Accepted Add 2.18 "Double-Cuffing" to Staff Rulings

[Cheese Cooper]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Add a staff ruling about double-cuffing, as now it's allowed there's lots of conflicting information about when it's appropriate to do.
Some variations I've heard:
"You can double-cuff whenever"
"You can double-cuff if they keep trying to break out under FearRP"
"You can double-cuff if you are the only one arresting and don't have someone to put them under FearRP to stop a breakout"
"You can double-cuff if they've broken out at least once"
"You can double-cuff if they've broken out at least once against FearRP"
Staff clarification regarding this would be appreciated, as double-cuffing can be a very useful tool but it is equally frustrating to be double-cuffed. Just today, GOC took the pinewood population in cuffs because they used double-handcuffing to ensure nobody could break out, instead of using FearRP. It was frustrating to be cuffed, gagged, blindfolded, and unable to do anything. I'd prefer a ruling something like the second variation, where you must attempt to use roleplay force such as FearRP before applying double-cuffs to ensure it stays fair for everyone.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Keeps it fair for everyone since double-cuffing is frustrating to be under as a player.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
Double-cuffing might be more common I guess

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Clarification good

 

[Ismaaeel]

-support
It's nice to double cuff
"I guess"

 

[Snow]

+support

 

[Deleted member 4984]

Maybe instead of making it as staff ruling complicating the rules even more, add this to the dev tracker as a bug

 

[Darren]

+support obvious why its dumb double cuffing

 

[Tobi Sallow]

+ Support

A more clear ruling might help things, yeah. I'm personally a fan of double-cuffing, as too often you get some goofy minge who refuses to adhere to fearrp in any respect, or they try to weasle their way out of fearp. And while it can suck to be truly helpless and unable to do anything about it, if the double cuffing was done in a genuinely unfair and unwarranted situation, just make a sit about it, or deal with it until someone IC responds.

If they hold you for too long with no real justification, then yeah, make a sit. But if they have a legit reason, then double cuffing was appropriate. Its not like you can escape out of metal handcuffs anyway. So making it a restriction to double cuff just makes it easier for people who are actively trying to make trouble to escape.

 

[Cheese Cooper]

Maybe instead of making it as staff ruling complicating the rules even more, add this to the dev tracker as a bug

Reasonable, but since SL specifically allowed this I don't believe they would consider it a bug at this point. It's a feature now. ?
That being said, fixing it so you can't have both cuffs on at once would also make this ruling completely not needed, so that's a fair argument.

+ Support

A more clear ruling might help things, yeah. I'm personally a fan of double-cuffing, as too often you get some goofy minge who refuses to adhere to fearrp in any respect, or they try to weasle their way out of fearp. And while it can suck to be truly helpless and unable to do anything about it, if the double cuffing was done in a genuinely unfair and unwarranted situation, just make a sit about it, or deal with it until someone IC responds.

If they hold you for too long with no real justification, then yeah, make a sit. But if they have a legit reason, then double cuffing was appropriate. Its not like you can escape out of metal handcuffs anyway. So making it a restriction to double cuff just makes it easier for people who are actively trying to make trouble to escape.

Agreed

 

[Yeke]

Hi gents,
to clarify "Double cuffing" is allowed, there is a misconception that it isnt allowed, although all that is happening is restraints are overlapped with metal handcuffs, if you get the metal handcuffs on, escape chance is 0.

I understand frustrating, but every player who ends up uncuffed in IA custody or custody of others always follows the meme "Aight ima head out" and constantly attempts to ruin the fun for IA or anyone, metal cuffs are generally only used to arrest players anyway.

 

[Cheese Cooper]

Hi gents,
to clarify "Double cuffing" is allowed, there is a misconception that it isnt allowed, although all that is happening is restraints are overlapped with metal handcuffs, if you get the metal handcuffs on, escape chance is 0.

I understand frustrating, but every player who ends up uncuffed in IA custody or custody of others always follows the meme "Aight ima head out" and constantly attempts to ruin the fun for IA or anyone, metal cuffs are generally only used to arrest players anyway.

we uh, know
we're trying to get clarification on when actually doing it IS allowed, since I've heard so many things. And codifying these sorts of things is never a bad idea anyways ?

 

[Kw1ll]

we uh, know
we're trying to get clarification on when actually doing it IS allowed, since I've heard so many things. And codifying these sorts of things is never a bad idea anyways ?

"to clarify "Double cuffing" is allowed"
A superadmin just said this, take it as confirmation lol

 

[Yeke]

Suggestion Approved​

---

Hi @Cheese Cooper ,

Thanks for taking the time to make a server suggestion.

The suggestion has been approved on the basis of the clarification issued in the Staff Clarifications section;
​

1.05 Double Cuffing - You may only double cuff a player if they are going to be arrested and put in jail.​

Your suggestion will now be locked and marked as accepted.​