MiaMika

I feel I've already answered why that's contextual in my initial reply, Gfy. In your own hypothetical example voiding that scene punishes the non-rulebreaker (Chad) more than it punishes the rulebreaker (Billy). Situations do get voided, its just based on the judgement of the handling admins on a case by case scenario.

For me personally it just depends on the situation. Its always a judgement call. Did the rulebreak substantially effect the outcome of the roleplay? In the hypothetical scenario you listed if Billy gets shot-down by Chad and logs out, I wouldn't void the shooting. Billy logged and didn't get rescued, he's PK'd from the scenario no matter what. If Chad is a lawman usually after handling log 2 avoid outlaws with lawman we return them to the custody or make them CK. He'd have pretty poor grounds for requesting a CK on Chad. If the roleplay would not of remotely played out the way it did without the rulebreak? I'm much more likely to void it. The other flipside is how much RP is resultant; is voiding the scenario going to punish a bunch of people who didn't break rules by wasting their RP time? Is the rulebreak/outcomes so consequential its worth telling a half dozen people the scenes they spent 30 mins to 2 days on are completely erased? Its always a judgement call is to if you let the 'rotten fruit' of rulebreak roleplay persist versus voiding it.

I'll offer a hot 🔥 2 cents prefaced by the fact that this is me speaking for me, not speaking as the official herald of the staff team. This is also long too - sorry, but not sorry. RedM, and a lot of Rockstar platform RP games (SAMP, RageMP/FiveM) have an atrocious culture problem. It would make for a hilarious niche academic paper for someone's sociology/anthropology 4th year thesis. Like any RP community different people get different things out of roleplay; some enjoy short-lived characters that do their thing and burn out. Some people shuffle a character archetype from server to server and massage it to fit the setting for a decade plus at a time. Most people fall somewhere in the middle. Some people like to paragraph roleplay. Some people like to rapid-fire roleplay in shorter sentences. Some people like to RP as if their character was constrained by the realisms of the server setting. Some people like to embrace the servers literal mechanics/scripts to define their RP. None of these approaches are inherently better, worse, or problematic when there's a good spirited culture and a willingness to give each-other the benefit of the doubt. What I find imminently frustrating is the OOC social landscape. I'll bracket the problem of the immaturity of idiot man-children and toxic e-girls on the internet that behave in a way that would lead to immediate social ostracization anywhere IRL other than perhaps 9th grade. The various cabals of OOC cliques that dominant the RP scene with their clubhouse discords and VC cliques is absolutely exhausting. As an admin I can't tell you how many groups I've specc'd who are obviously sitting in VC together while RPing, that have an inability to interact with any other individual or clique except in a hyper-aggressive IC/OOC blended manner, and who's interest seems more in sharing a chuckle with their chums than engaging in anything remotely roleplay related. As an admin, and player, I've watched the vast majority of group-conflicts always become as acrimonious OOC as IC. The fragmentation, insularity of it, and typical immaturity of it is not only an administrative nightmare but it completely deprives myself of enthusiasm to seek out roleplay on the server. The amount of time I have to spend mediating in discord tickets or DMs is astronomical and significantly erodes the time I have to actually play the game. Between IRL obligations I haven't logged in for about 3 weeks now as my allotted STRP time is consumed on discord. Ultimately I have to ask what motivates people to roleplay? The answers will vary person to person. If your motivation is to explore a character, create an organic narrative that's impacted by the unpredictable inputs of other players, and to create a limited sense of immersion in whatever the thematic setting is than it doesn't likely matter what "type" of roleplayer you are. Be it someone who enjoys conflict within the game mechanics, someone who enjoys extensive dialogue RP, someone who RP's 3-week characters or someone who RP's 3-year characters. If your motivation is to sit in VC/Discord with your chums and prod reactions from others or see if you can hit the bare-minimum to "legally" DM people with zero interest in ever meaningfully interacting with someone outside your clique? Or to simply roam and troll with your buds for giggles? If you take pride in how many people you've made "salty" or how much better you are at killing people in a non-competitive low-PVP environment? My personal opinion is you're not interested in roleplay, you just find RP communities