![[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: Rule clarification (/showthread.php?tid=13400)
Pages: 1 2
Rule clarification - KaraK - 2014-08-02 15:20
After some discussion with a few people, and researching stuff we saw that there are two parts of the rules which are not really clear about certain bits.
- Failing to stop
The rules are very clear about this: After 45 seconds you can use force.
However, most (if not all) admins and players know that you can use force before this mark, but only if it is clear that your suspect won't be stopping any time soon.
Seeing as it's so common around the server, by both admins and players, I was surprised there wasn't actually something about it in the rules.
New players, playing strict by the rules, keep bringing it up in game, and I myself find that really annoying when I know I'm in my right to use minor force.
Please, could this be implemented in the rules page? Just so it's clear for everyone and we won't have any more discussion on the servers like "omggg!!!! its not 45seconds yet u nub!! i repot you!!!"
Which is really just annoying.
- Fines
I've always thought it is common sense, however after looking at the Server Rules, Finelist and In-Game Finelist, I've come to the conclusion that there is no comment whatsoever on choosing an appropriate fine for the situation, nor is there anything about "Overfining".
Could there (in the Server Rules, Finelist or In-Game Finelist) be an addition to choose an appropriate fine, and clarification about overfining?
Because it still exists, but there is nothing in the rules about it.
Could these two issues be looked at and perhaps be added?
Would be much appreciated, and I'm sure it would help prevent (and solve) future misunderstandings.
RE: Rule clarification - Luke - 2014-08-02 15:25
I'd just like to add and clarify to avoid major discussion in this part of things, Yes an incident was involved with a TT member and we respect the actions taken against that member, we don't want any biased opinions towards it however, to avoid further actions in future with other users with a similar situation this has been suggested under a non-biased discussion with the community because as KaraK has stated, we don't find that these rules are 100% clear as they have been altered by members of the TC staff in some situations in the past so a final understanding of the rule would be nice.
Speaking from a trainer side of things, I see nothing wrong with a cop using force upon a suspect who is clearly not going to stop. Use the appropriate actions for the appropriate situation. However, others may say differ hence why this has been brought up.
Just my statement
RE: Rule clarification - Chuck - 2014-08-02 15:28
Well, you have answered your question yourself.
Server rules Wrote:5.3. Use of Force
Force may only be used if the suspect has failed to stop. The InSim will state when the suspect has failed to stop (after approx 45 seconds)
And, as you said, the rule is very clear as well. So, how can we make it any more clear? Write it down two times, like that?
Server rules Wrote:5.3. Use of Force
Force may only be used if the suspect has failed to stop. The InSim will state when the suspect has failed to stop (after approx 45 seconds)
Force may only be used if the suspect has failed to stop. The InSim will state when the suspect has failed to stop (after approx 45 seconds)
There is basically no margin for human error. Insim even decides when the suspect has failed to stop, any force before that point is not allowed.
RE: Rule clarification - Luke - 2014-08-02 15:33
(2014-08-02 15:28)Chuck Wrote: Well, you have answered your question yourself.
Server rules Wrote:5.3. Use of Force
Force may only be used if the suspect has failed to stop. The InSim will state when the suspect has failed to stop (after approx 45 seconds)
And, as you said, the rule is very clear as well. So, how can we make it any more clear? Write it down two times, like that?
Server rules Wrote:5.3. Use of Force
Force may only be used if the suspect has failed to stop. The InSim will state when the suspect has failed to stop (after approx 45 seconds)
Force may only be used if the suspect has failed to stop. The InSim will state when the suspect has failed to stop (after approx 45 seconds)
The rule itself is clear, that was explained rather poorly on our side however, the way that rule has been respected is not clear. There's been situations in the past where Admins allow people to use force under the 45 second time period and then other admins disagree and don't allow it to be done. This was brought up to see if things can be done to keep the decisions fair throughout TC to avoid unfair decisions in reports and in-game. No disrespect at all here but it has been done in the past and we are trying to do something to avoid it again in future.
I feel bad for bringing names into this however, some admins have different opinions for example right here: http://forum.city-driving.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=11519&pid=111415#pid111415
"Light force can be used if it is apparent the suspect will not stop, you invited the [COP] to chase you, which clearly tells me you were not going to stop."
RE: Rule clarification - Ace - 2014-08-02 15:37
Yeah...
