Clan members should shoot fellow members on opposing teams

[YoMama]

Writing something as a clan rule and then actually enforcing it are two different things. Duh

Then why is it a clan rule?

I don't think any ptp clan enforces a rule that says not to kill clanmates. It is the players' own will.

Actually, this is why i was kicked from clan.

Someone disprove this statement:

Players on opposite teams agreeing not to kill each other is unfair, against the rules, and doesn't make sense in terms of the gamemode.

I'm waiting...

[SoLoD]

Writing something as a clan rule and then actually enforcing it are two different things. Duh

When clan leader is writing a rule and then he is kicking clanmember from his clan for breaking this rule - this is actually what you call "enforcing". Even in your clan you are kicking rookies right after breaking a single clan rule.
So, maybe it is time for you to stop writing meaningless things?

But if you want to understand what this problem is all about, you can ask oldfags from your very clan how everything started back in 2011. And then, in 2012, i was already propagandizing the idea of kicking their ass (every single RD member`s ass) whenever you see them. Because for me it was obvious how this shit will look like years after. Nobody listened to me. Not a single man from whole community and even not a single man from my clan. So now, in 2017, i do not need to ask myself what is possible to do. I failed to stop this shit 5 years ago, this fail has led me to a 3 years ban, and when i came back the thing was already on a road to today`s circumstances.

[Saurabh]

It is a clan rule because the clan leader wanted it to be a rule. The rule of not shooting alliance got you out of pplv like an year ago? And maybe after you were kicked out you realised that there is such a rule. Did you really care about the rule? Did the rule stop u from killing someone or making peace with someone?

Taking example of your clan, just few days ago, kennyS killed hama and hasma wanted to kill him back. And they were completely fine doing so. Now you might go cry at pplv forum about why they ain't kicked BUT the point is that it doesn't matter if a clan says not to kill someone or not, a player makes these peace contracts themselves. If Rd tells me not to shoot pwn or ggt or any other clan, it's stupid and I'd shoot the ones i want to anyway.

Also, the "oldfags" from RD have retired after enjoying their time here in this server of a ducking videogame while you are still here complaining about how you don't like others enjoying their game.

[SoLoD]

>It is a clan rule because the clan leader wanted it to be a rule.
It is a rule because rules are define clan`s ideology.
>The rule of not shooting alliance got you out of pplv like an year ago?
No.
>And maybe after you were kicked out you realised that there is such a rule.
No. I always knew it.
>Did you really care about the rule?
Yes, i cared about every single caln rule. Actually, i was the only one in PPLV who CARED about rules, since 2 of them (follow duty and do not kill clanmates/allies) were (and they still) mutually exclusive.
>Did the rule stop u from killing someone or making peace with someone?
Yes, because it is a RULE.
>Now you might go cry at pplv forum about why they ain't kicked
I do not understand why i should "go and cry" since i have nothing to do with PPLV now. And i do not give a single fuck about any pplv`er anymore.
>BUT the point is that it doesn't matter if a clan says not to kill someone or not, a player makes these peace contracts themselves.
Okay, now i am not sure if i am talking with adequate preson.
>If Rd tells me not to shoot pwn or ggt or any other clan, it's stupid and I'd shoot the ones i want to anyway.
Again, any adequate clan has very simple statement - FOLLOW CLAN RULES OR YOU WILL BE KICKED FROM CLAN. As i said, i do not think that RD is adequate clan, so, i do not know why you even have rules.

[Saurabh]

Ofc the rule couldn't stop u from killing an ally , exactly why u were kicked. Personal relations, your personal motives are and will always be greater than any other motto from some clan or whatever group you are in. You killed someone you were not supposed to kill according to the clan rules.

Also, something being adequate or not is subjective so yea thanks for sharing your thoughts. RD has no such rule and will never impose such 'rule'. And if i go by your definition of adequate clan, there is hardly any adequate clan left in ptp(coz every clan has someone who shoots his clanmates).

