Rule Suggestion Change the Interrogation Rules

Rule suggestions will be reviewed by Superadmins, this may take longer than standard content suggestions.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jam

Jam

Civil Gamers Expert
One Year Club Two Year Club Conversation Starter Chemical Weaponry
Apr 10, 2022
168
34
91
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:

Modifies the rule 2.4 (c) so that the three /roll questions can only be asked to CL4+ members after a continuous roleplay window of interrogation/torture after 5 minutes.

DEA/MTF/GOC/CI have control over another faction's prisoner within their own base and have the power to delegate interrogation or negotiations. During interrogation they may ask 3 questions; for each question asked an interrogator and the prisoner being interrogated must /roll 100 and the interrogator must use /me to describe the interrogation method. If the interrogator rolls higher the prisoner must tell the truth. If the prisoner rolls higher they may say whatever they wish as long as it does not break server rules.
  • No codewords/phrases allowed.
  • Interrogators may not ask the same question more than once, while they are following this rule.
  • After the 3 questions are asked, with the use of /roll, the interrogation may continue as normal and within the confines of RP.


Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Nope.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Adds Roleplay to Interrogations / actual torture RP
Extends interrogations

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
Prolongs interrogations for people?

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
This would allow for interrogations (at least for Clearance 4 people) to actually be roleplayed. Ever since the 3 roll questions were introduced, the interrogations fell off in all factions, everyone resorts to just "I ask these questions" and interrogations are over. Back then it used to be way more original and it had to be roleplayed out, way before the interrogations. And since Clearance 4 are basically roleplay leaders they should at least get some effort of being questioned. 5 Minutes of effort is not too much asked.
Also Clearance 4 usually have valuable information, so why shouldn't it be worth the effort to torture it out of them.
upvotefinal.png
 
Upvote 15 Downvote
The Guardian

The Guardian

Active member
One Year Club Conversation Starter Chemical Weaponry
Sep 22, 2023
296
80
21
In the ruling it states they must use /me to describe a method of forcing the information out of you. If they don't, the roll isn't valid and you may answer with whatever you wish.

That's how I understand that, anyway. If there's no /me, there's nothing forcing the answer out of you, and therefore you can answer with anything or not answer at all.

I've noticed this as well, that combatives don't actually RP. Hell, in one instance, I know interrogators were actively angry at the person they captured actually RPing. Sadly, the state of RP on this server is somewhat abysmal.
 
Jam

Jam

Civil Gamers Expert
One Year Club Two Year Club Conversation Starter Chemical Weaponry
Apr 10, 2022
168
34
91
Witch said:
In the ruling it states they must use /me to describe a method of forcing the information out of you. If they don't, the roll isn't valid and you may answer with whatever you wish.

That's how I understand that, anyway. If there's no /me, there's nothing forcing the answer out of you, and therefore you can answer with anything or not answer at all.

I've noticed this as well, that combatives don't actually RP. Hell, in one instance, I know interrogators were actively angry at the person they captured actually RPing. Sadly, the state of RP on this server is somewhat abysmal.
Click to expand...
I think that must've completely went forgotten.
 
Emilia Foddg

Emilia Foddg

CG Diamond VIP
Donator
One Year Club Community Engager Conversation Starter Chemical Weaponry
Jul 15, 2023
1,394
319
41
UK
+Support
agree
while we're at it, can we get some example cases included for
  • Interrogators may not ask the same question more than once, while they are following this rule.
Click to expand...
please?

i had a CI interrogate me as an assistant the other day and they asked
"what is the door code to O5 offices" which they failed, so i gave them a random (fake) code
and then their last question was "what door codes do you know" and won that roll - which yes, isn't the same question, however i ONLY knew the door code to O5 offices (although i gave the code without saying what it was for), so they basically cheated an answer to the first question imo
 
Last edited:
Emilia Foddg

Emilia Foddg

CG Diamond VIP
Donator
One Year Club Community Engager Conversation Starter Chemical Weaponry
Jul 15, 2023
1,394
319
41
UK
Snavier said:
-SUPPORT

This is not really a good idea.. honestly, I don’t know why you would make LV4+ do it anyways?
Click to expand...
i agree it could be better worded, the questions are for everyone, but the idea is to encourage roleplay on and toward CL4 roles by making the roleplay in interrogations a requisite for interrogating a CL4 role.
 
Jam

Jam

Civil Gamers Expert
One Year Club Two Year Club Conversation Starter Chemical Weaponry
Apr 10, 2022
168
34
91
Snavier said:
-SUPPORT

This is not really a good idea.. honestly, I don’t know why you would make LV4+ do it anyways?
Click to expand...
It's 5 minutes of interrogation/torture, asking some basic questions and CL4 should be able to role play accordingly and not be sore losers who are making it unenjoyable. Cl4 usually have good information and some roleplay to go alongside it, should be something nice for both sides involved. The basic interrogation is literally just to get seated into a room and being asked 3 questions before being ransomed which is the most boring darkRP roleplay I've seen.
This used to be way different back then with genuine roleplay interrogations and the rolls did not give you guaranteed answers, made people actually think how to convince the hostage like e.g. giving them a good deal for answering truthfully and so on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emilia Foddg
Kevin Ki

Kevin Ki

Well-known Member
One Year Club Conversation Starter Chemical Weaponry
Dec 7, 2022
315
66
41
-Support

I think a rule forcing people to participate in a RP scenario is a bad idea, especially interrogation/torture rp.

1. Because some people take it too far/get really edgy about it.

2. Some people just aren't comfortable with torture RP, and that's not something we should force on people.

I get how it can be annoying to go through when that's the kinda RP you want, but some people just don't. You can still do your ( /me does thing) but someone shouldn't be forced to take part in it if they aren't comfortable/okay with it. The rolls are a good middle ground to where both sides can still somewhat RP it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harold Hawks and Emilia Foddg
The Guardian

The Guardian

Active member
One Year Club Conversation Starter Chemical Weaponry
Sep 22, 2023
296
80
21
Kevin Ki said:
-Support

I think a rule forcing people to participate in a RP scenario is a bad idea, especially interrogation/torture rp.

1. Because some people take it too far/get really edgy about it.

2. Some people just aren't comfortable with torture RP, and that's not something we should force on people.

I get how it can be annoying to go through when that's the kinda RP you want, but some people just don't. You can still do your ( /me does thing) but someone shouldn't be forced to take part in it if they aren't comfortable/okay with it. The rolls are a good middle ground to where both sides can still somewhat RP it.
Click to expand...
Honestly, had not thought of the second point. Thank you for bringing that up.
 
Chad

Chad

Civil Gamers Expert
Jan 27, 2022
689
152
91
Witch said:
I wouldn't be surprised, the only faction I've seen put effort into interrogations are CI and GOC. The last time I was interrogated by A1, they just asked questions. Didn't do a /me. I just went with it, because I did not want to deal with them lmao.
Click to expand...

A-1 this A-1 that

+support
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom