SAMP Rules

[Pandalink]

Not flawed at all. Most new players learn the rules only by breaking them. Else the unban request topics wold be much less.

Surely it would be better if there was a list of rules that was a little more comprehensive than the basics we have now? I understand that a bloated list of rules can be overwhelming, but I always thought it odd that the only time a person learns a rule is when they (or another) gets punished for breaking it.

[Gandalf]

Surely it would be better if there was a list of rules that was a little more comprehensive than the basics we have now? I understand that a bloated list of rules can be overwhelming, but I always thought it odd that the only time a person learns a rule is when they (or another) gets punished for breaking it.

You want a tl;dr version ?

[Maxy]

You want a tl;dr version ?

Yes, because if there is an actual long list of rules, then it is the players own fault for not reading it. If every rule WAS put into one post, then things like what happened with the motorbike incident wouldn't happen. I mean, I'm not saying that it isn't their own fault now, but as a person who has been here since March of 2007, I can say that I could never remember a time where it was mainstream, being enforced by admins, that you COULD drive by as a biker. Maybe myself and the other people who posted here missed something, but it isn't our fault. You must realize that as long as there isn't a long list of every rule, we WILL be surprised when seemingly unknown rules are suddenly brought back to light.

Check my quote of aragorn in 2007. Perhaps that was before your time here.

Nah man, my three year Argo anniversary was in March  :wow:

[Gandalf]

Maxy I understand your point. However there is a counterpoint that is very important.
When we put a long list of rules, players are going to look to every one of them in order to find how they can abuse it.
This is one of the main reasons why we have not yet brought out something as a constitution, because everything written in there has to be in such way that it does not influence the server rules, or can be interpreted as such.

By making the list of rules as short as possible, not only do we keep the maximal freedom possible but also we do not create any contradictions or pssible misuse of the rules by misstating them.

You only have to look at simple words as abuse and forced roleplay to know that they get taken out of context and used for any situation a player thinks he can get an advantage from the rule.

Violet has once made a great effort to give not a set of rules but a clarification of them based on common questions and situations. This is what we intend to check for updates and then put for those who wish to learn more about interpretation.
This is also why we created thee 'ask developers' topic, though 36 pages may be long to read.

[Violet]

From the moment you became aware of the rule, you start making demands it should be given free. That is a classic example of trying to twist the rules in ones favour.

I made no any demands that the rule should be changed. The rule won't even affect me in anyway until I am back ingame, which is in a couple of months. I made a massive list of rules and you did not mention the rule exception at the time.

Again an example of not being able to read comprehensive. Instead of just reading the answer, read the question and you will see it is exactly answering the driveby.

No, I have the habit of reading everything related to what I wish to post in the topic before posting. As for the question, it's pretty obvious that 'anything' is rather ambiguous and does not neccessarily mean that there are not other rule exemptions for a lone cop on a bike other than the driveby as driver rule.

Why did not any admin or moderator ever repeated this question until now ?

Because nothing was done when they did repeat the question by punishing the 'rulebreak' of cops drive-bying a suspect on a bike when either you were online or when the logs were being routinely checked.

We expect our admins to know the rules, and not to create their own.

Yes I think the community has moved on from the times of Hayden on the whole. Admins didn't know about this exception, infact a manager did not know that this rule existed until a few days ago when he says it was announced.

That is why you are constantly pointing out that criminals should have equal right to an exception ?

Just because I am dissapointed that there was no any communication from the developers with the admins or players in this instance does not mean I am opposed to every single exception. For example, I'm not opposed to the exception that cops are allowed to suspect people and criminals do not.

We can not be responsible for the ignorance of players. We have had running topics since 2007 where players can ask clarification of situations should they have any doubt about rules. There are similar topics in the administration.
Like in real life. You are supposed to know the law of a country, and ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.

