Peace Treaty 30/05/2016

[Kaze]

A person with /groups FLA cannot be like 'Oh I wasn't acting as FLA, I was acting as x group'

Doesn't that implicate that we are now going to be forced to stick to one character i.e. First_Last and stick with that character?

Neutral here and I'm simply raising a question.

[Salmonella]

A person with /groups FLA cannot be like 'Oh I wasn't acting as FLA, I was acting as x group'

Well, I just hope that when I do Angels of Death stuff, which is my primary group at the moment, it won't be taken as FLA stuff when for example there's a shootout with cops at our bar next to Angel Pine.

I get where the concern is coming from but it sounds like it's hard to actually keep track of when people with /groups FLA are and are not in confrontation with the law on behalf of FLA.

[Vaeldious]

Doesn't that implicate that we are now going to be forced to stick to one character i.e. First_Last and stick with that character?

Neutral here and I'm simply raising a question.

By that same logic aren't you already by becoming a member of a group and wearing their family tag? I switch characters all the time, but all the groups I am in are fully aware of this and I always represent them by being in their group, regardless of what I /changename'd to.

I may be a criminal in one group, but a civilian racer in another. During a crime, I may find an opportunity to race. During a race, I may find some crime to be done. This is ultimately why groups have rules about multi-grouping, however since a lot of groups are becoming "Legacy", players are still maintaining their rank in that group, leading to the ever increasing jokes in /p like "ohai =AV=[WS]TeaM_Teddy_Soprano".

Perhaps what REALLY needs to be done, is a better audit of /groups both ingame and on the forums. Haven't seen anything from TheCurbCrew in a while, for example. Just like there are requirements to attain /groups status, there should also be a set of rules to loose /groups status and actually be enforced.

[eymas]

A good idea to avoid conflict is for people to choose one single group and stick with it, instead of being in six groups at once and switching between them each week. I know that goes against our general vision (OUR vision, not THE vision  ) but it would ease the whole game of Guess Who.

Maybe not that constructive or achieveable though. It's something =P

[Salmonella]

A good idea to avoid conflict is for people to choose one single group and stick with it, instead of being in six groups at once and switching between them each week. I know that goes against our general vision (OUR vision, not THE vision  ) but it would ease the whole game of Guess Who.

Maybe not that constructive or achieveable though. It's something =P

I love being in a bunch of groups because then there's always something to do. It's always been like that for me, but especially with activity levels as they are nowadays, it's wise to be in at least 5 active groups if you always want to have something to. That's how I experience it, anyway.

I think a better solution is just to not make assumptions on what someone is roleplaying at that given time. It's usually pretty obvious what someone is doing (i.e. medic RP) but the confusion emerged here because pretty much ALL groups engage in armed encounters with cops.

[JDC]

At some point I was in several groups as well, three of them being FBI, Kolta, and the Church of Argonath. But it made more sense to me to separate my Agent and Archbishop roles.  But even if Kolta can mix with both an LE and Church role, the LE and Church themselves cannot do the same easily, so I had to choose a role to identify with. You did not see Archbishop Kolta giving out Satanic Holy Mass at the LS Cathedral while wearing an FBI badge.

^ A situation like this (groups "mixing") can possibly complicate things with multigroup players. But in this case, HQ has tried to make things as clear-cut and defined as possible with a yes-or-no question. When you enter something, you either represent FLA or don't represent FLA.

Doesn't that implicate that we are now going to be forced to stick to one character i.e. First_Last and stick with that character?

Neutral here as well. If I read the new additions correctly, then I think what it means is that when players with several groups engage in a scenario, they cannot switch between those for their convenience with the intent of circumventing the treaty. They have to decide what to be when they start doing something, if they will enter into scenarios representing FLA or not. Not permanently having to choose between their groups / characters.

- People who are in multiple groups must choose between FLA and their other groups. You either represent the FLA, or you don't. It's not 'optional' to switch in order to circumvent this treaty.

A person with /groups FLA cannot be like 'Oh I wasn't acting as FLA, I was acting as x group'

For Example: player [DoA]Malnosella is a member of both the Disciples of Atropos (DoA) and FLA under /groups. Malnosella decides to grow weed at the farm between Montgomery and Palomino Creek, east of the LS-LV highway. Malnosella enters into the scenario as a [DoA] member, contributing to the group's criminal business. Officer Ghase_Creggor, who happens to be patrolling nearby, catches Malnosella doing the criminal act. Manosella decides not to surrender and flees to Angel Pine, the FLA safe zone. Ghase follows in pursuit.

Under the rules of engagement, Malnosella is not allowed to invoke FLA rights under the Treaty because he entered into the scenario acting under a group other than FLA. Therefore, Ghase is allowed to arrest or kill Malnosella in Angel Pine. It would, however, be a different story if Malnosella went into his scenario as an FLA member and not as [DoA]. Either way, HQ will not have to intervene.

