Rule Suggestion FearRP whilst cuffed change

[Wulfric]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:

Whilst somebody is in elastic restraints they shouldn't have to be told to stop breaking cuffs when it is clear that there are players around them with weapons out even if they are not being directly aimed at, for example when arresting/kidnapping some people they will try to break out of cuffs the instant you turn away to open a door or such, this is really stupid as them turning away for a split second isn't much of a reason for them to no longer be under fearRP especially since if they turn back around they could very easily kill them before they break out.
Secondly if someone is blindfolded they should realisticly not break out of cuffs when they are aware the person who has cuffed and blindfolded them is still nearby rather than needing to be told every 5 seconds "your under gunpoint stop breaking out" as you can easily tell by the audio of you and them moving that they are still there and realistically if you are kidnapped and being dragged whilst blindfolded you wouldn't try to escape whilst the kidnapper who you can't even see is right next to you.
Thirdly if the person arresting/kidnapping the player has put there gun away and the player attempts to break out, the moment the arresting/kidnapping player pulls their weapon out the player in cuffs should stop breaking out without the need to tell them to stop breaking out.

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

Not to my knowledge.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):

Firstly it makes things less tedious and annoying for people when arresting/kidnapping players, I think we have all had those moments in which someone tries to break out every 5 seconds and you have to repeatedly tell them not to over and over again which would be unrealistic as you don't want to antagonise someone who has you restrained and could possibly kill you when you can't fight back.
Secondly it simplifies thing for staff members when ruling on situations where players break out of cuffs despite being in a controlled situation rather than having varying rulings by different staff as some just go by how the rule works on paper vs how it would work realistically. For example staff member A may rule in a situation that person A was not breaking fearRP whilst breaking cuffs surrounded by a dozen MTF purely because no one was directly aiming at them and telling them to not break out vs staff member B who may rule in a situation that person A was breaking fearRP as being surrounded by a dozen MTF is more than sufficient to apply fearRP whilst restrained even if they are not being directly gun pointed or told to not break out as the danger is implied.


Possible Negatives of the suggestion:

Only negative I can think of is when someone is being kidnapped they basically get reduced to a helpless child as they themselves can't do anything to escape without intervention by other players to save them or if left completely unattended.

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

I believe this should be accepted as the positives massively outweigh the minor negatives especially since it makes far more sense realistically and reduces the tediousness and annoyance of restraining people in elastic restraints. In addition in most circumstances the person who is kidnapped can't escape themselves and as such this has very little impact negatively overall.​

 

[Niox]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:

Whilst somebody is in elastic restraints they shouldn't have to be told to stop breaking cuffs when it is clear that there are players around them with weapons out even if they are not being directly aimed at, for example when arresting/kidnapping some people they will try to break out of cuffs the instant you turn away to open a door or such, this is really stupid as them turning away for a split second isn't much of a reason for them to no longer be under fearRP especially since if they turn back around they could very easily kill them before they break out.
Secondly if someone is blindfolded they should realisticly not break out of cuffs when they are aware the person who has cuffed and blindfolded them is still nearby rather than needing to be told every 5 seconds "your under gunpoint stop breaking out" as you can easily tell by the audio of you and them moving that they are still there and realistically if you are kidnapped and being dragged whilst blindfolded you wouldn't try to escape whilst the kidnapper who you can't even see is right next to you.
Thirdly if the person arresting/kidnapping the player has put there gun away and the player attempts to break out, the moment the arresting/kidnapping player pulls their weapon out the player in cuffs should stop breaking out without the need to tell them to stop breaking out.​

1 is a clear yes, basically common sense.
3 as well, convenient as well as the same logic.

2 I'm mixed on. Being blindfolded is shit, and there should be no reason to encourage passively blindfolding someone EVER unless you need to actually prevent them from seeing something.

+/-Neutral

 

[pinhead]

feel like these are common sense and are all rule breaks to begin with

 

[Emilia Foddg]

Whilst somebody is in elastic restraints they shouldn't have to be told to stop breaking cuffs when it is clear that there are players around them with weapons out even if they are not being directly aimed at, for example when arresting/kidnapping some people they will try to break out of cuffs the instant you turn away to open a door or such, this is really stupid as them turning away for a split second isn't much of a reason for them to no longer be under fearRP especially since if they turn back around they could very easily kill them before they break out.
Secondly if someone is blindfolded they should realistically not break out of cuffs when they are aware the person who has cuffed and blindfolded them is still nearby rather than needing to be told every 5 seconds "your under gunpoint stop breaking out" as you can easily tell by the audio of you and them moving that they are still there and realistically if you are kidnapped and being dragged whilst blindfolded you wouldn't try to escape whilst the kidnapper who you can't even see is right next to you.
Thirdly if the person arresting/kidnapping the player has put there gun away and the player attempts to break out, the moment the arresting/kidnapping player pulls their weapon out the player in cuffs should stop breaking out without the need to tell them to stop breaking out.