[SoLoD]

You know... You are too dumb even for RD clan. I mean, how is it possible that YOUR clan requires from members to follow clan rules and even I know it, and you DON`T and keep saying that it is "nothing"? You are keep talking about things when you do not know a shit about them. You are too dumb to understand it even when i already said that you are wrong about reasons i was kicked from a clan, you do not know circumstances but you keep repeating your shit time after time. Your are typing all this shit, but at the same time you are too lazy to open your clan`s site and read (probably, for the first time) a very simple statement about rules?

[YoMama]

RD has no such rule and will never impose such 'rule'.
...every clan has someone who shoots his clanmates

If Rd tells me not to shoot pwn or ggt or any other clan, it's stupid and I'd shoot the ones i want to anyway.

I'm not sure I can grasp this- as you've pointed out, I'm often unable to understand your "points". RD has no such rule, you think it would be stupid if they did, and every clan has members who shoot each other. Why exactly are you trying to protect the ability of down-trodden regulars to make unfair alliances that go against the gamemode, again?

[Saurabh]

1. Not protecting the "corrupt" regulars directly but supporting the freedom to not shoot everyone (indirectly supporting the former. They can have their opinion on this different from me but I am stating my opinion and defending my stand here that i sometimes choose to avoid much resistance by this selective shooting. That is more enjoyable for me and ofc lesse mess than shooting everyone one every now n then without the help of newbies that I think are very useful. If i want more challenge, i simply go after presi as terro, kill every helper he has or i go security and kill every attacker. I don't babysit my fellow securities if I think they are not worthy of the time that i could spend on reaching president. Protecting presi this way is more challenging and fun for me than being a terro and complaining about how another terro denied to shoot other cops that shot me.

2. "Unfair alliances". Agreed that it is unfair but I don't see how the players will be forced to shoot someone that they don't want to if that shooting is something stealing away their "fun". That's my stand and you can respectfully disagree but i am sure this is the exact reason why this hasn't heen enforced yet. People (most of them) realise that this ability to choose who to shoot and whom to ignore is the freedom that makes their game "enjoyable".

Dictatorship in North Korea sounds unfair as well, but people don't interfere (or can't interfere) because they know they can't overcome that "problem" with any of the suggested solutions so far.

This might not be a good analogy but it explain my point that players play for their individual fun first of all. When a vip pays to the server, (99%) of them do it for the chainsaws and sniper and other shit that makes their game enjoyable and easier than others. They paid for that shit, agreed, but my point is that this is thill making the game unfair for non vips who get overpowered coz of these vip features. Also, vip feature includes switching class anytime and unbalancing the teams as a result. Why do u think this has been added as a vip feature despite knowing that it affects the gamemode negatively by unbalancing the teams? To serve the individual motive of a vip player. I think it's because vips pay to make their OWN INDIVIDUAL game easier and better and not really to donate. This is how it has been since years and a single rule enforcement won't make them stop trying to make their game easier and enjoyable.

Imo, what you want to achieve will be 2x fun than current game if there is a complete newbie+regulars Vs newbie+ regulars situation in the server AND I don't think that is gonna happen (i explained how I THINK the regulars will leave all the newbies on opposite team) as teams will be unbalanced even more than what they are right now. The civ class is also somehow anti-balancer as players get to shoot whoever they want to(picking sides and changing it any moment).

You can try this for sometime on server and let me know how "fair" and "balanced" you have made the game.

3. Yomama, i thought u were smart enough to even understand that poorly written explanation. Imma try again.

I was just making a situation that Rd has told me not to shoot a player B, and that i will still continue to shoot him if and when I like to. It's only if he is my friend(no matter what RD's relations are with him) that i will consider not shooting him.(ofc rd has no such rule, and i believe most of us RDs think it is stupid to make blacklist and whitelist now)/
The 'point' of making up that situation was to explain you (or was it primoz) that I THINK a player's personal relations with another player are more important than clan's relations. And it will always stay so..

In the first quote , i am saying that RD will not impose such a rule as something for clarification, had nothing to do with explaining any of my argument. And the line " every clan has someone who shoots his clanmate" was for primoz, and i was just letting him know that according to his definition there is no adequate clan in PTP as they all have some member who breaks this clan rule and still stays in the clan.

