BadTimeInbound Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 Your In-game Name: BadTimeInbound Your SteamID: STEAM_0:0:63965970 The admin's name in-game: Walter Scott What warning did you receive: "FailRP Engaging SCPs as a non-combatant" When did you receive this warning: 9/2/2021 ~2:00 pm CST Please give a description of the situation that led to the warning: SCP-066 was abusing his SWEP so I called a sit on him. Admin pulled up damage logs and warned him. SCP-076-2 called a sit to ask a question, "Are medics allowed to shoot me" and the admin immediately jumped on the opportunity to warn me. Because I had "engaged" 076-2 and hit 999 32 MINUTES PRIOR "as a noncombatant" I was warned for FailRP Why do you think this warn was false: I asked afterwards what evidence he had for FailRP and all he had was the damage logs stating I hit 999 32 minutes ago and the fight I had with 076-2. Evidence the warning is false: The reason I attacked 076-2 was because he was a credible threat to myself and every medic in the vicinity. He was about to call rage in the middle of the surgery room, so I opened fire to get him to chase me out of the medbay, which worked. Obviously this is a little iffy on probable cause for self defense but definitely not warnable. The admin then saw that I hit 999 -WHO HAS 1 MILLION HEALTH AND CANNOT DIE- 33 MINUTES AGO and jumped on the opportunity to warn me. I disagree STRONGLY with this decision and I have lost a little more hope in our administration.https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2591811679 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piller Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 @Redspeedsplease give your side. SCP-RP Head of Staff | Ethics Committee Chairman Former Nu-7 VCMDR l Former GenSec CPT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domo775 Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 (edited) +support (side question did 999 call a sit that you shot him?) Edited September 2, 2021 by Domo775 1 i’ve probably killed you more then once Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GilWinterwood Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 + Support Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowPL Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 1 minute ago, Domo775 said: +support (side question did 999 call a sit that you shot him?) SCP-RP | Maintenance Expert | HLPR Bot bT5 | Senior Researcher | Senior Event Team Member Custom Classes | Umbrella Corporation Operative "Pathos" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadTimeInbound Posted September 2, 2021 Author Share Posted September 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, Domo775 said: +support (side question did 999 call a sit that you shot him?) Nope. 999 was not involved at any point throughout the entire process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redspeeds Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 (edited) You attacked 2 SCPs without provocation. Enough said. Also you said and i quote "I shot 076-2 to distract him from the MTF he was chasing" Which goes directly against the non-combatant rule Edited September 2, 2021 by Redspeeds 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gaming Goat Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Redspeeds said: You attacked 2 SCPs without provocation. Enough said But does this tell the whole story? There may be more to it. Also if your a non combatent and if someone else attacks that non combatent near you, you may defend them. Edited September 2, 2021 by The Gaming Goat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
styx Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 +support i attack 076-2 sometimes just to get him out of a room and he is active if he sees a gun no matter what and shot 999 sometimes just for fun. I don’t see anything wrong with what he did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadTimeInbound Posted September 2, 2021 Author Share Posted September 2, 2021 1 minute ago, Redspeeds said: You attacked 2 SCPs without provocation. Enough said 999 has 1 million health. If everyone who ever shot 999 for fun was warned, there wouldn't be any players on the server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 +SUPPORT Honestly, the 076 warn should’ve been a verbal because RoE may be confusing for everyone. And Nerfario did it with not a bad reason for it. He wasn’t just engaging 076 just to try to recontain him, but to only distract him to protect his medical personnel. and the 999 part is kinda petty. Everyone does this and no one really cares for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redspeeds Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, The Gaming Goat said: But does this tell the whole story? There may be more to it. Also if your a non combatent and if someone else attacks that non combatent near you, you may defend them. Foundation staff Rules #3 "or in defense of other non-combatants only." No other medical staff was near 076-2 made a report and 066 made a report against nefario engaging SCPs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
styx Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 Wait why did 066 make a report 1 minute ago, Redspeeds said: Foundation staff Rules #3 "or in defense of other non-combatants only." No other medical staff was near 076-2 made a report and 066 made a report against nefario engaging SCPs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadTimeInbound Posted September 2, 2021 Author Share Posted September 2, 2021 1 minute ago, Redspeeds said: Foundation staff Rules #3 "or in defense of other non-combatants only." No other medical staff was near 076-2 made a report and 066 made a report against nefario engaging SCPs. 1. He was in the middle of the surgery room with both a patient and a medic??? 2. 066 had no cause for a report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skela Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 +Support honestly don’t see the point on a warn. This seems more like a verbal. Yuh imm@ Thash Dat B¡tch!!*^€{ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redspeeds Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 His extensive experience as a player and his previous warnings for FailRP made me give him a warning instead of a verbal. He has 6 weeks of playtime he should know better period 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recron Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 +Support 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnarledBison Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 +Support I really don't see the point of a warn here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 +Support I will not go into the verbal/formal debate. It has been said time and time again its discretionary. No point bringing this up unless for a player report. However, I am inclined to agree on this appeal on the basis of interference of site operations. Namely during a surgery. This is an imminent threat to the other personnel in the immediate area. 076 getting enraged means everyone in the room could die. This is not the same as engaging a D Class or CI where the threat is only "potential". Wouldn't you commit to the same actions to protect your own against near certain death? I would not expect my equines to just take death on the just because. Context is everything and should be understood before making a decision. You can't always go "by the book" when the book is leading to your death. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadTimeInbound Posted September 2, 2021 Author Share Posted September 2, 2021 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Redspeeds said: His extensive experience as a player and his previous warnings for FailRP made me give him a warning instead of a verbal. He has 6 weeks of playtime he should know better period So because I play this server alot that makes it ok to warn me for invalid reasons? That's called prejudice. Edited September 2, 2021 by BadTimeInbound Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoovy Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 Accepted After looking through the logs and taking the situation as it is, I'll be accepting this. To have your warn removed, go to the "Bans" Section at the top of the forums, navigate to your profile, find the warning for this appeal, and for the reason on the appeal, link this post. Former SCP:RP Event Team Leader (5/15/19 - 12/31/19) Current SCP:RP Head Administrator "I'll see you on the Dark Side of the Moon" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts