FEEDBACK | Kill Permissions Re-Evaluation

[TrapstarRp]

Alright *cracks knuckles* time to crack this open

• As aforementioned, forced & permanent character death would not be as rampant. This benefits everybody, as nobody likes when their character dies, and it would give people more time to fully flesh out their characters and allow them to flourish, regardless of what path they choose to take.
  
  
  So. U can't really take away one of the fun aspects in my opinion about this server (the unorganized part & not scripted part of this sever). And rebrand it as somewhat new, with part of giving "OOC" consent it takes away a lot of the not scripted part. I'm talking from expirance here on this "OOC" consent part as i used to roleplay on a special server with this feature as well and it truely wasn't fun, yes it may limit the deaths of characters but I just have a few opinions about it such as:
  
  - If u care so much about ur character then why give out perms so easily?
  Truely if u'd care for ur character u wouldn't be involved in such "Major" parts of gangRP, say cop killings, group majoring etc all kinds of stuff. Simply cause u don't want that character to die, but legit the solution for this is too. Make. a. new. character. I get the rules are confusing sometimes but in the end it really is UR fault if someone has permissions on you and they execute them, since ur the one who gave them away. Yk cause I speak for myself here, yes it's a bummer loosing a character but i've just developed an "IDGAF" mindset about the characters since well, THEIR just characters. I can make a new one whenever the fridge i want :shrug:
  - Less arguments about permissions
  I mean, u kinda can also make the rules VERY obviously stated on what they are. Say for instance describe different scenario's in the rules and for what perms they provide, maybe specify on what is "GOOD" proof of perms (EX: an uncropped screenshot showing them threatning u maskless, instead of a cropped message of their chat) heck even give out warnings if u try and kill someone with invalid perms since u are basically wasting time at that point. valued time for the staff team then, theres truely more than 1 solution to solve these issues about the arguments. Better ones than this "OOC consent" thing, cause think logically here
  
  The logic part of everyone:
  I can bet you, that if u cared for a character and we are in a dying situation and u got the option for what feels like god himself to type "no i do not consent" and be saved out of all ur troubles. That you'll take it. This "OOC" consent rule simply makes it so anyone can bs their way out of any KPS activity they are ever in, which would just not seem fair if u took a lot of effort to kill someone, say for example a cop character. u did all this work, kidnapping them and making a whole escape plan for them to say "No" and boom all ur effort down the drain. A part of "OOC" consent is just far too abusable in any situation.
  
  
  Some very unbalanced shizzles: ​
• Police officers will not have to ask for consent if they attempt to kill a criminal by shooting them.
• If a police officer DOES attempt to shoot you, you are not required to ask them for consent in order to kill them. It’s vice-versa.
  
  what the f***.
  so like, we try to kill cop, but they decline our consent so it gets voided and we move on, then later they catch us doing a crime. we run and they chase us. Or when i'm taking someone hostage, and cops pull up. Ur telling me they can whip out their glocks, and just shoot me in the head 3 times.
  
  In my opinion cops were already a bit OP;
  - Being able to roll 200
  - Not having to roll for shooting/tazing
  
  but this brings it to a whole other level, and stating by this sentance "If a police officer DOES attempt to shoot you" just means u just have to pray and hope they got bad WiFI that day and miss, cuz else u done for.
  But then we have to ask OOC consent for killing, but they can kinda roam around freely and if we hold out a weapon just bop us in the head and chest without saying a word except "GET ON THE GROUND". seems a bit unfair don't u think.
  
  But this reflects perfectly on my logical point, my theory is, is that this "rule" will only be inplace since. When a cop pulls up and ASKS u if they can shoot u and kill u. WHO IS GONNA SAY YES? I know i'm not thats for sure. This "rule" will litterally be in place JUST so people don't "abuse" their ability of saying no, whilst they get the chance to abuse this consent power normally with others. Just not cops.
  