an entertaining medium to pursue non-RP goals. I'll be frank: I roll my eyes when a thin mask of "I'm here to RP!" is pulled over that when I've specc'd the roleplay (or lack thereof), seen the chatlogs, seen the leaked VC clips. Roleplay is fundamentally a collaborative, community-oriented, activity. Its also fundamentally a narrative/literary one in the most literal, least pretentious, sense of those words. Roleplay in video-games and TTRPG's is about marrying that to a mechanical game world that grounds that narrative and deprives the writers of degrees of agency (compared to writing short stories) in exchange for a world/setting that provides opportunity for the organic and the unexpected. If that's what you're after? It doesn't matter how you go about it. If PVP is a core part of that experience for you? Two thumbs up. If the PVP is driven first and foremost by the urge to have conflict in a story, that's ultimately decided by a test of shooting skill? Two thumbs up. Play an outlaw, play a lawman, rob people, chase outlaws, but make a story out of it in one style or another. If PVP is the solitary and exclusive goal and roleplay is just the means to dome someone because it gets more of a reaction that shooting someone in RD:O or Fortnite? That's where PVP is an issue but the dichotomy of to PVP or not to PVP is not the core issue, it's just the arena in which these conflicts of attitudes are most palpable and oft most significant as it results in character loss. I think unfortunately there's a portion of people who play roleplay games to have their fun at the expense of other people, or just treat other people as "props" for their masturbatory catharsis via trolling, DM, or other stupid goals. When they coalesce into cliques that sit in VC-squads together and roam around en masse it starts to severely disrupt the RP quality. When people get fed up with that? They get painted as anti-conflict, mild-west lovers, too-attached-to-their-chars, or whatever your favorite label is. Yeah, there certainly are people who cannot take an L and will explore every OOC avenue if they're robbed, lose a gunfight, or whatever. Those people too are, to put it in simple terms, little bitches. However - and now my verbiage goes from faux-academic to blunt - they're usually getting fucked in the ass versus doing the fucking and as such tend to be smaller ripples in the pond. Usually. So how fix the server? How do better? Beyond the appeal to grow the fuck up, RP for the sake of genuine RP, and have an open mind? 🤷‍♀️ To the extent I can, I try to keep staff open to input, suggestions, and involvement from the playerbase and I'm pretty open-door to discussions - even with people I disagree with, or perhaps dislike. I'm sure for some the feeling is mutual. C'est la vie. I think there's certainly more staff could attempt to do to facilitate such and I've always been biased towards staff taking a more pre-emptive role in creating meaningful narrative on the server in small and big ways. I also think we need to take much more initiative with curating a better server culture. I'm also personally of the mindset that we've been too lenient with bad actors, too restrained with people not here to roleplay, and too tolerant with allowing a publicly toxic culture. As a result we've over the time lost good community members. When I've looked at general chat I've been embarrassed to be a member of this community, let alone a staff member. I'd rather a smaller server with the potential to grow versus the same stagnant 80-150 people, doing the same shit, having the same toxic IC-OOC feuds, swirling the near-infinite drain, like some hellish version of groundhog day. Some people will stick around, some won't, some will leave and return, and some will inevitably wind up being removed. So fuck it, we ball, we go forward, we try to learn, we try to improve, we try new things - some will fail, some will be bad ideas, and some hopefully won't. Personally, I'd much rather experiment, take risks, and try something new than forever stagnant. Changes will inevitably piss some people off too. You cannot appease everyone, trying to do is a fools errand. Consensus based leadership is often ideal but in a highly factionalized community its hard to achieve, even the most minor of 'issues' have vocal opinions from players that are in direct opposition to eachother. As staff we have the pleasure of picking a side, or picking a compromise, and always upsetting or pissing someone off. The server still has potential but how much of that is realized? That's in the hands of both the players and the staff and ultimately has little to do with one singular personality, be it your least-favorite staff member, or your least-favorite player clique bannerlord. As much as its tempting to say "Quasimodo predicted all of this" where we go in the next week, month, 6 months, year is entirely open to what we put into this.

We honestly don't deserve KV.

