[Petition]

[9r2e5i3k]

Oh wait, I understand how you imagine it.
A mobster calls 911 and says: "Hello, we are starting a gang-war at Jefferson Hotel, please provide paramedics, police, firemen and witnesses. Thank you." Then, when everyone come, the shooting starts.

This is a game. Absurd situations like that only make it more fun to play (at least for me). I don't want to bring z0mg realism into a game, realism in real life is enough.

[Bianconeri]

it is a good place, medic for healing ppl, firefighters for possibly fires

and yes saying you will do a gangwar isnt RP, normally it would happen without any notify
but since there must be admins at it, ppl will have to know it

[ChaNce]

This is a game. Absurd situations like that only make it more fun to play (at least for me). I don't want to bring z0mg realism into a game, realism in real life is enough.

Yeah, why don't we start to be Pokemon?  :trust:

[Wash]

- what is understood as a gang war

A gang war should be a shoot-out between two rival groups that have recently come had some sort of encounter to result in fighting.

- what are valid reasons

Gang-war may be the result of a possible attack on any of a group's members. This maybe in physical form to verbal form.
For example: Violet_Corleone was shot at by Cofi_Gvardia, but Violet managed to escape.

- how groups should agree to ensure that there is no misunderstanding

Groups must agree to a gang-war from both sides to make sure there is no aftermath of moaning and whining. The terms must be clear to both sides. Anything that a group does not state in an agreement before the gangwar will not count as a valid arguement to adminstrators. Both groups must give an ingame adminstrator their agreement to the gang-war with the terms.

- how to avoid gang wars being held constantly

A gang-war limitation - as Panda has stated would be good.

- how to have gang wars while keeping the server friendly for new arriving players

Both groups must ensure that the gang-war 'arena' will not be obstructing roads, or anything that players pass often. Mostly larger places must be used. All agreements and conditions must be done within a decided CB Radio.

- what are the obligations and actions of admins to be taken

If any group breaks any of the agreed rules, the whole group must suffer admins a-jailing for 10 minutes.

- how can administration declare a gang war valid or invalid

When the 'leaders' of both sides concerning the gang-war meet in a decided CB radio, they take an admin with them. They state their issues and the reason why a gang-war is required. From this an admin makes the decision to allow the gang-war.

[NitrOx]

how groups should agree to ensure that there is no misunderstanding

I think Panda´s point of view on that one is good.
Post Merge: June 22, 2009, 03:48:44 pmI think Panda´s rules are quite perfect, dont know what everyone else thinks.

[Gandalf]

A conflict involving two gangs/groups/mafias, including at least one member from each side who is a Leader, Co-Leader or has been given certain rights to engage in fights by the leaders.

Agreed.

Two gangs being enemies, and a perceived aggressive action.
This can include an aggressive act against an ally (and hence retaliating in their place), or encroaching regularly upon headquarters areas. Also, enough verbal attacks (within roleplay, of course) can warrant a physical attack, though probably just an execution.

Not good enough. 'I dislike your members lets start a gang fight' is invalid as a reason.
Reason for gang war should be not some minor difference that can be dealt with by the leaders, but a very strong reason why people would want to lose their life.

A group must agree with the other group that gangwars are to be allowed.
Each attack must not be verified, but the ability to launch them must be validated by both sides (mutual agreement of being enemies, basically).

Groups do not have to be enemies to fight each other. Even among friends a strong difference can cause a fight.
However the validation is a good idea.

Set a good time for 'life respawns', where players cannot return after death.
Each attack would warrant this to begin, including any period of suspection for killing or shooting. This may be hours, frankly. Basically, the entire fight must have died down and all parties be unsuspected before dead can return.
I think you'll find that ultimately, the price of heavy weaponry arming will drive down the number of gangwars in the long run.

Impossible to implement, as it would affect all players unless there is a special gang war script written.

Ensure that gangs know not to shoot the new players, unless the new player has a gun and is shooting himself.

I would prefer that groups agree to hold their wars in places where new players will not spawn near. If they manage to run in to a war (with or without weapons) held at a special location, they can carry the consequenses.
In a big fight anyone can be hit accidentally.

Reports of returning must not be on /report, they must be in a PM to the gang leader in question.
If the gang leader in question does not react on his members breaking the rules, then that 'gangwar validation' (as I suggested above) could simply be severed.
E.g. If Araatus fights the Moose Gang, and the Moose gang's soldiers keep returning after death, then I should PM the Moose gang's leader(s). If they do not respond, then Araatus says to the Moose gang "You are not allowed to fight us anymore, gangwar validation severed".
At this point, continued attacks would be easily and simply dealt with by admins. Also, gangwars from groups who have not made validations with the groups they are attacking.

Validations could be posted in a sticky topic on the groups forum.
If a severance of validation comes through, then the leader posts it there. Admins check quickly, and then they know.

