Daryl

Rules update as of 25/04/2020 Changelog; Rule 17 added. Rule 1 edited. Rule change around reptitive ramming as per https://saesrpg.uk/topic/17048/question-rule-1-part-7/33?page=2 Rule 5 reworded to be more broad. Rule 14 edited to show a frequent example that we will begin cracking down on. General grammatical errors and spelling fixed, removal of useless lines - does not impact rules. Now displayed as images as markdown has trouble numbering our rules list, and markdown is less user friendly. These changes are now live on the F1 Rules Section in game.

@Daryl said in SA Fire Department :: Media Archive: Participants: Myself District: SA Shift period: All-Day (17-04-2020) Number of vehicles: 118 Screenshots: ::: :::

Locking this, will revert back with an answer in a day or so, you're going off top from the original query now.

Participants: Myself & @Juby District: SA Shift period: Afternoon (15-04-2020) Number of vehicles: 59 Screenshots: ::: :::

Participants: Myself District: SA Shift period: Afternoon (14-04-2020) Number of vehicles: 27 Screenshots: ::: :::

Participants: ME District: LS/SF Shift period: Morning Shift (13-04-2020) Number of vehicles: 32 Screenshots: ::: :::

@SNome said in [SUGGESTION] BR paycheck area: pretty sure they don't get any money, solrac Correct, we get no money for stopping a BR. The first cop does get money in a PBR for touching safes.

Removed FBI Truck as requested, the SAFP wraps i found are locked to specific users, can you specify the wrap name

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVAFlCeXQMI

@Elyeso said in [SUGGESTION] BR paycheck area: Yeah every criminial inside the bank should get money for defending not just the ones near the safe room +1 I don't agree. The idea behind the col for getting money being near the safes is to enforce that you either defend at the safes to get the money from them and thus makes the defending harder for more reward or else you sacrafice the money for the defenders that want to defend from more optimal positions. It's not like the BR success rate is low, take higher risk with your positioning of defenders for higher rewards. It's a fairly simple theory.

The difference between bringing in headshot for turfing was that the gangs who turf agreed on it, you cannot get every cop unilaterally to agree on being headshot in exchange for this. You also cannot stop being from toggling war to headshot cops pretty much anywhere on the map. It's a flawed idea and personally I'd want nothing to do with being incorporated into the turf system in this way.

@zaza said in Election Results - April 2020!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEQ-ngBNnyI :honk:

Hello all, Over the last week we've run another successful election cycle on SAES. We have sifted through the results and put together this post as its easier to read than just the table. We will also link below, in case you still wanted to look at them Without further ado, please find your April 2020 Election Results below. For a picture of all the results of all the regions please click HERE. Bone County In Bone County there were a total of 287 unique votes cast. The winner with 84 votes (29.27%) is the independant candidate @Teddy Flint County & Whetstone In Chilliad & Whetstone there were a total of 207 votes cast. The winner with 99 of the votes (47.83%) is @Draven of the Coalition of New Development! LS Central In LS Central there were a total of 287 unique votes cast. The winner with 156 of the votes (54.36%) is @Zwolle of the Coalition of New Development! LS East In LS East there were a total of 280 unique votes cast. The winner with 105 of the votes (37.5%) is @zaza :honk: of the Coalition of New Development! LS West In LS West there were a total of 212 unique votes cast. The winner with 81 of the votes (38.21%) is @AdemBygt of the Coalition of New Development! North Venturas In North Venturas there were a total of 336 unique votes cast. The winner with 107 of the votes (31.85%) is @Markus of the Coalition of New Development! Red County In Red County there were a total of 163 unique votes cast. The winner with 84 of the votes (51.53%) is @Venom of the Coalition of New Development! SF North In SF North there were a total of 169 unique votes cast. The winner with 104 of the votes (61.54%) is @Yoko_Kurama of the Coalition of New Development! SF South In SF South there were a total of 217 unique votes cast. The winner with 146 of the votes (67.28%) is @Bartman of the Coalition of New Development! South Venturas In South Venturas there were a total of 344 unique votes cast. The winner with 139 of the votes (40.41%) is @Duff of the Coalition of New Development! Tierra Robada In Tierra Robada there were a total of 243 unique votes cast. The winner with 112 of the votes (46.06%) is @kockata of the Coalition of New Development! President! For the Presidential Election there were a total of 247 unique votes cast. The winners with 111 of the votes (44.94%) are @Terry & @Velona of the Coalition of New Development! SEATS LAYOUT Coalition of New Development - 10 Seats Independant - 1 Seat Random factoids; The person with the most amount of votes was @Zwolle with 156, however the highest percentage of votes in a region goes to @Bartman with 67.28% The winner with the lowest % of votes in their respective region was @Teddy with 29.27% of the vote The biggest (smallest?) loser was @Law who finished second in South Venturas, despite receiving 30.81% (106) of the votes The total number of votes cast in the election was 2,992 Four senators who won in the election back in December were re-elected in this election, those are @Bartman @Draven @Venom and @Duff The region with the most votes this time (South Venturas) also received the most votes last time (excl. President) The region which received the least votes this time was Red County, despite it being 3rd last previously. This is the first time a party has had 10 or more seats, even in this reduced senate size. The next elections are scheduled for early August! Once again I thank everyone for their cooperation throughout this election. We are here to assist the new government, but ultimately the activity of the government is up to them. Hold them accountable, do not re-elect people who are inactive. Thank you. Group Management.

I think the wording on the rule is unsuitable and is clearly open to interpretation, which in my opinion isn't a good thing. Of course I believe my interpretation is correct but I can also completely see why people would understand it the other way, this is a very bad experience for players and staff alike. This is not how everyone will interpret the rule and I respect that. I've opened a topic on the clans private forum to discuss rewording the rule so we all have better clarity on where it actually applies and once the clan comes to a consensus someone will revert back to this topic with an update. This really shouldn't be a cops vs crims thing, it's very much just the very open wording of a rule causing the issues here - sides don't play a factor.

Both placed, closing.

:lock: No bid in 7 days, archiving

:lock: Seems this was sold

:lock: No bid in 7 days, archiving

:lock:

:lock:

@jonathan959 said in [SUGGESTION] Name tags: I want to propose that 0 stars stay white or don't show and for people that actually have stars to make it yellow, this will help us cops distinguish who has stars and who doesn't. I accidentally shot a car with 4 guys thinking they had stars and i couldn't see who had stars and who didn't, making 0 stars white would help distinguish guys with stars. Thank u for reading :hearts: hard agree making the colour of wanted stars something which is not variable is very bad quality of life we went from having everyone with white wanted levels, making everyone look like they're unwanted to having everyone yellow and looking wanted the old system where the colour of your wanted level was dictated by that wanted level, ie. >0 stars = yellow <0 = white, was better. Example;