Grey area situation that needs clarification.

[Quitsdrop]

Suppose there are 4 people in a vehicle, driving, when 2 people in another vehicle comes up (which I will call blue vehicle) to the first (which I will call Red vehicle), and attempts to mug them. Both people hop out of the Blue vehicle, and tell the people in the Red Vehicle (who begin driving forward) hands up. The Red Vehicle is out of voice range, and did not hear those demands. The Blue Vehicle believes that the Red Vehicle had broken the demands (because they thought that the demands were heard by the red vehicle), so they begin shooting. The red vehicle (unaware of what is going on) believes that they are being shot at for no reason, so no matter where they go, they will always be shot at if they are found by the Blue Vehicle. This leads them to pull over, seeing that their best option may be to stay and fight. The Blue Vehicle ends up winning the fight, and the red vehicle makes a huge report, because they have no idea what happened, or why they *ORIGINALLY* got shot at.


Should this situation be voided because A: Something OOC (Voice range was not long enough for the demands to be heard) lead the Red vehicle to believe that they were being shot at for no obvious/apparent reason within character, thus ending in a shootout.

Not be voided because B: The Red Vehicle pulled over, weighed the odds, and decided to pick a fight IC.

The way I see it; something OOC directly interfered with the RP in this situation, therefore it should be voided. IC, the Red Vehicle had no options, because running would lead to shootout/death, and staying there and fighting would lead to a shootout/death.

 

[RowdyHause]

For it to be considered valid, the other party has to be in clear vocal range. The fact they did not hear it, because the Red car could not hear them (Assuming they had proof of this) the Blue car would be at fault for not making their intentions known and hit with RDM. It is SOMEWHAT of a grey area IMHO because it would be hard to enforce this strictly with GMOD being what it is. The burden of "RP Reason to kill" falls on the person doing the action I feel.

Just my .02 mate.

 

[Sokolov]

If feel this has nothing to do with the need for clarification, because;

The Blue Vehicle ends up winning the fight, and the red vehicle makes a huge report, because they have no idea what happened, or why they *ORIGINALLY* got shot at.

You would need to supply evidence (video with game and voice audio) in a sit as the report to show that you in your car were not able hear any demands from the muggers.

because they have no idea what happened, or why they *ORIGINALLY* got shot at.

I'm sure most can agree that if you were to see a car pull up behind you with guns you probably wouldn't stick around to find out what they wanted, I doubt that you would have no idea why they shot (Unless that in a video you could prove you or anyone else in your car saw them behind you).

Have someone or yourself make a report as soon as possible if you feel a rule has been broken, you will need to provide evidence to show you could not hear them and to prove that they didn't have you under fear RP.


2.4.6 - FearRP only applies for vehicles if the driver is placed at gunpoint by the driver-side window. Any other instance does not constitute FearRP for the driver, and the driver and the vehicles passengers may flee.


REPORT with EVIDENCE

 

[Buddyro22]

Post the evidence and let me decide

 

[Quitsdrop]

@DystopianRaven So, assuming a video was brought up proving that the vehicle being mugged could not hear the demands, after running for a while they pull over and choose to fight makes sense. Due to them not understanding why they got shot, whether they run or fight, they will (for the next hour) always be shot by the muggers, due to the muggers believing they heard them. The vehicle being mugged could easily tell that the other vehicle had guns out, but they had already been out of voice range, so all they could tell was they were being shot at.

(EDIT This entire situation is not a matter of FearRP IMO, Because the Red Vehicle had 4 people in it, and was already moving. Even if Both people in the Blue vehicle were on the driver side while the vehicle was moving at ~20 kph, and constantly accelerating, it doesn't make any sense for FearRP to apply here. It was just a matter of whether 1 faulty/OOC thing would void a situation based on that 1 faulty/OOC thing.

 

[Sokolov]

(for the next hour)

You've made the mistake of leaving it that long, you previously state they shot at you immediately when you drove forward, this is when a report should've been made, not some hour later of them hunting you down to end up in a gun fight that you choose to part take in by stopping the car to engage in the firefight when a report could've been made much earlier.

This entire situation is not a matter of FearRP IMO, Because the Red Vehicle had 4 people in it, and was already moving. Even if Both people in the Blue vehicle were on the driver side while the vehicle was moving at ~20 kph

This is a matter of fear RP in a particular way, they intended on mugging you and having you at gun point via he drivers window would be how its done... If to them it seemed as if they were in voice range and feel you failed to comply, they would be allowed to shot and disable your car, I'm only basing this of your one sided story, who knows what the other party did.

it doesn't make any sense for FearRP to apply here. It was just a matter of whether 1 faulty/OOC thing would void a situation based on that 1 faulty/OOC thing.

It does, if you were actually in voice range with the gun men at your window you would be under fear RP, this is no faulty/OOC thing, you would need to prove that it was by making the report instantly after the interaction with evidence. If in fact they were not in voice range from your evidence provided, then maybe a staff member would void it if deemed fit based of whats supplied.



This whole post it proving your incompetency in not making a report after the first altercation and then finally only making a report once you and your bois died... Who knows, had you and your bois won the gun fight you probably wouldn't be making this post

 

[Sokolov]

The whole point I'm getting at here is no one could ever give you a straight up answer because there is no video or anything showing us what actually happened in this situation. From the sounds of things you only made the huge report after you lose asking why your originally got shot at which also appears to have happened a long time before the final shoot out. I'm also assuming that the HUGE Report you speak of never went your way, hence why you are here.

This is no discussion for clarification as your evidence is non-existent and you have nothing to back up your story, this is a matter of you not reporting the first incident.

 

[A Sack O' Salt]

Sounds to me like the blue vehicle group should be more aware of voice proximity.
Other than that, this was handled in character when you shot back.

 

[Stiizyy]

You made the report on me and one other because we beat you, like @DystopianRaven said, "If you killed us" there would be no report made. you could've went for safety but you then decided to fight back which lead up to u guys spraying us, and us just naturally out-skilling you guys.

This was a report and it was handled already,

 

[Hello migo]

You made the report on me and one other because we beat you, like @DystopianRaven said, "If you killed us" there would be no report made. you could've went for safety but you then decided to fight back which lead up to u guys spraying us, and us just naturally out-skilling you guys.

This was a report and it was handled already,

I’m not trying to start anything but you and your group of friends do the same exact thing when we win in a gun fight. So your kind of being a hypocrite of yourself.

 

[A Sack O' Salt]

Yeah this’ll be closed as it was answered and is now just an argument thread.
@gm1003