...But how? All you've suggested is that it should happen and not any specifics as to how it should be done. It's eloquent and well-put, yes, but without a what it's more or less equivalent to just saying "Devs please make X thing better, thanks." IMO, this passage belongs more in the final section as it's justification for the change itself - But for the actual mechanical part, are we thinking something like the 323 SWEP? Where when someone is looking at a cuffed person with their gun out (from within a reasonable range, none of this FearRP from across the map stuff), they can't break out (Which lasts for a little while after the gun is taken off or put away)? Okay. That kind of mechanic I can get behind. However, it would need to ensure that it:

• Doesn't affect SCPs (As SCP cuffs can't be broken out of without assistance anyways so you could really just cheese this function by having people aim gun at the SCP being broken out to increase DPS on the other SCP or something else)
  
  
• Is robust enough to not freak out and prevent people from breaking out when they should be able to - Especially in a way that could potentially be exploited to prevent someone from ever trying to break out, which means extensive QA testing on the change.
  
  
• Is overridable for event purposes (I personally can't come up with an eventuality for it other than "The cuffed thing is an SCP or reality bender or w/e", there's probably a few event scenarios where you'd need someone to break out of cuffs while under gunpoint).
  
  
• Can't be cheesed to keep a tighter hold on hostages during altercations - Say for example, you have CI holding a bunch of hostages in EZ. Foundation forces push the room and engage CI in a firefight, while also trying to free the hostages. CI could dedicate a few people to trying to abuse this gun pointing at a cuffed hostage mechanic (from say, across the room, although this kinda falls in with the reasonable range issue I wrote before) to frustrate their release.

I like the idea, but the way you're going about this needs work.

 

[Aithaed]

Hello, not-content Aithaed here. I will not be resolving this suggestion, however, hopefully I can shine some light on the Staff perspective.

Currently FearRP operates under several Clarifications and "common sense rules" to provide players with a background for what they are expected to do when "fearing for their life". Most of the situations you have described revolve around the player who is under FearRP playing in Bad Faith, attempting to twist the idea of "not knowing they are under FearRP" into permission to break FearRP whenever they aren't 100% certain they are under FearRP ICly, even if common sense dictates otherwise.

Uncertainty is not typically sufficient reason to break an alleged FearRP situation (Such as being blindfolded and surrounded by enemies), and by definition leveraging uncertainty for rules lawyering is not realistically fearing for your life.

That is not a Clarification or any form of binding legalese, ultimately the point of the rule is still to cause players to take relatively realistic actions in Roleplay, and it is up to Staff to resolve conflicts when they arise.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

Currently FearRP operates under several Clarifications and "common sense rules" to provide players with a background for what they are expected to do when "fearing for their life". Most of the situations you have described revolve around the player who is under FearRP playing in Bad Faith, attempting to twist the idea of "not knowing they are under FearRP" into permission to break FearRP whenever they aren't 100% certain they are under FearRP ICly, even if common sense dictates otherwise.

Uncertainty is not typically sufficient reason to break an alleged FearRP situation (Such as being blindfolded and surrounded by enemies), and by definition leveraging uncertainty for rules lawyering is not realistically fearing for your life.

Oh. This is a rule suggestion. Or was the flair changed? Idk

Anyway, full agree with this in terms of rules. If a change needs to be made here, IMO this should be done a bit more mechanically (via a content change) as there's not really much reason to at least explore what I said about implementing some kind of 323 SWEP-style mechanic where it literally prevents you from trying to break cuffs when under (close-range) gunpoint (and are not an SCP, with other considerations, etc. etc.)

Also, the fact that this is a rule suggestion and not a content suggestion like I thought means that a lot of your stated benefits in terms of convenience, tedium, annoyance and making things easier for players etc. kinda doesn't really work? Since rule suggestions are about changing how staff handle the problem, so the RP will still be disrupted by the problem player - You'd just be trying to change how the sit is handled. This is unfortunately just ruleplay disguised as a helpful change.

-Support

 

[Kufie]

1 is a clear yes, basically common sense.
3 as well, convenient as well as the same logic.

2 I'm mixed on. Being blindfolded is shit, and there should be no reason to encourage passively blindfolding someone EVER unless you need to actually prevent them from seeing something.

+/-Neutral

I'm with Niox here.

 

[Evil]

feel like these are common sense and are all rule breaks to begin with

In Real life you would be put into chains and you would be given dental surgery to remove the cyanide tooth to prevent suicide

 

[Alex/John Dingle]

In Real life you would be put into chains and you would be given dental surgery to remove the cyanide tooth to prevent suicide

You live in russia or some? In real life they would just strip your weapon and tie you up using either handcuffs or zipties, and if they do have a cyanide tooth how tf you gonna stop them from eating it?

 

[Evil]

You live in russia or some? In real life they would just strip your weapon and tie you up using either handcuffs or zipties, and if they do have a cyanide tooth how tf you gonna stop them from eating

Now if you were in area where gun fight was happening sure, but if the entire area is secure and no hostile are near the premise then the fucker would be in chains, because it would make no sense to keep him in zipties that can easily be broken when the area is clearly secured especially if that person is a high rank in a terrorist organization, at that point the person would be chain arms and legs bag over his head with ear muffs and send to the interrogation room or worse the men in black from dc will take them to disclose place to get information.

As for the cyanide tooth you just gag them with something that would keep them from breaking the cyanide tooth, or you could drug them.