If the rules of a 'milsim' were generalized to:
"re. Props...do not bring anything you do not want to risk damage to"
"wear adequate protection as you need/see fit to beyond this/that eyewear"
"anyone you cannot confirm as a friend is potentially a foe"
"you will not do anything that will intentionally compromise your safety and the safety of others"
"game rules, mission parameters, restrictions and or allowances are subject to change at any time at the discretion of GC"
"the rules, mission parameters, restrictions and allowances that apply to one force may be different than those applied to another force and are at the sole discretion of the GC. Either force may not be privy to some or any of the information that another force has"
"if in doubt of an action, seek guidance from your C&C...and failing that GC. If GC gives their ok, then it is permitted for the purpose and intent you describe and is not to be assumed as a generalized alteration of the game parameters."
"the following specifics apply"....then going on to list dress requirements, fps, kill rules, dispute handlings, first aid, timings, etc...the standard stuff
...if the rules or game conditions were like that, would that be enough to give direction, to establish expectations, to sets things out in advance? Are they comprehensive enough without having to dissect everything in minutia? Does it allow enough latitudes, creativity and innovation without someone crying foul?
In all honesty...I suspect that it doesn't. I suspect that it wouldn't do one damn thing to change most of the AAR noise post events. Why.....because the ones that complain the loudest are the quietest when a solution is sought...and the same ones will not inject themselves to be part of a solution more so than to be first back to the table with post fact critique.
You're post said not to mention specifics...I haven't. I'm guessing that was a mod/admin directive.
Last edited by m102404; July 30th, 2012 at 20:25..