Just clearify that rule. Shouldnt be a problem
RE: Rule clarification - Chuck - 2014-08-02 15:38
In that case, the admin's decision to ignore or overrule a server-rule should be up to discussion, not the rule. I'm not sure that this really happens or happened. If so, we should talk about it, admins do mistakes too.
RE: Rule clarification - Pipa - 2014-08-02 15:39
The rule got changed some time ago and it used to say that you are allowed to use force earlier if it is 100% clear that the suspect will not stop.
However that got changed and the rule as it exists now couldn't be made any clearer.
RE: Rule clarification - Luke - 2014-08-02 15:40
(2014-08-02 15:38)Chuck Wrote: In that case, the admin's decision to ignore or overrule a server-rule should be up to discussion, not the rule. I'm not sure that this really happens or happened. If so, we should talk about it, admins do mistakes too.
That is perfectly acceptable, we do not expect admins to perfect humans, everyone makes mistakes however, it does concern others in the community when admins make these mistakes yet action is still taken upon these users that is all. It's certainly not a common thing, very rare infact but it does happen and when it does, I'm sure the Admins are confronted by the TC management to avoid these from happening again but sometimes things get pushed under the carpet and it is still noticed by others.
RE: Rule clarification - KaraK - 2014-08-02 15:42
(2014-08-02 15:39)Pipa Wrote: The rule got changed some time ago and it used to say that you are allowed to use force earlier if it is 100% clear that the suspect will not stop.
However that got changed and the rule as it exists now couldn't be made any clearer.
Really? When did that get changed then?
I don't recall the rule saying that lol
That rule aside though, the bit about choosing an appropriate fine still exists.
I know before there was a serious warning in the fine list that you should never overfine, but for some reason it disappeared?
RE: Rule clarification - BP - 2014-08-02 15:45
KaraK Wrote:I know before there was a serious warning in the fine list that you should never overfine, but for some reason it disappeared?
That might've been before the fining system overhaul which was a good few years ago now. This was when there were set fines but cops were able to say e.g. "That's 300 Euro for careless driving" and the suspect had to !pay. It is physically impossible to exceed X amount now.
RE: Rule clarification - Luke - 2014-08-02 15:48
The user in this report was warned for overfining and another offence
http://forum.city-driving.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=13374&pid=131432#pid131432
Yes it was not an appropriate fine nor sensible for the situation however, it is still apart of the warning when no such rule that is clear to the public exists at this current time.
RE: Rule clarification - KaraK - 2014-08-02 15:50
(2014-08-02 15:48)LuckyLuke Wrote: The user in this report was warned for overfining and another offence
http://forum.city-driving.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=13374&pid=131432#pid131432
Yes it was not an appropriate fine nor sensible for the situation however, it is still apart of the warning when no such rule that is clear to the public exists at this current time.
To be honest I completely agree that it is overfining, as it was only a very little bump.
But to look around and not find anything about overfining anymore surprised me really, and I thought that it would be good to add something about that again.
RE: Rule clarification - Pipa - 2014-08-02 16:09
There will never be a rule for everything, so at some point admins will have to use their discretion when dealing with a situation.
RE: Rule clarification - Luke - 2014-08-02 16:15
(2014-08-02 16:09)Pipa Wrote: There will never be a rule for everything, so at some point admins will have to use their discretion when dealing with a situation.
That's understandable but maybe put the rule into a more varied description?
For example, this could be added to rule 4.1 for proper behaviour "Cops are expected to behave and act like cops. No donuts, burnouts, drifting, ramming, tailgating etc."
"Cops are expected to behave and act like cops, use common sense. No donuts, burnouts, drifting, ramming, tailgating, overfining, etc."
The common sense part opens the rule out a bit more. So cops are not to act disrespectful to the suspect (even though that is apart of general behaviour on the server anyway's but it's a basic example of how it could come in use) personally I see it as opening the Admins choice of how they can take decisions into their own hands like you said earlier Pipa, so then conversations like these won't pop up in future.
RE: Rule clarification - KaraK - 2014-08-02 16:20
(2014-08-02 16:09)Pipa Wrote: There will never be a rule for everything, so at some point admins will have to use their discretion when dealing with a situation.
I realise that, but there is absolutely nothing about choosing an appropriate fine for the case, which really is common sense.
Seeing as there used to be something about it, I believe that there should at least be a notice saying that a fine should always be appropriate and overfining won't be allowed.