  
  Overall think it's a s*** system, far too much abuse can be pulled out of it, and makes everything feel like its scripted which just isn't fun.
  (no i don't gangRP JUST to kill people, although u might think so i don't, this just takes a lot of the fun away. Cuz like if we having arguments about KPS and make something so we consent to it, what will u think will happen to Major perms? Prolly the same thing, which in that case u could better make everything consent worthy even minors. Which is even more sh*tty.)

Rq also gonna mention that like either Old gangRP'ers or not gangRp'ers are replying with +1.

Personally half in half I think cops are really op already and I think if you do something to give me kps you should have a consequence maybe I stab you and you say no I think it would be fair for a major or two and maybe the absence of the character for a certain amount of time making it only fair but I think these are all suggestions that can be put into the role play community and I think there should be a spot of perms where it says I can get non consented and consented MOST LIKELY.

 

[hebwig]

Alright *cracks knuckles* time to crack this open

• As aforementioned, forced & permanent character death would not be as rampant. This benefits everybody, as nobody likes when their character dies, and it would give people more time to fully flesh out their characters and allow them to flourish, regardless of what path they choose to take.
  
  
  So. U can't really take away one of the fun aspects in my opinion about this server (the unorganized part & not scripted part of this sever). And rebrand it as somewhat new, with part of giving "OOC" consent it takes away a lot of the not scripted part. I'm talking from expirance here on this "OOC" consent part as i used to roleplay on a special server with this feature as well and it truely wasn't fun, yes it may limit the deaths of characters but I just have a few opinions about it such as:
  
  - If u care so much about ur character then why give out perms so easily?
  Truely if u'd care for ur character u wouldn't be involved in such "Major" parts of gangRP, say cop killings, group majoring etc all kinds of stuff. Simply cause u don't want that character to die, but legit the solution for this is too. Make. a. new. character. I get the rules are confusing sometimes but in the end it really is UR fault if someone has permissions on you and they execute them, since ur the one who gave them away. Yk cause I speak for myself here, yes it's a bummer loosing a character but i've just developed an "IDGAF" mindset about the characters since well, THEIR just characters. I can make a new one whenever the fridge i want :shrug:
  - Less arguments about permissions
  I mean, u kinda can also make the rules VERY obviously stated on what they are. Say for instance describe different scenario's in the rules and for what perms they provide, maybe specify on what is "GOOD" proof of perms (EX: an uncropped screenshot showing them threatning u maskless, instead of a cropped message of their chat) heck even give out warnings if u try and kill someone with invalid perms since u are basically wasting time at that point. valued time for the staff team then, theres truely more than 1 solution to solve these issues about the arguments. Better ones than this "OOC consent" thing, cause think logically here
  
  The logic part of everyone:
  I can bet you, that if u cared for a character and we are in a dying situation and u got the option for what feels like god himself to type "no i do not consent" and be saved out of all ur troubles. That you'll take it. This "OOC" consent rule simply makes it so anyone can bs their way out of any KPS activity they are ever in, which would just not seem fair if u took a lot of effort to kill someone, say for example a cop character. u did all this work, kidnapping them and making a whole escape plan for them to say "No" and boom all ur effort down the drain. A part of "OOC" consent is just far too abusable in any situation.
  
  
  Some very unbalanced shizzles: ​
• Police officers will not have to ask for consent if they attempt to kill a criminal by shooting them.
• If a police officer DOES attempt to shoot you, you are not required to ask them for consent in order to kill them. It’s vice-versa.
  
  what the f***.
  so like, we try to kill cop, but they decline our consent so it gets voided and we move on, then later they catch us doing a crime. we run and they chase us. Or when i'm taking someone hostage, and cops pull up. Ur telling me they can whip out their glocks, and just shoot me in the head 3 times.
  