A violation of HQ rules would be if Malnosella started crying "hey hey wait, I'm FLA!" upon entering Angel Pine after starting the scenario as [DoA], because he "switched" groups. Malnosella would then be liable for admin punishments.

TL;DR: You have to choose what group you represent when you start a scenario.
(Did I get it rite? )

[Salmonella]

The thing is, they're not different characters for me. That character is essentially a biker living in Flint Country who happens to serve in the FLA. Like I said earlier, the FLA isn't really a primary kind of group for most of its members. The FLA is there to fight for a cause shared by many other people and groups, uniting them under the 'FLA' banner.

[Ben.]

The thing is, they're not different characters for me. That character is essentially a biker living in Flint Country who happens to serve in the FLA. Like I said earlier, the FLA isn't really a primary kind of group for most of its members. The FLA is there to fight for a cause shared by many other people and groups, uniting them under the 'FLA' banner.

In which case you need to stick to the treaty. 

[Ben.]

The point is to stop some fucktard from shooting up cops in LS, claiming to not be associated with FLA as that character, then scuttling to Angel Pine amd crying to HQ because they are FLA and "cops have ab00zed".

[JDC]

The thing is, they're not different characters for me. That character is essentially a biker living in Flint Country who happens to serve in the FLA. Like I said earlier, the FLA isn't really a primary kind of group for most of its members. The FLA is there to fight for a cause shared by many other people and groups, uniting them under the 'FLA' banner.

In this specific case, and as Ben said above, the issue here would be switching between their roles / groups to circumvent the treaty. You can say this is a downside of Argo giving us the freedom to have whatever RP characters you like. If you represent FLA (in your character's case, you always do) and a hostile engagement happens, then the rules of engagement apply. Simple. Someone with as much experience like you should know what to do. But we're at this point in the first place because some idiots (on both sides) still love to screw around.

Someone switching their roles to save their ass in a situation where they have caused shit for others isn't even about LE-FLA rivalry anymore. It's just being a dick. About e-penis, winning, and rubbing it in someone else's face instead of making sure all of you have fun.

TBH, one of the things that tired me out before I left 1.5 years ago was years and years of near-complete lack of competitive sportsmanship. It pleased me to see cops and criminals or rival gangs telling each other "hey thanks man, that was fun" "great game / chase / RP today" but those incidents were few and far in between. And now that SA:MP has taken a step forward by giving scenarios like this a chance, people are STILL trying to circumvent the Treaty instead of trying to keep moving forward.

Law Enforcement and FLA are headed by veteran players, so unless you want to get all petulant and sword-fight with your e-penises again, it shouldn't be too hard to lead the junior members in uniting for a better RP environment and community. Is it?

[Huntsman]

I see you still like to type walls of text .

May I propose a suggestion though - add a point where that if a FLA member comitts a crime outside of Los Santos, he should not go to Angel Pine until caught or evaded. IT is really annoying how some people abuse the treaty to piss off cops in Los Santos and then race to Angel Pine and there is nothing we can do about it or we could be HQ punished...

[Salmonella]

I see you still like to type walls of text .

May I propose a suggestion though - add a point where that if a FLA member comitts a crime outside of Los Santos, he should not go to Angel Pine until caught or evaded. IT is really annoying how some people abuse the treaty to piss off cops in Los Santos and then race to Angel Pine and there is nothing we can do about it or we could be HQ punished...

You can negotiate.

[Hubbestubbe]

Hi, I've been inactive last week and just found this topic. Nice reading for my bus trip. Can anyone shortly update me, is this peace treaty still active, or broken into pieces?

I guess one way to solve this "was it FLA or not?" would be to get an FLA-duty spot in the FLA HQ which gives you a green nametag. Anyone doing FLA things without being on duty would be punished either by administration or by FLA. If we ever would get this "buy M4 without notoriety" thing, also that should only be possible when on FLA duty, and the weapons would only be spawned when the member goes on duty.

[eymas]

Hi, I've been inactive last week and just found this topic. Nice reading for my bus trip. Can anyone shortly update me, is this peace treaty still active, or broken into pieces?

I guess one way to solve this "was it FLA or not?" would be to get an FLA-duty spot in the FLA HQ which gives you a green nametag. Anyone doing FLA things without being on duty would be punished either by administration or by FLA. If we ever would get this "buy M4 without notoriety" thing, also that should only be possible when on FLA duty, and the weapons would only be spawned when the member goes on duty.

It's still alive, we amended it with a few extra points.
As for a separate duty for the group, to me it seems like a little too much if it just needs people to remain clear on which side they are. ^^

[Ivan_Dzeba]

Let's all organize a battle in LS between FLA and it's allies vs every LEA group+USAA. If Law wins, FLA gets no independence, if FLA wins, FLA gets independence.

Example: