Idle Threat Rule Suggestion

[Sal]

3. In regards to how a user is allowed to react to verbal threats. There are two types of threats, an 'Active Threat' and a 'Idle threat'. Users may kill for an active threat but they may not kill for an idle a threat. The difference between the two is situational but will always pertain to if the person making the threats has a weapon in their hand. For example, someone pointing a gun at you and threatening to kill you. This is an Active threat. Someone saying they will kill/beat you in an argument or conversation. (Unarmed, weapon on safety etc) that is an idle threat. You are allowed to react to an Active threat in that moment (Not later when the situation is over) but do be aware that breaking fearrp to kill them and dying can result in a PK.
If someone has a large weapon on safety and threatens your life, this should not be considered an "idle threat".

This is unrealistic and is being used by certain people as a bait & switch to have people engage in combat and then make tickets.

I believe this change would get rid of criminals walking around with Assault Rifles on safety making challenging threats and heinous insults just to bait combat and sits. The current state of the server with this rule being in place has created an unfriendly roleplay / interaction environment and has created a sub-culture of individuals that only engage in this behavior to have their way in admin situations. @sharuji

[Rem]

are you saying baiting for kills?

[sharuji]

To clarify, he's making this suggestion because I was testing different scopes on a sidewalk, and when I went over to apologize, he got aggressive and said it was their property. So I told him to suck my dick, and that I'd blow his brains out. So he shot at me lol.

---

Even with that being said, +1. I've believed for a long time that weapons on safety should constitute an active threat since you are showing the capacity to execute the threat. I just don't support why you made the suggestion to begin with. There's no subculture of toxic criminals abusing this. You just jumped the gun and didn't even mention the fact I was walking away after making the threat.

[Sal]

are you saying baiting for kills?

Not entirely for K/D, it is a little worse than that.

There are people that equip assault rifles, safety them, and threaten/berate/intimidate. Their motives are not for kills, roleplay, or anything of the sort except for asserting dominance by circumnavigating the rules. Whether they die from the confrontation or kill the confronters an admin sit is made shortly after for ARDM/RDM.

It is a sycophantic playstyle and mentality that hurts the community's environment and devastates the roleplay climate.

[sharuji]

are you saying baiting for kills?

Not entirely for K/D, it is a little worse than that.

There are people that equip assault rifles, safety them, and threaten/berate/intimidate. Their motives are not for kills, roleplay, or anything of the sort except for asserting dominance by circumnavigating the rules. Whether they die from the confrontation or kill the confronters an admin sit is made shortly after for ARDM/RDM.

It is a sycophantic playstyle and mentality that hurts the community's environment and devastates the roleplay climate.

I was literally testing scopes. He made the first negative interaction. This whole post is a nothing sandwich. It's a rule I agree needs to be changed, but it's not some systemic issue, and you do it no good by overblowing the severity of the rule without any real substance.

[Rem]

are you saying baiting for kills?

Not entirely for K/D, it is a little worse than that.

There are people that equip assault rifles, safety them, and threaten/berate/intimidate. Their motives are not for kills, roleplay, or anything of the sort except for asserting dominance by circumnavigating the rules. Whether they die from the confrontation or kill the confronters an admin sit is made shortly after for ARDM/RDM.

It is a sycophantic playstyle and mentality that hurts the community's environment and devastates the roleplay climate.

ok so you mean kill baiting lmao, which is already a rule

[Sal]

are you saying baiting for kills?

Not entirely for K/D, it is a little worse than that.

There are people that equip assault rifles, safety them, and threaten/berate/intimidate. Their motives are not for kills, roleplay, or anything of the sort except for asserting dominance by circumnavigating the rules. Whether they die from the confrontation or kill the confronters an admin sit is made shortly after for ARDM/RDM.

It is a sycophantic playstyle and mentality that hurts the community's environment and devastates the roleplay climate.

ok so you mean kill baiting lmao, which is already a rule

Is walking around with an AR-15 on safety threatening people kill baiting?


From my interactions and familiarity of other people 's experiences this behavior is not being punished for the instigators, but is instead allowing them persecute their victims with ease.

I believe the "idle threat" rules was written poorly or it was unthought of the repercussion of saying all safetied guns. This has allowed very large assault weapons to be safetied and threats given with a complete safety net from staff and the rulebook. Hopefully this was not writer's intention, I believe they may have envisioned pistols on safety (which aim directly to the ground), instead the current situation at hand.

[Rem]

are you saying baiting for kills?

Not entirely for K/D, it is a little worse than that.

There are people that equip assault rifles, safety them, and threaten/berate/intimidate. Their motives are not for kills, roleplay, or anything of the sort except for asserting dominance by circumnavigating the rules. Whether they die from the confrontation or kill the confronters an admin sit is made shortly after for ARDM/RDM.

It is a sycophantic playstyle and mentality that hurts the community's environment and devastates the roleplay climate.

ok so you mean kill baiting lmao, which is already a rule

Is walking around with an AR-15 on safety threatening people kill baiting?


From my interactions and familiarity of other people 's experiences this behavior is not being punished for the instigators, but is instead allowing them persecute their victims with ease.

I believe the "idle threat" rules was written poorly or it was unthought of the repercussion of saying all safetied guns. This has allowed very large assault weapons to be safetied and threats given with a complete safety net from staff and the rulebook. Hopefully this was not writer's intention, I believe they may have envisioned pistols on safety (which aim directly to the ground), instead the current situation at hand.

if youre threatening someone for no reason then yes it is depending on the context