  In my opinion cops were already a bit OP;
  - Being able to roll 200
  - Not having to roll for shooting/tazing
  
  but this brings it to a whole other level, and stating by this sentance "If a police officer DOES attempt to shoot you" just means u just have to pray and hope they got bad WiFI that day and miss, cuz else u done for.
  But then we have to ask OOC consent for killing, but they can kinda roam around freely and if we hold out a weapon just bop us in the head and chest without saying a word except "GET ON THE GROUND". seems a bit unfair don't u think.
  
  But this reflects perfectly on my logical point, my theory is, is that this "rule" will only be inplace since. When a cop pulls up and ASKS u if they can shoot u and kill u. WHO IS GONNA SAY YES? I know i'm not thats for sure. This "rule" will litterally be in place JUST so people don't "abuse" their ability of saying no, whilst they get the chance to abuse this consent power normally with others. Just not cops.
  
  
  Overall think it's a s*** system, far too much abuse can be pulled out of it, and makes everything feel like its scripted which just isn't fun.
  (no i don't gangRP JUST to kill people, although u might think so i don't, this just takes a lot of the fun away. Cuz like if we having arguments about KPS and make something so we consent to it, what will u think will happen to Major perms? Prolly the same thing, which in that case u could better make everything consent worthy even minors. Which is even more sh*tty.)

I've mentioned your first point regarding bringing your character into GangRP and how our current permission system limits creativity greatly. Refer to reply #50 on the second page.

The more we overcomplicate our permissions, the more that arguments will take place. If you consider all of the benefits that I've mentioned in the thread and my replies, we only have good things to bring with this feature. Yes, there are other ways to limit arguments — but you're not really giving any elaboration on how. You aren't giving any kind of resolution that we can build off of (at least, one that hasn't been considered already - refer to reply #8 on the first page). This is a great and massive step that we can take into resolving much of GangRP's setbacks that it currently possesses and gives it a faltering reputation. I elaborate on this in the benefits section of the original post & I certainly do not need to elaborate on it any further.

Also, did you read the thread? You don't have to ask a police officer for consent to kill their character if they shoot at your character. I think you misread it. Police officers are meant to be an overpowered force — they are police officers, and Japan has an extremely low crime rate. Their power is sensical and is another risk present within GangRP that many of you desire when getting involved in it; you now have to think of more intricate crimes to avoid being pursued by the police. GangRP gathers more depth with this addition.

Police are the exception so that they can be the present risk. You still can kill them without asking for consent. . .please re-read that part.

As for the misconception regarding "planned" deaths, refer to my reply to Prosthettics in reply #116 of the sixth page. Scripted roleplay is not unfun, as proven with many events that all of you have been involved in at least once, and neither is mingling a few unplanned things in the mix of it all. Major assault permissions and arguments relative to them do not possess the same weight as permanent character death, rendering any argument about the arguments that come with them almost baseless. . .obviously, arguments will still occur, but there's always an argument on SchoolRP. It doesn't even have to be about permissions. It can be about FailRP, AvoidRP, Metagaming. . .it does not matter. We're at least preventing a few more unneeded ones from occurring by implementing this.

I do appreciate your insight, though. Please read the thread and my replies for further elaboration on other points as I don't want anyone spending time writing something that has already been elaborated on! I value your guys' time and I'm certain that you are seeking the better for the future of the server, just like me. Being open-minded is a step in the right direction and I'm grateful to you for writing this reply out.

 

[TrapstarRp]

I've mentioned your first point regarding bringing your character into GangRP and how our current permission system limits creativity greatly. Refer to reply #50 on the second page.

The more we overcomplicate our permissions, the more that arguments will take place. If you consider all of the benefits that I've mentioned in the thread and my replies, we only have good things to bring with this feature. Yes, there are other ways to limit arguments — but you're not really giving any elaboration on how. You aren't giving any kind of resolution that we can build off of (at least, one that hasn't been considered already - refer to reply #8 on the first page). This is a great and massive step that we can take into resolving much of GangRP's setbacks that it currently possesses and gives it a faltering reputation. I elaborate on this in the benefits section of the original post & I certainly do not need to elaborate on it any further.

