even stated at all that rights can get revoked... and thats why no one cares.
just have an eye on the chat and spec the player when there is a med who failed to stop.
(2014-05-22 15:33)Pipa Wrote:ok we dont seem to be too far apart, thats basically my opinion, but since i've never seen any admin care while meds beeing chased going 180 in a 90 zone, i suggested the rules to be harsher....(2014-05-22 15:31)Chuck Wrote: And that's pretty realistic. An ambu driver (not on call) going 70kph in the city will get a fine for speeding. One who goes 200 will get a suspension from his job.
I think that summed it up pretty well.
RE: MED rules - Chuck - 2014-05-22 17:22
There is no such thing as "only" expected. It's expected. Full stop. An expectation is not optional or a recommendation. If you not follow it, you have to expect admin actions coming. Whether they come and what they will be is up to the admins, whether they decide if the spirit of a rule was broken and how severe it was broken.
I'm sorry if I can't give you a 100.00% perfect line to which you can align your life to. But that's how it is.
RE: MED rules - Barney - 2014-05-22 18:15
no need for sarcasm.
loads of speeding meds show it isnt as clear as u state.
and im sorry for not knowing that expectation might not be optional
(2014-05-22 17:22)Chuck Wrote: ...you have to expect...
(2014-05-22 17:22)Chuck Wrote: ...Whether they come...whether or whether not. so now its optional?
whatever, nvm...
RE: MED rules - Chuck - 2014-05-23 05:49
You are questioning one rule that is absolutely equally understandable/misunderstandable as *all* the others. There is not a single rule saying, if you do that, if you cross that line, if you say that word, you will get x day of ban. Not a single.
All rules are up to admin discretion to assess how severe the violation was and whether or not a punishment is necessary and how big/severe/harsh the punishment has to be.
And so is justice in real-life. There is no book that says if if you that you'd get that punishment. If it was, there wouldn't be a single judge or lawyer since the cop could simply look in a book that contains all answers.
RE: MED rules - Connor - 2014-05-23 05:56
Well according to what Chuck said, if its not in a book then there'll be a whole load of reports on MEDs breaking the 'rules' of a MED.
But if those rules aren't in a book it would render that report useless because the admins have no rule to provide evidence that they deserve a punishment, doesn't it?
RE: MED rules - Barney - 2014-05-23 06:51
chuck are you taking this somehow personally or what? have the feeling you are pissed and dont really know why.
i spotted a problem, started a discussion, made a suggestion, wanted to hear some opinions. thats all.
i am actually not questioning the rule itself.
(2014-05-22 10:44)Barney Wrote: but imho the rules are pretty clear stating "Repeated violations may be punished by admins.".but oviously there are tons of exessively/repeatedly speeding meds so i thought the rule could need some improvement.
And also excessive may be punished, and getting into a chase is imo pretty excessive.
its just pointless making the rules and not enforcing them.
but guess i will/should just not care as talking doesnt help...
(2014-05-22 18:15)Barney Wrote: whatever, nvm...
RE: MED rules - Chuck - 2014-05-23 07:05
How am I taking it personal? This is a forum, so expect someone answering.
RE: MED rules - Roba - 2014-05-23 07:28
Barney, after reading everything in this thread, I'd recon you to be pissed because you see this rule unclear. Chuck just answered your questions and even kindly explained the reasons of why the rules are how they are.
For my opinion, the rules are fine as they are. Chuck explained the rule pretty clearly, and you keep questioning him and the rule.
If all rules had to be that strict, to be honest, I never saw a TOW car drifting or offroading for fun. I never saw a cop going 200kph sideways on grass while in chase. If you want, you can find hundreds of these little misalignments compared to real life, but this is a game, and the admins try to balance the gameplay to fit most users needs for a good gameplay experience.
There will always be problems with everything, but I recon the admins doing a good job making the problems smaller and rarer.
RE: MED rules - Chuck - 2014-05-23 07:46
Don't forget these rules and the roles are new to the admins as well, and the line of what's tolerable and what's not has to be drawn first. But that's matter of time.
I, speaking as admin, had no reason to complain about MED/RES yet, and it seems to me that these players understand pretty well how they're expected to behave.
RE: MED rules - Barney - 2014-05-23 07:54
well thats the problem with just reading, no emphasis, translating
im not pissed at all, i just had the feeling due to some expression so i asked chuck if he is. just a question.
and yes it is a matter of time, thats why i waited several weeks.
all good, much love
____________________
edit:
(2014-05-23 07:28)Roba Wrote: ...because you see this rule unclear.
third time: i dont. others do! thats why they speed!