To assist in providing context around the discussion of this suggestion I'll provide some numbers. Since I'm staff I clearly would be biased to offer an opinion so I'll refrain. Here's our roster right now, I'll flag the ones gated by a WL job/property app for further clarity. USMS -> Non staff [WL APP] NASO -> Non staff [WL APP] WESO -> Staff as sheriff. [WL APP] *Admin Tristyn Spickings mining faction -> Non staff [WL APP] Montana trading company -> Non staff [WL APP] Macfarlanes -> Run by staff (only 2 applicants were 2 different staff members) [WL APP] *Lead Admin Kate Ridgewood -> Non staff [WL APP] Pronghorn -> Non staff [WL APP] Hanging dog -> Run by Staff [WL APP] *Senior Admin Fowler Beechers Hope -> Non staff [WL APP] Apache -> Non Staff [WL APP] Union Stock & Brand - Run by Staff *Senior Admin Don Dada Montana Trading Company -> Non staff Hofleys Bunch -> Non staff Crawford-Stewart outfit -> Non staff That's 15 factions as time of writing. 11 are White-List gated. 4/15 are run by a staff member as lead. 3/11 White-list gated are run by a staff member as lead. Those are the numbers, make of them as you please.

So, personally speaking, I have no horse in this race. If the overwhelming consensus is to remove all guns on strict historical lines I'm all for that. Ultimately any attempt to juggle maxing variety with "vibes" and "realism" and "gameplay" is going to be a subjective call. The only objective options are either strict realism adherence or include all the guns from the game. Also anytime there's a gun that's undeniably the "better" choice variety becomes meaningless due to the meta. We saw that with the RBR and Carcano for example. I think the current system is fine tbqh but I also think if the majority of the PB would rather strict adherence to 1:1 realism of the gun models that's a valid take. If there's a strong consensus for that, I'll support it.

Great idea, no need for discussion, ChatGPT is always right. Going over Bill's head to implement this myself.

Even though this era of the server is closing... THE STORY CONTINUES. Ewthn didn't want me to post this as he said its "not up to Little Creek standards" .

The simplest answer is OOC racism/bigotry is absolutely not allowed, IC it is. The time period doesn't substantially change that. The issues of bigotry in American society were prevalent in the 1880s, the 1900's, and unfortunately well into the future outside of the time periods we'd ever consider setting in. We're not doing an 'alternate history' that side-steps that. For the rare individuals that use historical racism as a vehicle to interject their modern prejudices and use the setting to do a thin veiled pantomime of what's clearly OOC bigotry? Staff aren't obtuse to that. That sort of thing has been handled before. I, personally, have very little patience for that. There's also a reason racial hatred factions (ie doing the KKK) are restricted concepts and heavily scrutinized. At the end of the day historical-themed roleplay inherently includes some mature and unpleasant topics from the era its set in. If handled with maturity by players they can be part of meaningful narratives, much like any good film, book, or T.V show set in an era has the potential to do so.

To answer this much: The leader of said faction will be a whitelisted position. So once someone has an accepted app, they're free to co-ordinate as they see fit. They'll be responsible for curating their own membership and ensuring their membership is up to snuff, as any faction leader is expected to. Until someone has an accepted WLJ app to lead the Apache faction, there's not much point in planning around it, but if people want to chit-chat Apache inspiration in the era that's their own business.

I serve only my liege lord @wren

In abstract terms you got 2 approaches to RP. People who want gameplay mechanics to heavily structure RP and give the in-game equivalent of the real world needs/wants that drive so many of our actions. People who want a sandbox approach where the gameplay is a background thing to provide setting and they're free to RP without restraint for what suits their character. There's pro's and cons to both approaches beyond just taste. Gameplay mechanics give structure, offer restraints, and prompt interactions/actions that people might not find meaningful. Gameplay mechanics are also limited (especially on RedM), can create situations that are aren't immersive (dying of thirst in the middle of long dialogue), and can make people feel as if they have to devote time away from writing-based RP to play a not-fun series of minigames. I don't have a perfect solution. I personally don't like grinding. I also think its unfortunate that there's no economy that acts as a motivation for players to turn towns into hubs of needs-and-wants or run concepts like lumber companies. I also think RedM is a very limited platform, with limited scripts, and the further you get from guns-and-horses the less meaningful gameplay you have to work with (contrast with say Project Zomboid where the gameplay is fleshed out enough to RP around). 🤷‍♀️ How do you make an economy that promotes roleplay while not being inherently unfun and a detractor for people who don't like grinding? I don't know.

