Warn appeal

[Ryan th0z]

Your In-game Name: Banner

Your SteamID: STEAM_0:0:521864986

The admin's name in-game: Gordan

What warning did you receive: Breaking RoE

When did you receive this warning:  26/08/2021

Please give a description of the situation that led to the warning: so ingame there was a code nuke and i decided to go to the evacuation shelter. everyone was shooting each other and then I saw a d class enter the evac shelter he was jumping everywhere cutting everyone. on my screen i saw that i took damage so i assumed it was the d class. then i killed the d class and i got warned for breaking RoE. i just think that this is a misunderstanding that i killed the d class because i tought he cut me.

Why do you think this warn was false: i just think that i shouldnt get warned for this since it was code nuke and everyone was shooting each other i just reacted as self defense (as the RoE says). i just think that i did that on accident since i tought he cut me.  i dont think i should get warned for an accident

Evidence the warning is false: https://medal.tv/clips/4fTChn3c4oK5i/RYn1F9jYy2dH

 

Edited August 27, 2021 by Ryan th0z

[Piller]

@GordanYour side please.

[Nydekore]

+Support

going frame by frame it’s still hard to tell who hurt you, it was likely just a crossfire but this clip seems to lack audio so it’s possible you heard the knife sound as you were hurt. Ultimately, looks chaotic enough where I’m willing to believe it was an honest mistake and it wasn’t a costly one, who actually cares if he died or not, everyone was about to die. 

[I disappear]

-support

I checked damage logs when this happened and you did not get damaged. You also rushed up to him to kill him which is not self defense. After looking at the clip the other d class that was there also did not shoot at you. 

 

Edit: Anyway that's my side of the story if you guys disagree with it then no hard feelings.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Gordan

[Shin]

Here is the clip of what I reported Banner for.

Not gonna leave my opinion but just send the clip for more context.

https://medal.tv/clips/62894057/d1337gO5DCfl

Edit: Im an idiot and didn't see the clip link in Banner's report. Please disregard this comment then.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Shin

[Ryan th0z]

7 minutes ago, Gordan said:

I checked damage logs when this happened and you did not get damaged.

I cant check logs when it is chaotic like that

 

7 minutes ago, Gordan said:

You also rushed up to him to kill him which is not self defense.

if anyone harm/hit you you can kill him to death even if he is running away

 

8 minutes ago, Gordan said:

After looking at the clip the other d class that was there also did not shoot at you. 

you can clearly see that when shinspin enter the bunker that i did not directly rushed at him i stayed in the corner and waited till i took some damage  and rushed at him thinkin it was him

[Some Weeb]

Overall I think I am going to say -support 

Mainly because you need to always be CERTAIN someone hit you before killing them because ultimately if you were wrong you are to bear the responsability of killing someone for no reason. I had a similar situation like this happen to me a while back and the appeal wasnt accepted so I am going off that. 

[Dees1116]

I mean I get that he didn’t technically hit you but I can see why you assumed he did also you were all about to die anyways so what does it really matter

Anyways I’m gonna +support this as it seems to be just an honest mistake 

 

P.S. you are still my love Gordon

[I disappear]

9 hours ago, Ryan th0z said:

I cant check logs when it is chaotic like that

 

if anyone harm/hit you you can kill him to death even if he is running away

 

you can clearly see that when shinspin enter the bunker that i did not directly rushed at him i stayed in the corner and waited till i took some damage  and rushed at him thinkin it was him

1. If you aren't sure who damaged you then don't kill them. You also didn't get damaged anyway

2. Actively rushing toward D-Class isn't self defense

3. See above

 

Edit: Also for more context for why I warned instead of verballed. During the sit he said a contradicting statement which made me think he was tryna get out of the whole thing (this was honestly my main reason for a warning if he admitted to it and didn't contradict himself I would've gave him a verbal warning). He said he got shot at instead of stabbed.

 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2021 by Gordan
More context for my decision

[Ryan th0z]

the thing is that there was a code nuke everyone was shooting each other and then I saw a d class enter the bunker. i thought i got stabbed by him. that is why i rushed him with my knife to kill him. I dont have a 2nd screen telling me who i got stabbed by. And i never tried to lie i told you all of the truth. im just saying The verbal warning would be more logical in this situation because there was a misunderstanding and also that it was code nuke. you couldve say to me ''be careful next time'' and thats it. im just saying that a formal warning is too much for this kind of situation

I never thought about breaking the RoE at any seconds.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Ryan th0z

[I disappear]

17 minutes ago, Ryan th0z said:

the thing is that there was a code nuke everyone was shooting each other and then I saw a d class enter the bunker. i thought i got stabbed by him. that is why i rushed him with my knife to kill him. I dont have a 2nd screen telling me who i got stabbed by. And i never tried to lie i told you all of the truth. im just saying The verbal warning would be more logical in this situation because there was a misunderstanding and also that it was code nuke. you couldve say to me ''be careful next time'' and thats it. im just saying that a formal warning is too much for this kind of situation

I never thought about breaking the RoE at any seconds.

See my response above which still explains my reasoning for a formal even after your response. Anyway I'm going to stop replying as if we continue any farther it would just be an argument. Our thoughts are laid out pretty well already. 

[Kvist]

Like I've posted before, there is a difference between IC and OOC in this server - the metagaming rules enshrined in the MOTD prove that. There is a Code Nuke situation which understandably makes people jittery, and here comes a D-Class jumping into the evac shelter, attacking everybody indiscriminately. It's a confusing, dangerous situation, and everybody knows how dangerous a D-Class can be at close quarters with a melee weapon. So, yes, self defense absolutely applies whether or not the warned party took damage, and whether or not he choose to advance or fall back. And it should apply tenfold in a Code Nuke situation, since that D-Class is literally inhibiting evac efforts.