4. Tired of repeating this, If you can think of a good way to enforce this , by either changing minds of players(not possible i guess) or by script or anything and if you can really make the game more fun by creating that balanced team situation, then sure, it's worth a try. But enforcing this by leaving babysitting work on admins and recording/writing essays in reports just to be judged biasedly is what i am against. It has caused many players to be falsely banned and it will still happen. Wanna try on beta? *Calls lacerta and tenshi*

how is it possible that YOUR clan requires from members to follow clan rules and even I know it, and you DON`T and keep saying that it is "nothing"? You are keep talking about things when you do not know a shit about them.

Daffy was banned a week ago. According to RD clan rules, we kick or demote any member that gets banned. But we didn't punish daffy. Cute enough?
Should we all get kicked out of RD for breaking RD's rule? Ffs, it's a game's clan made for a group of friends who want to enjoy the game.


Even tho my clan rules said that Daffy should be punished, but we didn't coz again , personal opinions and mottos will always be greater deciding factors than the clan's rule and mottos.

We didn't even discuss this with every rd memeber, we (ducks that could see the promotion board) just realised that what he did wasn't much of an offence but a silly thing that can be forgiven.

Now, i can't really care much if you think RD or any other clan is not an adequate clan for not following their own rules. MAYBE pplv would have kept u in the clan, if they thought they should. Don't know much of ur case but you most probably shot  an ally because of you PERSONAL will which was AGAINST your CLAN'S WILL.
Which again supports my argument that A player will always be driven by his personal motto first and then by any other influence.

Ps: sorry daffy, to bring u in this xD

[Rev]

Get some help. It is not too late for ya'll.

[Judah]

It's not hard to enforce the rule since nearly 50% of the players are willing to follow it and the other 50% will have to defend themselves anyway.

i.e. You want a 'peace contract' with me, but I don't. I shoot you so you will have to defend yourself. 

[M a k a v e l i .]

Get some help. It is not too late for ya'll.

No, unfortunately it's too late.

[Jonne]

I get how frustrating this can be, I used to play a lot as security when I started playing PTP. It's not fun when you try to protect the president for an entire round, until suddenly, most of the security let someone walk in and kill the president. Another example is when a group of civilians 'take over' the security and you can't even get close to the president anymore as a sec. I don't think this problem is caused by clans only though. It's more the culture of "regulars don't shoot each other", that's the main cause. I feel if you'd take all of the clans out of the server, we'd still have the same problems. Of course, it doesn't help when they have rules like that. It might be one of the factors leading to this, but I don't feel it's the main cause of the problem. People don't shoot each other because they're friends, because they want to fit in with the rest of the regulars and there are plenty more reasons that have nothing to do with clans. I also think it's mainly problematic when it involves security or the president (as I described in the first lines), since that would have the most impact on the gamemode. I don't really think it's a problem when it's just an encounter between cops and terros.

As for enforcing this rule, I think in most cases it just isn't possible. More often than not, you won't be able to prove someone is intentionally not doing something (I'm thinking of securities letting a terro pass by), as it relies on a lot of assumptions we have to make. In other cases it is, but I don't think forcing people to shoot each other is a good solution for this problem. So, I don't think we should add this as a rule, as it would just be a worse version of what we have now with /duty. Instead, I think we should find ways to create incentives to play the gamemode and do your duty. We've been discussing this to find a solution for the /duty rule, but I think it applies here as well. Maybe a scoring system, as was suggested earlier, could help and it would encourage more people to do their duty. I'm not sure how exactly this would be implemented, but I was thinking something along the lines of the GTA V CEO/VIP system, where the bodyguards get points for certain actions, and maybe tie it together with certain rewards.