Also, did you read the thread? You don't have to ask a police officer for consent to kill their character if they shoot at your character. I think you misread it. Police officers are meant to be an overpowered force — they are police officers, and Japan has an extremely low crime rate. Their power is sensical and is another risk present within GangRP that many of you desire when getting involved in it; you now have to think of more intricate crimes to avoid being pursued by the police. GangRP gathers more depth with this addition.

Police are the exception so that they can be the present risk. You still can kill them without asking for consent. . .please re-read that part.

As for the misconception regarding "planned" deaths, refer to my reply to Prosthettics in reply #116 of the sixth page. Scripted roleplay is not unfun, as proven with many events that all of you have been involved in at least once, and neither is mingling a few unplanned things in the mix of it all. Major assault permissions and arguments relative to them do not possess the same weight as permanent character death, rendering any argument about the arguments that come with them almost baseless. . .obviously, arguments will still occur, but there's always an argument on SchoolRP. It doesn't even have to be about permissions. It can be about FailRP, AvoidRP, Metagaming. . .it does not matter. We're at least preventing a few more unneeded ones from occurring by implementing this.

I do appreciate your insight, though. Please read the thread and my replies for further elaboration on other points as I don't want anyone spending time writing something that has already been elaborated on! I value your guys' time and I'm certain that you are seeking the better for the future of the server, just like me. Being open-minded is a step in the right direction and I'm grateful to you for writing this reply out.

Good job on keeping the positivity through this and I think that you are doing great work with the crime section and faction of the server and personally I’m glad to see the activity from it which I think that you’ll do great things, thank you as well.

 

[Springwood]

Love what you're trying to say with your suggestion, but rather than completely removing the killing requirements, I'd recommend making it more difficult to obtain killing permissions. As a result, players may regard the requirement as unique, one-off — which could potentially lead to more roleplay-based killings, improved execution and more enjoyment for all parties involved

 

[hebwig]

Love what you're trying to say with your suggestion, but rather than completely removing the killing requirements, I'd recommend making it more difficult to obtain killing permissions. As a result, players may regard the requirement as unique, one-off — which could lead to more roleplay-based killings, improved execution and more enjoyment for all parties involved

I mention in my replies that this was our attempt with all the recent nerfing and whatnot. Myself and other players are most convinced that this is the way in which kills can be limited to that one-off instance you describe & would therefore become much more roleplay-oriented (enjoyment for both parties goes hand-in-hand with receiving approval from the other party). However, I feel like gangs (and yours especially) are going to thrive with this addition. You can use all of the resources that you're about to be given alongside this update to continue prospering your gang into something unique and reputable for something outside of kills and major assault that we oftentimes see. You've got a creative mind, Springwood, so I know you're already thinking.

Hostage situations, using Ikigai to your advantage, involving yourself in the criminal businesses, working around the new weapon buffs that'll align with this update, tying major assault permissions with kidnapping permissions and allowing people to kidnap for a full seven days (even during school hours), and lessening the amount of kills so that they're ONLY roleplay-based is going to change GangRP for the better. It'll gain the reputation that it's finally deserving of! I really appreciate your input & everything that you do for GangRP as a whole, and I hope you understand my intentions in all of this. You're great at what you do & I know you'll do well if this suggestion is implemented.

 

[Toto]

-1 / +1

Gangs need to be able to be disbanded via pure force, otherwise the only way gangs will ever disband is out of inactivity (which may just prop up the 'proposed' dying of gangrp everybody keeps on throwing about). Whilst there are some really good merits to this idea I think this could also very much harm the GangRP community. Whilst I would love to see this feedback passed -- I do think we need to take a deep consideration into ways that ensure gangs still do suffer from losing. PERHAPS -- If you get majored than you can't gangrp for a week / you are barred from that specific gang for a month? Something like that to make sure gangrp wars are not endless or that there is an actual consequence to losing a gangrp conflict outside of police interactions.

I feel like I see a lot of non-gangrpers blindly +1'ing the thread without really considering the potential consequences of this. There needs to be a bit more duality if we're going to straight up remove a massive factor. -- Also, I think we should take a look at our sister server (FantasyRP) and the way they themselves handle kill permissions as it's a lot better than what the current proposal is.

Building onto this -- I think verified gang leads (if this all gets passed through) should be treated the same way as Cops -- this would be a way of making gang-leads more intimidating and leave more of a longer lasting impact if you manage to get bad enough luck to encounter one. Gang leads should naturally be a step above their members in some way or another. For example, you might be more cautious about double-crossing the Yakuza as your character might be made an example of by Mike as a cautionary tale -- I think this on the flip side will allow for more strategy about how gang leads operate as they would certainly be more open to tons of political assassinations of sorts if the gang lead is overusing their ability to kill -- which could be really interesting and allow for more strategy in a system we're at the moment trying to breath life and story into.

 

[minustempo]

if you include NLR deaths i will 100% think this will benefit the community.

If you allow staff to grant kill perms on some rare terms I also think that would grow this idea more.

wait no it wouldnt because that removes all the aspect of "high risk" if my character can just still live with memory loss. it's like every gangrper wld be on a throwaway

 

[Toto]

wait no it wouldnt because that removes all the aspect of "high risk" if my character can just still live with memory loss. it's like every gangrper wld be on a throwaway

Think you need to experience NLR to really grasp it, it never really worked like that in reality

 

[Ahimotu]

+1
People take the kill permissions too lightly, it makes no sense sometimes. Adding this rule would make people who actually want to play fair in GangRP, a lot of people like to win but never like to lose, but this would make things way easier.

 

[ReverendDubs]

Yeah what he said, if you can make KPD more of a threat do it to BMDS as well

 

[SapouT]

Tbh i think that if u add NRL and staff to grant normal kps in rare conditions like events or similar stuff it would work rlly nice, or force every killing to be done with p2l and monitored by staff in case of powergame, though i prefer the current way

 

[jayseph]

Yonio is right and I'd like to add, Both Kpd and gangrp require a risk that people take before joining. Limiting kps will have some more disadvantages that yonio maybe forgot to mention
-Non realistic lifes
what is a character? It's a minecraft version of a human. Sometimes a character has to permanently die and it is unrealistic for that character to not die permanently. In addition this could lead to people being able to do all kinds of things without getting punished Icly. For example leaving a verified gang no longer has any effects to the former member because if we get realistic No One will consent to die.
--Less activity within gangrp as well as gangrp and kpdrp getting boring

It is obvious why removing the risk off a game as well as the ability to win or lose will make the game get boring and of course activity in both will slowly start dying
- Extra
gangrp had some common traits that most people hate because they are not ready to accept defeat. Changing gangrp will not benefit those people fully but instead will cause the old audience to dislike it. Many people have been gangrping for even years to reach a certain level and who this update all of their constant trying will prove useless. In addition kpd is close to gangrp and it will have the same issues

I actually had a similar point with the nonrealistic characters, but I'll refer you to a few of Heb's replies that I think are more beneficial than what I could muster up to say.
Reply to ImKana
Reply to Ruin

I also want to point out what she's talking about with hostage situations because you and I both worked together in the initial hostage situation/torture that started the entire Kaku-Kai - Bonten war.

"Hostage situations, using Ikigai to your advantage, involving yourself in the criminal businesses, working around the new weapon buffs that'll align with this update, tying major assault permissions with kidnapping permissions and allowing people to kidnap for a full seven days (even during school hours), and lessening the amount of kills so that they're ONLY roleplay-based is going to change GangRP for the better. It'll gain the reputation that it's finally deserving of! I really appreciate your input & everything that you do for GangRP as a whole, and I hope you understand my intentions in all of this. You're great at what you do & I know you'll do well if this suggestion is implemented."

I didn't let you kill Cyrus obviously, but the actual roleplay that was gotten out from holding him hostage and torturing him was, in my personal opinion, even more interesting than anything that would have gotten out of just straight up killing him. Not only just in the moment but after it as well. I got to go through a police interrogation, getting skin grafts, having to deal with the fact that he got kidnapped and tortured for weeks and the aftermath of that, etc. You got to do, essentially, whatever you wanted to my character other than kill him and it made for some really intense but amazing roleplay at the end of the day.

I've read your long reply as well as this one, but again, Heb's responses are much better and more formulated than what I could bring to the table. I'm not saying you absolutely have to be for this without any sort of concerns or seeing it's flaws, I for one have pointed out my concerns various times, but I do think you should try to give it more of a thought.

 

[Ruin]

Thats where your wrong, there would be no throwaway. A throwaway character is a character created just so you can do crimes without any real punishment to your main character, basically you dont care what happens to your throwaway so you roleplay differently than if you were on your main character.

I in fact think this idea does the opposite of encourage more throwaway, you wont need to create another character with no lore because your afraid of dying anymore, you can keep a singular character and build off of them. There should be a high risk to GangRP but it should still be more roleplay oriented. SRP at the end of the day is based off of writing and I think this suggestion will encourage more writing with characters. This could also broaden the GangRP scene with more people that want to write and hate the fact that GangRP isn't writing to indulge inside it more.

i agree with metsu
(love metsu)

 

[_BritishAutism_]

+1
I'm tired and I'm sure every one else is too of making new characters because of people gaining kps

 

[hebwig]

For anyone concerned with these set of cons I'll try to explain in my mind how I think this will all unfold if this rule is implemented.

- If we make KPS (generally) OOC-consented, people will never agree to allow other people to kill their character
This is basically true, the fix is just to allow lore-team and admins to grant character kills.

- Limiting KPS will "erase" the risk of GangRP
There still will be risk to GangRP I think. You can still get arrested and still permanently have your character damaged. There will always be a risk. There will be MORE risk if staff can grant character kills too, I feel like that solves almost all the problems.

- Limiting KPS will result in people aiming for Major rather than KPS
I would say it again but I've stated it like 8x... This though might not be that bad either, but its true.

- GangRP and, in consequence, KPD activity will decrease
I think it will increase, more RP, more writing. I mean, every casualrp'ers problem with GangRP is that its just idiots running around wanting to kill, no lore, no writing, no roleplay, its annoying, its not fun. But adding NLR and this means more roleplay, more writing, less dying to idiots with no lore, more developed characters. And in turn, increase activity.

Reference my first reply to ImKana for why the first point is ideal but would not befit SchoolRP. It's nice since FantasyRP currently uses that process; but, I've explained several times throughout my replies why consenting OOC for killing permissions is a better choice.

As for the risk-related concerns, risk still exists. You already acknowledge that; but, the primary risk (if this is implemented) is KPD and trying to evade them. In addition to that, you want to avoid being kidnapped for up to seven days by other gangs, as that is also a new addition within everything (along with everything major assault related). Risk still exists and I don't want that to be a misconception with everyone. Yes, having your character killed is a risk that no longer exists — but, again, it brings more benefits than setbacks.

There isn't an issue with people going for major permissions over killing permissions. It's better than losing a character and it'll take over a month before someone has a character's limbs removed (unless they're handing out major assault to others like crazy). Rather than instantaneous and poorly-written deaths, players will now have more time to react to their traumatizing situations and write out proper reactions to it.