Honestly I don't get why it got removed, seeing as it is still possible to overfine someone. (Though the probability got significantly lower)
Looking at the rules right now, it says "Cops may issue fines according to the official fine-list"
Nothing, but literally nothing, about choosing a fine. The only place I have come across with uses the word appropriate, is the Police Guide, and it only is about the appropriate offense, and again says nothing about actually choosing the appropriate fine.
Police Guide Wrote:Select the appropriate offense and fine the user accordingly.
The word "accordingly" may point to choosing the right fine, but how it comes across to me is that it points to choosing a fine related to the incident, and not about the amount. And even if it does point to the fine, there is nothing about this in the rules, finelist or in-game finelist; the documents which are enforced. Something which used to be there, and, if it should still be enforced, should again be added in my opinion.
I'm dragging this on lol, sorry.
My points still stand though.
RE: Rule clarification - Pipa - 2014-08-02 17:34
(2014-08-02 16:20)KaraK Wrote: The word "accordingly" may point to choosing the right fine, but how it comes across to me is that it points to choosing a fine related to the incident, and not about the amount. And even if it does point to the fine, there is nothing about this in the rules, finelist or in-game finelist; the documents which are enforced. Something which used to be there, and, if it should still be enforced, should again be added in my opinion.
Well obviously we could add another rule, but to me this one is pretty self explanatory and does not need another addition.
Most fines are split into 3 categories [Low - Medium - High], it is up to you decide wether or not something qualifies as for example a low/small crash or goes beyond that.
That system has worked pretty well in the past and hardly anyone made any big mistakes. The only times i have seen people fine excessive amounts was mostly out of spite and to abuse that feature to get back at somebody. And if we notice that behaviour then we will correct it with a warning.
If they fail to respect that warning then they will be banned for system abuse, as they are using a feature for something that it was not intended for. May that be bullying another person or quickly getting money.
I really wouldn't worry about it, as i have not witnessed one incident where a person choose the wrong fine by accident. Maybe small mistakes, but nothing that actually requires an admin to intervene. They only needed a little help with the system, defintion or translation.
RE: Rule clarification - Elmo - 2014-08-03 21:12
To be clear noone, and I mean noone, should be using force before the 45s mark. There is no reason whatsoever to do so. As you said, the rules are perfectly clear on that and there is no leeway.
If admins have been recently saying different, then we'll need to give a reminder.
The old rule was: "Make sure the suspect knows he is being pursued before making any physical contact."
That was very imprecise, far from ideal and was causing some problems from people claiming they didn't know they were being chased, or people knowing they were being chased but unable to pull over safely before the cop used force.
The rule was changed to its current form alongside the message from the InSim to solve those problems.
The 45s mark both confirms to the suspect with a message that they're being chased and is a reasonable amount of time for the suspect to pull over from any part of the track. It's also not too long for the cop to wait if the suspect is clearly not stopping and is causing danger to other drivers.
Over-fining:
It is literally impossible to grossly over-fine someone now, because the InSim won't let you fine an amount above what is permitted for a particular offence.
It never used to be enforced by the InSim and bad cops often tried to fine too much (eg €1000) for a minor offence.
The strong warning was removed when the list of clickable fines was added to the InSim, because that particular problem was instantly removed.
Now, I'm sure there are a few cops who choose a high fine more than they should, but at least it can't be a huge overfine anymore.
What I would like to see is some stats recorded to show what proportion of each fine level (low/med/high) that each cop is fining. That way we could pretty easily find the persistent offenders and do something about it - at the moment there's no reliable way of knowing whether a cop is generally fining correctly or not.
I guess it would be nice to have a short message on the fine list regarding what is considered to be worth a low/med/high fine. However, writing such a message to be succinct would be quite tricky - you're welcome to have a go
RE: Rule clarification - BP - 2014-08-03 21:21
Elmo Wrote:What I would like to see is some stats recorded to show what proportion of each fine level (low/med/high) that each cop is fining.
That'd be a good idea I reckon.
RE: Rule clarification - Luke - 2014-08-03 21:24
Thank you for the consideration and clarification Elmo
All is clear and good now, hopefully fewer incidents will happen in future and I hope something can be worked out.
I'm sure KaraK would be itching to attempt the scripting for the message haha
RE: Rule clarification - Owl - 2014-08-03 21:41
So im guessing no one bothered to read the report that i made on Dino and read that Pipa (who thankfully sorted it out) clarified everything i said about force?