I don't think the clan tag rule as proposed is a good idea either. As I said already, I don't think clans are the main part of the problem. Taking away the clan tag doesn't mean they're not going to be friends the next day, and not much would change. Secondly, that would mean we'd have to make a whole system to approve clans, and we'd need access to their rules. I don't think that much involvement and control from the staff in clans would be good for the server. And again, them removing it from their rules, doesn't necessarily mean anything is going to change, as this problem mostly exists as an unwritten rule. Also, we're not going to punish a whole clan based on the behaviour of a couple of individuals.

[Saurabh]

10/10 jonne. I still think that additional armour bonus on every kill near president, will be a good incentive. Or maybe let president have some extra "scores" that he can spend on securities that follow his instructions (like bringing him a car etc). An automatic system that can decide what and who helps president can be hard to think of.

[EagleMan]

Maybe a scoring system, as was suggested earlier, could help and it would encourage more people to do their duty.

Actually i've been suggesting this for like 3 years already (since the old PTP). To put a point system for the securities. They will be gaining points for those who are in security class for the whole 15 minutes (or maybe give an initial 1 minute buffer time to have an opportunity to reclass as security), just like a point system for best president (best security). Why not putting this kind of solution to solve lots of problems here like /duty and civilans taking over? Besides, the server is all about the president after all. 

About the actual topic here, i think that making a rule about shooting clan member is just ridiculous. Besides, this is only important if a security is involved. Security must shoot people attacking the president, and i cannot recall anyone not doing the right thing.

If my point above has been already pointed out by others here,  honestly i did not read the whole thread. Im sorry.

[YoMama]

I don't think this problem is caused by clans only though. It's more the culture of "regulars don't shoot each other", that's the main cause. I feel if you'd take all of the clans out of the server, we'd still have the same problems.

I agree with you that clans are not the cause, but I would say that they tend to often be examples of the problem, usually more than clanless players. I probably shouldn't have directed this suggestion at clans if I wanted it to be more productive, but honestly, I was kind of pissed off and clans are an easier target when they tell you their rules already, which makes them the most blatant offenders in my eyes.

I don't really think it's a problem when it's just an encounter between cops and terros.

I don't agree. What if everyone decided not to shoot each other? The only reason why it doesn't seem to be a big issue is since this isn't the case, and cops aren't directly responsible for the president, it's less noticeable. I think it's still pretty damaging. It's pretty odd to realize that your teammates are refusing to play against people who will happily play against you when the game is all about teamwork. I certainly don't think that that moment of realization makes someone more likely to follow the rules or particularly happy.

I know it's something that could never be ideally enforced. I was honestly hoping for some less punishment-oriented solutions when I started this topic, like people just agreeing that it's not fair and probably not as fun to not shoot your friends, and maybe clans changing their rules and/or admins maybe verbally prodding people if it seems like they aren't playing fairly (a "hey, I noticed you seem to never shoot X when they're on the opposite team, even though they're a huge threat" or "hey, it seems kind of wrong to wipe out your friend's security, but not your friend" kind of thing).

My biggest problem here is not just that people have alliances that supercede the gamemode and they act on them, it's more that this behavior so pervasive that few people actually seem to consider whether or not it's actually fair or reasonable, and even if they do, they keep doing it because everybody does it. I don't even really understand the motivations to do it. I know you can't just turn a culture around, but not doing anything at all simply lets the problem flourish.

I think at least an encouragement to shoot your friends and base your friendships on mutual respect instead of a quid pro quo agreement would be a good thing. If people don't care, whatever, but I think that there should at least be a little shame in doing it, just like I feel shame in being on a winning team when the losing team simply had no chance. I was more suggesting the clan tag thing as a way to shame them without denying them access to the server. I know they'll still have alliances without tags (plenty of players do), but the fact that few people, even the people who don't have alliances, are actively against this behavior is a little sad to me.

I agree that changing the scoring system is a great step as well. I would add, however, that a good scoring system should reward people not just for winning, but for also going up against the odds. Even if someone is not really doing much damage as one of three terrorists vs eight security, they should still get credit for trying to balance the game instead of just switching to the winning team so they appear to be better at the game than they are.

Thank you for your response- it's nice to have a someone running things who even weighs in on the extremely controversial.