I won't discuss the specific scenario because y'know, I don't want to do a post-mortem on a spicy scene with two ongoing reports about it at the time of writing. Speaking generally in regards to hostage taking there's 2 things being brought up. My two cents? 1) When is it reasonable to kill a hostage? This one is easier. Its only reasonable to kill a hostage if you have sufficient reasons to kill them. That sounds like a tautology though. Basically, assuming a hostage is compliant, if you didn't have reason to kill them when capturing them to begin with - you don't get to kill them simply because someone isn't IG or its 'taking too long'. Now that said if the negotiating party party for their release fucks shit up or the situation escalates? Different story. Simply put if you don't have reason to kill to begin with, so you kidnap, the kidnapping itself does not become a loophole to DM. Events during the kidnapping might, but the very act of kidnapping itself does not grant that license. 2) How long can you take people captive for? This is a lot more open-ended and really is best underpinned by mutual OOC respect and communication between roleplaying parties. In an ideal world there should be space for taking captives for a moderate amount (hours? 1 day?) amount of time. You can think of it roughly parallel to the RL time you might wind up in a jail cell with limited RP. Its not always wall-to-wall fun but it enables certain types of roleplay and realism that just aren't possible if nobody can ever be held captive. Not all RP on a heavy-RP server can be edge-of-the-seat exhilarating as moments of mundanity are required to enable certain dynamics and scenarios. That said; When taking someone captive, or in general ICly confining someone to a scene/scenario they cannot escape from, there is a big onus on the captor to be engaging and make an interactive RP scenario for their victim as much as possible. In general I like to phrase it along the lines of "don't use other people as props for your roleplay". Even in a brief road-robbery; show-case some personality and be engaging. Triple so if you're going to actually be locking that person into an RP scene for an extended period of time. Be interesting. In general; but especially when you've created a situation where only you can be the source of interest for the other party. There are, as well, hard limits. OOC bedtime is real, even if used as the most bullet-proof court defense. This again is where OOC rapport, communication, and not having contempt for your fellow roleplayer comes in handy. Captors can OOCly check in on their victims in terms of their play-time available, and players knowing that mommy's curfew is at 10pm can announce that 9pm and not 9:55. People can work to accommodate eachother. If the kidnapping requires lawmen to be online, its a small server, reach out and see if you can get some IG. If you can, target your activities when it makes sense. Not everything needs to be a scheme/heist and admin spoon-fed if we exercise a little common sense and are willing to be accommodating on both sides. Personally I don't think we need an explicit ruleset on captivity at present because I don't think its a common occurrence and I think in general people can suck-up being derailed from their usual threads-of-RP for a few hours. Rizz ranching will always be there tomorrow. That said I think we could all be, y'know, super cool about shit and work with each other to make RP enjoyable. Being real: STRP is not burdened with an excess of "shit happening" all the time. I'd say there's an unfortunate trend for things to get tepid/stale in many circles. I'd rather, as staff, envision ways of facilitating as much to happen as possible, organically as possible, just with the expectation that my playerbase is gunna be super rad and provide eachother RP and communicate maturely with each other.

Not to sound repetitive; feel free to suggest it. I mean that sincerely, I'm always for people putting forward suggestions. Peoples issue with the GTA:W style on RDRP is the fact that we have inescapable quickdraw anims versus GTA:W's slower more obvious gun drawing anim. For those that feel "response time" is an issue, this will make it worse for that group. Also unlike GTA:W we operate in a setting where everyone is frequently open-carrying long-arms, so many encounters are already between groups with long-arms both in hand or guns at the ready - unlike GTA:W where you can't as safely just be toting a gun out in the open 24/7. As far as I am aware, its not technically possible to slow the unholstering anim. I didn't mind RDRP's approach but on the one hand you have a group that wants that approach, on the other hand you have a group asking for various iterations of "adequate response time" via timers/count downs/obligations to wait. Arguably the /CME is the best compromise between both groups.

Similar such things have been suggested before. While that might be argued to be appropriate for a 1 on 1 showdown, it would absolutely ruin any ambush attacks or realistic advantage of surprise/shooting someone in the back of the head. I'm also not sure on the logistics of even scripting a damage-immunity for 5-seconds if one even wanted to do so. Not all fights are fair, nor should they be. Some kills are gained not by being a better duelist but by striking from a moment of opportunity. As always, everyone is more than welcome to make a suggestion if they feel they have a better system - but I will reiterate we arrived at our current system with a lot of discussion and juggling and I'm dubious any new idea won't introduce more problems than it removes.