This paragraph is like cutting the branch of the tree you are sitting on because you mentioned real life. In real life you can see the laws in one place such as this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_Kingdom

In real life, most countries have constitutions and when something comes up like in the US, you have the Supreme Court to decide whether something is constitutional or not and to make any ammendments if the Supreme Court feels like there should be.

EDIT:

This is also why we created thee 'ask developers' topic, though 36 pages may be long to read.

The 'ask developers' rule does not have every rule on it. I can't find where it says that invitations to members of official clans is not allowed on that topic, or any topic on the forums. Hardly anyone knows about that rule either and I only found out until I broke this rule that I didn't know existed which the vast majority of people do not know even today. What do you have to say about this?

[Cofiliano]

UK doesn't have  constitution. 

[Violet]

UK doesn't have an constitutions. 

The UK constitution is a de facto one at the moment which is why I used the US as the example for the constitution.

[Cofiliano]

The UK constitution is a de facto one at the moment which is why I used the US as the example for the constitution.

I know, and what I am trying to do is stop you from wasting time here, cause its obvious what happen here, from page one, and why was this rule all of a sudden brought up from no where, but I'll keep it for myself, cause otherwise I would get rocks and stones on me, by a lot of people.

[Leon.]

I know, and what I am trying to do is stop you from wasting time here, cause its obvious what happen here, from page one, and why was this rule all of a sudden brought up from no where, but I'll keep it for myself, cause otherwise I would get rocks and stones on me, by a lot of people.

I think I know what you're thinking
Let me rephrase my previous comment:

Basically, you have made an exception to this rule (no drive-by as driver) to allow ONE GROUP of people to pretty much HP HACK, even if it's temporary!?
If admins are still punishing for drive-by as driver for cops, it's likely not their fault. It may be whoever-invented-this-exception's fault for not informing them. I can't, as a parent, expect my baby-sitter to know that I don't let my baby, who can walk, in the kitchen without telling them.
If the HPV bikes suck so much that you had to make this exception, why include them in the first place?

[Gandalf]

I made no any demands that the rule should be changed. The rule won't even affect me in anyway until I am back ingame, which is in a couple of months.

You argued an exception hould be available for others, which is requesting a change of the rule.

I made a massive list of rules and you did not mention the rule exception at the time.

Correct. If it is not a problem no need to mention it.

No, I have the habit of reading everything related to what I wish to post in the topic before posting. As for the question, it's pretty obvious that 'anything' is rather ambiguous and does not neccessarily mean that there are not other rule exemptions for a lone cop on a bike other than the driveby as driver rule.

I guess you did not read the question correct, as it lacked in English grammar.
The question was asked by a criminal (Raslman) who got chased and shot at by two cops on bikes (Lionz and Omri). He asked if this was allowed, and you saw the answer of Aragorn.
As you are from the UK I do not blame you for finding it har to read broken English. My personal experience helps me in this.

Because nothing was done when they did repeat the question by punishing the 'rulebreak' of cops drive-bying a suspect on a bike when either you were online or when the logs were being routinely checked.
Yes I think the community has moved on from the times of Hayden on the whole. Admins didn't know about this exception, infact a manager did not know that this rule existed until a few days ago when he says it was announced.

That is possible as the rule was basicly forgotten and brought up only because a developer made use of it. It is already considered to strike the exception, however that will be done after testing with a bike expert.

Just because I am dissapointed that there was no any communication from the developers with the admins or players in this instance does not mean I am opposed to every single exception. For example, I'm not opposed to the exception that cops are allowed to suspect people and criminals do not.

I at times feel the same disappointment when a script exploit is not reported until found in logs, or when players seem to care more about their asse(t)s than about having fun.

This paragraph is like cutting the branch of the tree you are sitting on because you mentioned real life. In real life you can see the laws in one place such as this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_Kingdom

In real life, most countries have constitutions and when something comes up like in the US, you have the Supreme Court to decide whether something is constitutional or not and to make any ammendments if the Supreme Court feels like there should be.