There is no cause for a warn. This may be semi-serious roleplay, but there is still a roleplay element here.

[I disappear]

37 minutes ago, Kvist said:

Like I've posted before, there is a difference between IC and OOC in this server - the metagaming rules enshrined in the MOTD prove that. There is a Code Nuke situation which understandably makes people jittery, and here comes a D-Class jumping into the evac shelter, attacking everybody indiscriminately. It's a confusing, dangerous situation, and everybody knows how dangerous a D-Class can be at close quarters with a melee weapon. So, yes, self defense absolutely applies whether or not the warned party took damage, and whether or not he choose to advance or fall back. And it should apply tenfold in a Code Nuke situation, since that D-Class is literally inhibiting evac efforts.

There is no cause for a warn. This may be semi-serious roleplay, but there is still a roleplay element here.

You could also argue that in roleplay a maintenance wouldn't be running into gunfire to stab a D-Class now would he? Anyway I edited my reply from earlier to include more context as to why this was a warning and not a verbal.

[styx]

+/- support

i feel like this is a bit misunderstanding and that he thought he got shot at or got hit by a d class

[ItzGray]

+support

Its a code nuke, its chaotic and hard to understand whats going on, he said he took damage so he tried to defend himself. It turned out to be the wrong person but does it matter enough for a formal? A verbal would have been fine.

[I disappear]

1 hour ago, ItzGray said:

+support

Its a code nuke, its chaotic and hard to understand whats going on, he said he took damage so he tried to defend himself. It turned out to be the wrong person but does it matter enough for a formal? A verbal would have been fine.

He didn't take damage

[Kvist]

16 hours ago, Gordan said:

You could also argue that in roleplay a maintenance wouldn't be running into gunfire to stab a D-Class now would he? Anyway I edited my reply from earlier to include more context as to why this was a warning and not a verbal.

Why not? I would ICly. It's a roleplay server, there's a nuke about to drop on my head, and there's a maniac in the shelter with us with a knife shredding people preventing us from shutting the doors. Shanking him can't be anything worse than any of the other shit I might've seen around the facility.

I stand by the fact that it was self defense, but I'm gonna quote this addendum from the Foundation Staff ruleset to further shore up my point:

"D-Class that interfere with Site operations and are armed may be killed as long as it doesn't violate FearRP."

That seems to indicate non-combatants can kill D-Class if they're armed and interfering with site operations. I think an evacuation, ie. the shelter doors being shut qualifies as site operations. And either way, the vagueness of the rule indicates that it's open for interpretation, so the only fair thing to do is to rule towards leniency with all of the other factors I've already listed.

Nothing personal with the word salad I've put your way, Gordan.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Kvist

[Some Weeb]

Let's avoid arguing please or else Forum Diplomat's will lock the post.

[I disappear]

14 hours ago, Kvist said:

Why not? I would ICly. It's a roleplay server, there's a nuke about to drop on my head, and there's a maniac in the shelter with us with a knife shredding people preventing us from shutting the doors. Shanking him can't be anything worse than any of the other shit I might've seen around the facility.

I stand by the fact that it was self defense, but I'm gonna quote this addendum from the Foundation Staff ruleset to further shore up my point:

"D-Class that interfere with Site operations and are armed may be killed as long as it doesn't violate FearRP."

That seems to indicate non-combatants can kill D-Class if they're armed and interfering with site operations. I think an evacuation, ie. the shelter doors being shut qualifies as site operations. And either way, the vagueness of the rule indicates that it's open for interpretation, so the only fair thing to do is to rule towards leniency with all of the other factors I've already listed.

Nothing personal with the word salad I've put your way, Gordan.

There was no site operation going on at the time. I also still stand by the fact that they wouldn't rush them in RP too and that this wasn't really self defense. This will be my last reply as I think after this SMT will have enough info as to why I think my warn was justified. 

[Nydekore]

6 hours ago, Gordan said:

There was no site operation

Code nuke could be considered an “operation”, IMO 

[CyClone]

+Support

I believe this and how it could have been a mistake.. I mean it happens and it most likely wasn't intentional so ima leave a +support

[islandtoad]

On 8/27/2021 at 6:29 AM, Ryan th0z said:

the thing is that there was a code nuke everyone was shooting each other and then I saw a d class enter the bunker. i thought i got stabbed by him. that is why i rushed him with my knife to kill him. I dont have a 2nd screen telling me who i got stabbed by. And i never tried to lie i told you all of the truth. im just saying The verbal warning would be more logical in this situation because there was a misunderstanding and also that it was code nuke. you couldve say to me ''be careful next time'' and thats it. im just saying that a formal warning is too much for this kind of situation

I never thought about breaking the RoE at any seconds.

It is up to the staff member if they wish to provide a verbal or formal

 

[Chief_]

20 minutes ago, islandtoad said:

It is up to the staff member if they wish to provide a verbal or formal

 

This is in-fact true. As staff members we have discretion on giving out verbals or formal warnings. There is no requirement for it going to a full warning. +supporting from thinking it should’ve been a verbal Doesn’t   remove the fact it was a valid warn.  

[Ryan th0z]

Just now, Chief_ said:

This is in-fact true. As staff members we have discretion on giving out verbals or formal warnings. There is no requirement for it going to a full warning. +supporting from thinking it should’ve been a verbal Doesn’t   remove the fact it was a valid warn.  

I mean still i got warned for an accident

[Chief_]

7 minutes ago, Ryan th0z said:

I mean still i got warned for an accident

If you break rules even if its an accident you can get warned. 
Which is why I said this. Mainly cause ppl are saying this should’ve been a verbal. Which is them all saying that they acknowledge that you have broken a rule. 

 

I am not leaving a support on this though. I’m just stating some information people need to know.