SUGGESTION | ALLOWING PLAYERS TO VOID SITUATIONS + RANT

[lowkeyHades]

-1 , i'm with Zin yall

 

[ximoc]

I'm not sure I understand this part, If you're specifically looking to avoid anyone calling KPD/EMS, work to be more discreet, avoiding additional unnecessary risk to avoid the need for rules to be changed.

You're assuming things, again, and like I'll say it again, if you want the full story just DM me man, you're not getting my point.

 

[kengan]

I'm not sure I understand this part, If you're specifically looking to avoid anyone calling KPD/EMS, work to be more discreet, avoiding additional unnecessary risk to avoid the need for rules to be changed.


Nobody is making assumptions here, It's merely going from what has been posted, If you're purposely having an RP scenario between two parties and wouldn't like a certain party to call their gang members over, you'd contact them and ask for them not to, right? It's a similar concept with KPD, you'd contact them specifically mentioning that this is a small event for lore purposes, and would like if it could operate without risk of KPD getting involved in it so you have freedom of roleplay to do what you'd like, doing this beforehand would completely avoid the need to change these rules, as Staff's opinions are to be respected and are as unbiased as possible.

Relating to "disallowing the aspect" The decision was made for both parties not to call any emergency services, and when they were indeed called by either a third party or the victim, and arrived on scene it resulted in arrests, both of the original parties that initially agreed to it wanted to void the situation, however after KPD was involved they became an additional factor in voiding it, as it requires all parties to want the consent, and if they say no, and so does the staff member(s) Then unfortunately I believe that their statements must be respected.

We shouldn't NEED to contact Yonio just for a small event, that seems like a large stretch just for an event to take place for a couple of friends for both some roleplay development and good times. They were discreet with their work and I do not know how many times I have to use this word, there was a miscommunication with both parties in which after they found out that it was, they wanted to void the situation. The only person making assumptions here is you, you're assuming that they weren't discreet in which they were to the best of their abilities, you're assuming that they slacked off. They shouldn't need to contact Yonio as the only things that could've drawn attention to the crime being committed was:

A.) If they were doing the crime just in the public eye for all to see
B.) If there was CCTV footage

And they were doing none of that, they were inside of a house. I do not understand why you continue to just pester on about this when you weren't there in the first place. There wasa miscommunication, a mistake, and everyone makes them. Everyone involved wanted the situation TO be voided but couldn't just because one officer's ruling made it null.

 

[NoZinth]

This seems too much about a single situation, I'm still in disagreement with the rule being changed.

 

[Mariav]

-1
What Yonio said

When it comes to KPD, we're coming into no man's land. While it is true that you can make OOC deals in regards to staging situations, you can't expect EVERYONE in the server to comply with it. You can't just force the entire server to do something, mainly because you can't get everyone to agree on something (that's partially why OOC-consented situations were not allowed several months ago), but my point here is that staff will generally veto a void when a lot of stuff has happened (e.g. weapons were burnt, logs were made, apartments were raided), and if we were to void it, a lot of stuff would be reminded. It is not just a "bail log". There is a lot of police work behind each arrest, thus why we discourage voiding situations and, if anything, ask the arresting officer if they're fine with voiding it

 

[HATOLA]

-1 / +1
I totally understand why KPD and such, but lets say someone did some ./me by mistake or said something by mistake. Why wouldn't they be able to void it? Or some situation which will effect their lore and KPD isn't involved or whatever, I really can't to see a reason for why not letting people void it

maybe this rule can get change to only if the situation will be related to x and y they won't be able to void it.

 

[ximoc]

-1
What Yonio said

Yonio's response was made when my suggestion was still very vague, his suggestion I believe is addressing the KPD rant portion of the thread.

 

[Sporkmoment]

-1/+1
What Hatola said!

 

[Ruin]

That entire situation was to create risk, it was an OOCly Agreed situation with both the ICly Victim and Guilty. We do not need Yonio OOCly to have a small roleplay interaction with eachother to make it a "flash event". The entirety of this server is to have fun and roleplay. The players mainly involved both agreed and consented to this rule to create roleplay. There is plenty more we could do but sometimes plenty more is not what people want, in this case it was definitely not wanted.

Couldnt have said it better, W reply dude
crazy how in one of the replies I've read something about "the risk" and noticed how on KPD's side the 'risk' is relevant but when is comes to the gangrp side... that risk is irrelevant for that individual somehow? Not directed to anyone specificly of course haha.

I agree with this suggestion even though I myself never done an roleplay situtation like this other than 1 time which I'll explain after this. I had multiple ideas but all of them thrown into a google doc filled w RP ideas I had during my time on SRP. Reason I throw them in that google doc instead of roleplaying it and having fun is always because of the fear of an individual irrelevant to the situtation to pop out and just ruin it.
This type'a situtation happend when I was in the famous gang called "Kanto" (Was called Toman in its first days)
Both parties were in an alleyway and wanted to roleplay a small fight between 3-4 people, everything was planned out, even the winner yet the roleplay just paused and we never re-tried it because of KPD showing up and just making the situtation unbearable.

 

[pashy]

-1
Simple. Void it between you and your friend, if it caused enough trouble to get to staff then I guess it shouldn't be voided

 

[ximoc]

-1
Simple. Void it between you and your friend, if it caused enough trouble to get to staff then I guess it shouldn't be voided

The whole point of the post is to make it so we ARE allowed to void between our friends. The current rules make it so you cannot void without staff approval.

 

[Toto]

+1
This alongside readding NLR.

 

[pashy]

The whole point of the post is to make it so we ARE allowed to void between our friends. The current rules make it so you cannot void without staff approval.

Yeah exactly who cares about staff approval when it's between u two. . If it did reach staff that they want a reason then there must be some trouble caused from that void

No disrespect staff, of course. Just- if it's something between me and my friend that barely has any attention I don't see why would I refer to staff, but it got enough trouble and attention to reach staff that I get asked about the void then I guess that shouldn't be voidable between you and your friend only

 

[ximoc]

Yeah exactly who cares about staff approval when it's between u two. . If it did reach staff that they want a reason then there must be some trouble caused from that void

No disrespect staff, of course. Just- if it's something between me and my friend that barely has any attention I don't see why would I refer to staff, but it got enough trouble and attention to reach staff that I get asked about the void then I guess that shouldn't be voidable between you and your friend only

Did you mean to put +1?? You aren’t allowed to void things between you and your friend, this post was made to change that. Voiding situations between friends is against the current rules and I’ve gotten warned for it.

 

[pashy]

Did you mean to put +1?? You aren’t allowed to void things between you and your friend, this post was made to change that. Voiding situations between friends is against the current rules and I’ve gotten warned for it.

You don't get what I'm sayin

If it's a thing between me and few small amount of friends, it wouldn't cause trouble voiding it between us too if it's not affecting roleplay or SRP in any form so with all due my respect to staff, I wouldn't refer to them about it, because it doesn't involve anyone and no one is complaining they won't even know. .

If the situation you're voiding is big enough that it reached staff, staff acknowledged that void and warned you, something was taken against that void. . Then, sounds to me it shouldn't be voidable- even if it's between you and your friend if it caused enough attention to be brang up with staff then it shouldn't be voided just because it's between you and your friend

 

[Infi]

I feel as if players should be able to void situations at their own will but to a certain extent and depending on the given situation.

Neutral for me

 

[6Pancake]

NEUTRAL! AND HERE'S WHY!:

A common misconception on SRP is that only staff members can void situations, but if we pay attention to rule 5.7, you will find that all players can void a situation as long as there has been a rule broken.

> 5.7 Voiding can only be done if a rule is broken. Staff members have the ability to void a situation regardless of a majority vote.

> 5.7a In reference to a majority vote, if the majority of a group votes to void a situation for a valid reason such as a rule breaking or other OOC reasons, then the situation is voided.​

> 5.7b Regardless of if an action or situation is voided, it may still be eligible for punishment.​

From what I can tell, a lot of players confuse the "Staff members have the ability to void a situation regardless of majority vote" with "Only staff members have the ability to void situations". However, it simply means that a staff member can overrule the majority vote, meaning they can decide whether it is going to be voided or stay as it is.

To get a situation voided, you have to have a rule that has been broken (and heavily affected the situation) and a majority of the players involved willing to come to the agreement of voiding it. Otherwise, you can contact staff with the rule that has been broken and they can overrule the majority vote if need be

 

[Emiyo | Layla]

+1

yes i love you, slay !!

 

[ximoc]

NEUTRAL! AND HERE'S WHY!:

A common misconception on SRP is that only staff members can void situations, but if we pay attention to rule 5.7, you will find that all players can void a situation as long as there has been a rule broken.

> 5.7 Voiding can only be done if a rule is broken. Staff members have the ability to void a situation regardless of a majority vote.

> 5.7a In reference to a majority vote, if the majority of a group votes to void a situation for a valid reason such as a rule breaking or other OOC reasons, then the situation is voided.​

> 5.7b Regardless of if an action or situation is voided, it may still be eligible for punishment.​

From what I can tell, a lot of players confuse the "Staff members have the ability to void a situation regardless of majority vote" with "Only staff members have the ability to void situations". However, it simply means that a staff member can overrule the majority vote, meaning they can decide whether it is going to be voided or stay as it is.

To get a situation voided, you have to have a rule that has been broken (and heavily affected the situation) and a majority of the players involved willing to come to the agreement of voiding it. Otherwise, you can contact staff with the rule that has been broken and they can overrule the majority vote if need be

What if a rule wasn't broken, but rather a mistake was made within the role-play that messed it up, like miscommunication? That's kinda what I'm pushing for with this post. Regardless if a rule was broken, players should be able to void a situation if something like miscommunication did happen as long as the majority of both parties involved agreed to it. Notice how players can void between themselves if "A RULE WAS BROKEN", that's still putting a restraint on what can and cannot be voided.

Thanks for your reply!

 

[Infi]

What if a rule wasn't broken, but rather a mistake was made within the role-play that messed it up, like miscommunication? That's kinda what I'm pushing for with this post. Regardless if a rule was broken, players should be able to void a situation if something like miscommunication did happen as long as the majority of both parties involved agreed to it. Notice how players can void between themselves if "A RULE WAS BROKEN", that's still putting a restraint on what can and cannot be voided.

Thanks for your reply!

I’m not gonna lie. I agree with you to a certain extent. People who go /me BARKS and then go “/it keybind void sorry qwq” should have to bear the consequence of creating a barking keybind in the first place. However if it’s like “yeah we chose for the situation to go like this but it didn’t so we decided to void and redo” then I understand that