A constitution is like out set of rules. From this a general practice is derived and written down in laws, governmental decrees and  jurisprudence. Even judges and lawyers often have no direct knowledge regarding every single subject, but if needed have to search trhough a number of sources to find information. In some cases a lawyer and also a judge decides to create his own interpretation to have it checked against the laws, especially if something old comes up. The Supreme Court will then test the interpretation against the constitution and general practice.

In this case an old member of the Supreme Court used a rule that was in effect and written about in 2007. You can argue that general practice has made this obsolete as its not mentioned in the Rules. However it can not be denied that it has been written down in previous questions that the exception does exist, and was never taken out.

EDIT: The 'ask developers' rule does not have every rule on it. I can't find where it says that invitations to members of official clans is not allowed on that topic, or any topic on the forums. Hardly anyone knows about that rule either and I only found out until I broke this rule that I didn't know existed which the vast majority of people do not know even today. What do you have to say about this?

I have no idea of what rule you speak.
The only thing I can think of is that we have made is an agreement between official clans not to invite each others members. This was an agreement between the leaders of the official clans, and has no connection to server rules.

[Gandalf]

II can't, as a parent, expect my baby-sitter to know that I don't let my baby, who can walk, in the kitchen without telling them.

However I would not allow a babysitter who lets a kid walk in to the kitchen alone to stay on the job.

[Leon.]

However I would not allow a babysitter who lets a kid walk in to the kitchen alone to stay on the job.

It'd be my(your) own fault for not letting the babysitter know of such terms. Some things DON'T need to be told, like "DONT LET THE KID TOUCH THE GUN." But things like "NO GLASS CUPS UPSTAIRS" DO need to be told.
My other question stands unanswered.

Basically, you have made an exception to this rule (no drive-by as driver) to allow ONE GROUP of people to pretty much HP HACK, even if it's temporary!?

[Gandalf]

It'd be my(your) own fault for not letting the babysitter know of such terms. Some things DON'T need to be told, like "DONT LET THE KID TOUCH THE GUN." But things like "NO GLASS CUPS UPSTAIRS" DO need to be told.
My other question stands unanswered.

The thing is that while some things need to be told, others are pretty obvious.
No driveby as driver is a simple rule that can be explained to all. The exception for cops on a HPV is something that needs to be told, and as long as not told does not harm. There for making a big fuss about it has just brought it to attention and make it look like a new rule.

Not allowing a child alone in the kitchen is pretty obvious. That the child can climb on the kitchen chair to see the neghbours dog needs to be told. But as long as the child does not attempt and cries about it, the babysitter will be content with the childs just walking in the kitchen under supervision.

As for your question. The reason for the exception was answered in 2007. No other way to stop a car.

[EminemRulez]

Couldn't we have like Universal Rules, same applies for firemen, medics, criminals, cops..etc..
Like: "Cops are allowed to return to RP but criminals aren't" - This kinda things constantly brings up useless arguements about cops having more advantages...etc.
My idea is to make rules applying for all. If a cop can't driveby, a criminal shouldn't be allowed too, looks fair and would avoid lot of moaning. Well that would help, in my opinion
Post Merge: May 05, 2010, 11:51:00 pmWhy do we need to actually separate group by group, sorry but I don't understand.
For example, let's figure out a new rule:
''Criminal groups are allowed to chase cops, but GroupXX isn't allowed" [[ thought about the most stupid example, but I think you get it ]]


Regards, yo!

[RafaDK]

Waiting for the retarded one?

Won't say retarded just, funny one.

Couldn't we have like Universal Rules, same applies for firemen, medics, criminals, cops..etc..
Like: "Cops are allowed to return to RP but criminals aren't" - This kinda things constantly brings up useless arguements about cops having more advantages...etc.
My idea is to make rules applying for all. If a cop can't driveby, a criminal shouldn't be allowed too, looks fair and would avoid lot of moaning. Well that would help, in my opinion

I support this. Criminals bring much more RP than cops, and still they keep having more advantages than us.