KPD activity will not decrease, and that is another misconception which I've already addressed in my replies. With this rule, it nearly becomes a requirement for GangRPers that they think of their crimes in more intricate ways to avoid facing the biggest risk: KPD, and their unconsented killing ability. KPD (and mainly detectives, for one) have been wanting actual cases to deal with in-game; and, we'll get some truly interesting ones as killing decreases. Hostage/kidnapping situations with ransoms, no-name criminals who always carve smiles into people's faces, and organized illegal businesses in the underworld. . .having this suggestion implemented will promote roleplay rather than hurting it. It'll be beneficial for KPD and GangRP. You can read my replies for more information. Thank you for providing these concerns, though! They're helpful and it's nice to have everything written in a list.

 

[Seashard]

IGN: hebwig
DATE: 03/07/2022
WHAT YOU WANT TO SUGGEST OR MENTION: Make kill permissions only possible to be used if the person consents through OOC means to have their character permanently killed. This is the suggestion simplified down to one sentence; but, it goes a bit more in-depth. Bear with me, the crime faction lead, and take my input on how this would benefit & what other changes would come with it.
HOW WILL THIS BENEFIT THE SERVER/COMMUNITY?:

INTRO:
Roleplay communities, outside of Minecraft and within Minecraft, frown upon permanent/forced character death. Completely deleting a character from a setting’s existence is really ridiculous and one of the many reasons why GangRP has the reputation it has (which then leads to other issues within said portion of the server). Requiring that kill permissions become an OOC consent-based system will limit these deaths, promote players into writing fleshed-out characters, and discourage those who oftentimes use throwaways.

Please note that this suggestion has already been discussed with a few staff members, including the owner. This thread is being created so that players can give their input on the suggestion. We value feedback and would like other perspectives before going through with the suggestion above. If possible, read through every point mentioned before making a response as they are to be considered in any feedback.



Again, take the above into account. These are not the only changes that would take place in the next few weeks (if enough feedback is given and considered); but, these are the ones that are just related to this massive change. If you choose to respond or react to this feedback, please give reasoning behind it as this thread is being monitored by staff and will be reviewed by staff when the next period for reviewing feedback messages rolls around.

Thank you for any input! Both myself and the staff members of SchoolRP are grateful to you, for both reading this thread and for potentially leaving a response. Note that if you have any other points/benefits worth mentioning, this thread will be edited to include them. Take care.

+1 I quit gangrp on my main character because I was attached and didn’t want her to die. I really like gangrp but don’t like being scared my characters will die after all the effort I’ve put into developing and coming up with them.

 

[Lolo]

-1 | I may be KPD but it removes most Roleplay and realistic aspects of SRP, in the real world anyone can die to others and is unexpected.

With respect to your opinion, I believe that SRP is much different than real life. Although it's meant to be realistic to a point, it sucks to lose a character you've worked so hard on for years within a few minutes to an hour. It also doesn't help that many gangrpers bait perms, so it's really out of our control.

 

[Lolo]

+1

Losing characters sucks. It's a shame that it happens too often, so much hard work and dedication is thrown into the garbage.​

 

[Lizalopod]

+1

Please heb this would make the gang roleplay situation atleast ten times better...

 

[Yonio]

Something else that I wish to point out:

I've seen many people say that "nobody will consent because they're too attached to their character". However, if they're attached to their character, it is highly likely that they also understand that In-Character motive is really important when it comes to writing roleplay. That's why, for example, I wouldn't mind allowing someone to have KPS on me if they give me a proper In-Character motive to kill my commissioner character. Let's say if I tase a character that is 1 day old and they want KPS on my character because I tased them and he's in a gang that hates cops, I'm not going to agree on it just because of that. However, if I do tase someone and that person ends up being someone's childhood friend who is now arrested for something he was forced to do, then I would allow it.

It is all about In-Character motive, really. If you allow people to have Kill Permissions on you as long as they have a motive to do this, then you'll be regarded as aa great player that does not mind risking the life of a developed character for roleplay purposes