Ban inconsistencies

[BlackDog]

 For example: Rebels can't drive expensive cars. But what is expensive? Some think a Volvo is an expensive car while others think the Ferrari is expensive. An admin should in that case warn the person and ask him to drive another car (the admin decision which is not negotiable), if he refuses to, he should be blacklisted from vehicles. A ban wouldn't be justified because of the different interpretations.

There in lies a key issue though, the lack of any key definition on FL's rulesets and the reliance on the supposed definition entirely by word of mouth.

 As you said above, the Rebel's cant drive expensive cars, but its never been defined just what "Expensive" is, this is a problem because its leading to massive differences in the things people are punished for and confusion amongst the playerbase on what they can and cannot do.

Other such gaps in FL's definitions:

Doomforting:
FL has never defined what a doomfort truely is, one can say its something that gives a massive advantage or looks like a massive base. Though a massive base can be just as easy to raid as anyother position defending on its design, and a massive advantage is all dependent on the views of the one enforceing their definition of the policy and those who are attacking said base. We expect something like blocking all access paths and funneling people down a kill zone path to reach the keypad to a door to be a doomfort, but not every "doomfort" is built the same, bases inheriently give a massive advantage to the defenders, and it needs to be defined just how far this advantage can go before it becomes an issue.

HitmanRP: (Currently not listed in the rules in any shape or form for some reason)
Ive also seen staff define hireing the corlones to assist you in a presidential raid or hireing the corlones to scare property owners into selling HitmanRP(something of which is not actualy listed as against the rules in the primary list) but FL has no true definition on what constitutes it, though one would think the name is fairly clear "Hireing a person for the sole reason of killing another for money" Though if this is how it is interpreteded to the letter, more things than we think would fall under its ruling and would not be allowed, I see how the corlone issue might fall under this because what are you hireing them for on a raid than to kill someone or some people, but its not the only reason one can hire them or people do such an action.

The same goes for RDM, FailRP and a number of other key rule enforcement policys, not one of them have been properly defined to explain just what they are and how one can either avoid them, or enforce them.

RDM: One would also think its fairly simple, killing someone at complete random, but this ruleing is used in many situations where the killing in question was not at all random, but in the enforceing staffs opinion just a poor reason or it wasnt done correctly. 90% of kills on FL are not RDM, even the ones listed as such as they in their mind they had a reason, but they dont know if said reason is enough to actualy act on or that they need a different reason or more reasons to act on.
FL has no checklist a player could go down to see if what their about to do would be allowed so they wouldn't get in trouble

FailRP: This one is the biggest of all that truely needs to be defined, how can players know just what constitutes failRP when they are not given a concrete definition on what it actualy is? Dressing up as a dog and saying woof to people? Its stupid yes, but who are we to say its failRP when this action exists and it can be delt with entirely in an IC way, walking up and throwing paint on a cops uniform or stealing their coffee mug, insanely stupid to do and will no doubt land them with some jailtime, but things like this happen and it is entirely solvable in an IC way, the list goes on and on in regards to FailRP.

When it comes to the failRP, people who know me know that I don't do many things and RP ideas because of the lack of a failRP definition and I'm always in constant fear on which staff will take exception with my actions, while others will say my action is fine, the moment they leave the server suddenly I'm at risk of being punished by another staff based on what they feel, whether its in regards to an admin placed vehicle modification, a public build permission, or the permission to do a specific RP type.

This fear could be swept away with a clear concrete set of definitions and knowing full well the entire staff base know it, and follow it.

I do fully understand the need for the "unwritten policy", even I made use of them back in the day to stop a situation from getting out of hand, but these policys should be temporary and not some perma rule set that people are expected to know and learn(IE: You punish them for doing the action a week later after you told them not to do it, but they have no way of re-reading the policy you set in stone to remember you said not to do it again), applying only to the person/persons it was explained to and only for a specific duration, once this duration has expired a player/players may attempt again what they were doing,but if a staff feels it is going the same route, they can simply issue a temporary restriction again.

One can also not reliably look to the Rule Q&A as it is full of this same issue, one staff says something is allowed, but pages later another says it is not. The prime example of this is in the rule Q&A currently it lists Suits as only being wearable by the Citizen job class, and that no one else is allowed to use them.