Basically, gangs have to agree with one another "Yes, we can attack each other" and make a 'Validation'. At any time, either gang can back out from this agreement (obviously, not in the middle of an actual fight ingame) and post in the sticky topic this. Admins can quickly check if, for example, Araatus can attack Gvardia - and react accordingly.
Actual fight rules such as returning from death are dealt with internally by the gang leaders. Leaders who refuse to punish rulebreakers will very quickly lose all of their validations, and will not be allowed to gangwar anymore.

Good idea, but does this mean that if a new group is made they will not be attacked by old existing groups before they make a validation ?

I think this is a rather nice system, and makes admins jobs simpler. Clearly, reports of hacks are still on /report, as normal, but the topic would quickly indicate "Can Araatus fight Gvardia?.. yes they can, both sides agree." and then they just let it happen. If Gvardia keep returning after death, and leaders refuse to punish, then Araatus severs validation and Gvardia can't attack anymore (and Araatus can't attack Gvardia anymore, also). Same if Araatus members rulebreak, and I refuse to act (although that won't happen ).
Sorry for using you guys as an example, by the way. :razz:

Thats what I reckon, anyway. Should make it simple to tell "Is this gangwar allowed." and not have to deal with rulebreakers individually as admins (which is one of the major concerns). As a rule, a good return time should be set (2 hours, maybe?). If this is broken, then gangs deal with it internally, leader to leader. Refusal to cooperate = validation severance.

Thanks.

Thanks for giving the subject a lot of thought. We are making progress.

[Eminem.]

I agree with Panda's rule too.They are fair for all the groups.

[NitrOx]

I would prefer that groups agree to hold their wars in places where new players will not spawn near. If they manage to run in to a war (with or without weapons) held at a special location, they can carry the consequenses.
In a big fight anyone can be hit accidentally.

-

Spawn is at airport just stay away from there :P

[Bart_Schroten]

Its an good idea, but ther are somtimes to much gang wars, i agree with Gandalf, but if everybody do it like this, it wil be an great idea, and will there be created good new RP's

[AV]Bart

[SargentJosh]

This is a game. Absurd situations like that only make it more fun to play (at least for me). I don't want to bring z0mg realism into a game, realism in real life is enough.

yeh we use video games to escape reality, why make it exactly like reality :P

[Pandalink]

Not good enough. 'I dislike your members lets start a gang fight' is invalid as a reason.
Reason for gang war should be not some minor difference that can be dealt with by the leaders, but a very strong reason why people would want to lose their life.

Yea, I had trouble with that one. Further ideas needed.

Impossible to implement, as it would affect all players unless there is a special gang war script written.

I wasn't suggesting a script, I simply meant by 'life' the amount of time they have to wait before returning after death (if indeed at all). Literally, how long before the dead are considered alive again.

I would prefer that groups agree to hold their wars in places where new players will not spawn near.

Basically, a new player should have to stop their car and go on foot to get involved, IMO that is the technical description of how isolated a fight should be.

Good idea, but does this mean that if a new group is made they will not be attacked by old existing groups before they make a validation ?

Correct, I guess. New groups would have to request validations before they could attack, and also before they could be attacked.
Validations would also apply to helping allies. You couldn't help your ally (Gang B) fight Gang A unless you had a validation yourself with Gang A, nevermind Gang B.

[Bianconeri]

valid reasons can be like:
a gang member got robbed by another gang,
someone got shot by the others
the other gang keeps entering the HQ

about that life timer, that would just mean every gang member will return after a while again,
dead=dead

as i said before:

maybe a special gangwar topic, where gangwars can be announced,
and has to be accepted by the other group also,
and also by the admins(not to much a week, and a good valid reason)

also on this way sides can organise, gangs can get there members,
and also SAPD/medics can prepare

but this will cause that SAPD can inmediatly fight in the gang war also,
the location should stay secret, or at least known by both groups and admins only

[Pandalink]

about that life timer, that would just mean every gang member will return after a while again,
dead=dead

I doubt any gangwars will last over 2 hours.

maybe a special gangwar topic, where gangwars can be announced,
and has to be accepted by the other group also,
and also by the admins(not to much a week, and a good valid reason)

I've had a lot of feedback from gang leaders (and I agree) that suggests a topic for each individual gangwar ruins the entire concept.

[Bianconeri]

the idea is to fight because of problems between gangs?
but then it doesnt ruin the concept

i do agree its more RP if you at once do it, instead of planning it
but its the same as with protests, best RP would be just do it,
but no you must announce it 2 weeks before, so it can work fine

and 2 hours then yes, but thats just the time you set
if you say dead=dead its much easier and the same

[Zaila]

Basicly, say that Gang wars only can be held at Desert Airport. then players can't report that they got DM'ed by the 2 groups that's holding a gangwar there since he need to get to the landing way to be able to get killed