CERT Commander Kevin Player report- Denied

[Bartholomew]

Your in-game name: Bartholomew

The player's in-game name: Kevin

The player's steam ID (required): STEAM_0:1:531081190

What did the player do: during a gen store, player Kevin pulled out a Barrett, shot me, and immediately inv-holstered it. Then called over the radio about how I (Bartholomew) was one shot. then ran inside and gunned me down. Made a sit he called it a "force of habit" but I reckon someone who's a department head and has 3 weeks of playtime wouldn't accidentally do that.

Evidence (required): https://gyazo.com/b872e2fb16497a3156c5935436636e40

What do you believe should happen to the player: destroy the Barrett? 

Any extra information: both UMC members jack and kitty took the report since no other staff was on. Thought the staff was biased since both were UMC and the player reported was in UMC.

Edited September 1, 2022 by Bartholomew

[Dry]

edit:

-support

It was handled in game. Could never see kitty being biased no matter who it is. Man just got super admin and honestly not cool to throw around the "biased" words. 

Man was verbally warned. Kev has no warns to his name and it was an honest mistake.

Plus if your going to report someone on this, you can't turn a blind eye to others. We see the same stuff happen all the time, and in all honesty if you hold true to the rules and think individuals that do this should have there Barret destroyed, I best see you report more people on this more often because we both know we both see this more often then not. (I'm sure most of the people who are going to reply to it do it also.)

Honestly think you should have left it at that. 

Edited September 1, 2022 by Dry
realized you reported for barret destroyed and not a warn.

[Calamity]

1 minute ago, Dry said:

+support I guess

but as a legitimate question, what rule does that fall under because I don’t see it. Maybe I just glanced over it.

+ Support

 

Inventorying a Barrett is failrp as I heard since getting back into the swing of things so this adds up.

[Bartholomew]

player did it, again in a different scenario during a active raid situation further ensentuating that its not a accident.

https://gyazo.com/09bdd4119cf0bd49bd3ad08e8d0be404

https://gyazo.com/0357784abbedf32adcb2493da230245c

[K e v]

1 hour ago, Bartholomew said:

player did it, again in a different scenario during a active raid situation further ensentuating that its not a accident.

https://gyazo.com/09bdd4119cf0bd49bd3ad08e8d0be404

https://gyazo.com/0357784abbedf32adcb2493da230245c

Alright!

After reading this report i've come to this conclusion.
  
In the first scene like I said earlier, it was an honest mistake. After shooting and hitting you with my barret I always put my gun away because it's an habit. I always do it because usually a shot of barret kills the opponent but in your case it didn't. Of course I do get your point and to my eyes it is Valid but what bothers me is the fact that I never died so what could it have changed anyway? No matter what I would've still kept the gun because I never died before the second incident. Like I said it's an honest mistake, I have 0 warns and I'm not trying to get myself in trouble in any way, shape or form. 

In the second scene, I pulled out the barret for 10 seconds and never engaged anyone, after putting myself in line I realized that using a sniper might not be the best option for this kind of raid. I then pulled it back into my inventory and got my spas, after trying to go into the base, I noticed a strong enemy force right in front of me. After noticing that SRT got shot and died i put myself back in line and then died to Techy who shot me. In this scene I'd say your point is more valid but once again i never engaged anyone with it when it was out and I had it out for 10 seconds. In this case, it would not bother to destroy the barret in respect even tho I think pulling it out and back in for 10 seconds didn't really change the course of event of this scene. 

For the part with Kitty and Jack, I understand that we all are in the same family but I haven't really played on crime recently (1 or 2 times in a month maybe) and me and Kitty only talk when there is situations that needs to be dealt with HC wise. Honestly I don't really talk to Jack so I don't really get how he could've been unfair, we barely know each other. I think both of the staff members were fair. 

In conclusion, I think destroying the barret for the first scene makes no absolute sense but for the second one it makes more sense even tho it was only out for less than 15 seconds. If this report gets accepted I will delete the barret without a problem but I won't go without giving my side of the story on this!

Thank you!

Edited September 1, 2022 by Kev in

[Cammy]

- Support

Kevin did not die and admits it was a accident, the fact that he did not die means he would not of lost the Barret anyway, I would understand if he done it and then died then yes 100% he should destroy it, however he did not so he should not lose 15 mill on a accident that he would still have anyway even if he did not die. on the point of bias I would not think Kitty or even Jack would do that with Kitty being a SA again now. at this point it just seems really petty from you as he has apologised and knows not to do it again  

[Bartholomew]

13 hours ago, Dry said:

edit:

-support

It was handled in game. Could never see kitty being biased no matter who it is. Man just got super admin and honestly not cool to throw around the "biased" words. 

Man was verbally warned. Kev has no warns to his name and it was an honest mistake.

Plus if your going to report someone on this, you can't turn a blind eye to others. We see the same stuff happen all the time, and in all honesty if you hold true to the rules and think individuals that do this should have there Barret destroyed, I best see you report more people on this more often because we both know we both see this more often then not. (I'm sure most of the people who are going to reply to it do it also.)

Honestly think you should have left it at that. 

despite him not having died, he still did inv holster it mid combat.

this report is valid as of August 17th, Beans made a report on cuke for almost a indentical situation where the player was forced to remove his barrett despite the player not having died.

Edited September 1, 2022 by Bartholomew

[Lime King]

+Support

-I think its been made SUPER clear in previous situations that you CANNOT inv holster any guns until the entire situation is code 4. That also applies to switching your tactics in case the sniper is too close. Everyone that has done this before was had it destroyed to keep it fair.
-Never inv holster anything until its code 4. 
-No warn needed just destroy barrett  

[[GL]MyanDaBeast]

+/-Support

-It is true you cannot invholster a weapon during a situation, definitely wait till its code 4.

- As for calling out the staff members bias, really? I've known kitty for a long time and she's never been biased. Jack, from what I know, took the sit because he was only staff member available. 

-For the barret, if Kev did not die in the situation then it wouldn't make sense to destroy it. 

[Bailey Zappe]

This seems extremely petty considering he didn’t die in the situation, and now that you’ve made two threads on it, seems more like you just have personal beef with him you need to figure out. 
 

-support

[soup95]

+/-

just like im so confused like ima just put this here

1 hour ago, [GL]MyanDaBeast said:

+/-Support

-It is true you cannot invholster a weapon during a situation, definitely wait till its code 4.

- As for calling out the staff members bias, really? I've known kitty for a long time and she's never been biased. Jack, from what I know, took the sit because he was only staff member available. 

-For the barret, if Kev did not die in the situation then it wouldn't make sense to destroy it. 

 

[Bartholomew]

16 minutes ago, Respecter of Women Big Ben said:

This seems extremely petty considering he didn’t die in the situation, and now that you’ve made two threads on it, seems more like you just have personal beef with him you need to figure out. 
 

-support

both reports I was personally involved with in the same day, he came to both tac situations, thats his fault for breaking the rules, not mine.

[MiniEpic]

-Support 

So yes I understand he has invholstered now please look at the seconds in the logs you are provided as a staff member! He invholstered approx 15 seconds after he killed you not immediately after he killed you.  He never died at the same scene also so he tech can still have it.

17 hours ago, Bartholomew said:

Made a sit he called it a "force of habit" but I reckon someone who's a department head and has 3 weeks of playtime wouldn't accidentally do that.

Sorry, people make mistakes. I do not know why your basing him off being the highest rank in a department with 3 weeks on the server? Not everything is based off of that. EVERYONE makes mistakes and you do to.

 

17 hours ago, Bartholomew said:

both UMC members jack and kitty took the report since no other staff was on. Thought the staff was biased since both were UMC and the player reported was in UMC.

I understand your reasoning with this now its very bold claim to make that a super admin is bias off a situation based off family. Now hearing Kevin's side he doesn't even think its bias for following: 

14 hours ago, Kev in said:

For the part with Kitty and Jack, I understand that we all are in the same family but I haven't really played on crime recently (1 or 2 times in a month maybe) and me and Kitty only talk when there is situations that needs to be dealt with HC wise. Honestly I don't really talk to Jack so I don't really get how he could've been unfair, we barely know each other. I think both of the staff members were fair. 

So yeah. Now the first one makes no sense in my opinion same with the second one. I think this is just very petty and should be dealt with in game and not brought to forums. You are reporting a player for invholstering a barrett which can be failrp and a warn but you are insiting on a destroying of a barrett. Just seems super petty and I think in history of everyone they have done this once not being brought to the forums but just a talk to by staff or even a warn!!!!!

[Kitty.]

Hello, thought id just leave my side,

Was a message in admin chat asking for a second opinion on a sit. I left it about 5 minutes to see if any of the admins online would take it, however, they were busy taking sits. I took the sit without any prior knowledge to what the sit was about. I got there, and asked what had happened. It was explained to me that Kev had shot at Barth with a Barrett, invholstered the barret out of muscle memory and then killed Barth. Kev did do damage to Barth with the barett which would have shown up as a hitmarker, so the holstering part accidentally was something I could very easily see happening. 

Most importantly, Kev did not die in this scenario, so him having the barett in his hotbar or not renders no difference in the outcome. Whilst it would be failrp to invholster the weapon, I believe it was an honest mistake given the hitmarker and down to human error of muscle memory. As mentioned in the sit, I did say if Kev did die he would be forced to destroy the weapon. 

 

That was my opinion which I gave to the staff member at the time, who decided to use my opinion and not to warn Kev.

[Jon Shoeshiner]

-Support 
Super Admins an high staff are so unlikely to be biased.
Why did you post it twice?
* removed invalid section *
Why would he destroy it if he killed you and didn't die*

*edit

Edited September 1, 2022 by Jon Shoeshiner

[beansbutbeans]

-support different situation also have the orgininal player make the report (if he feels that thier should be a report) instead of using your staff powers to look at logs and make a report also since there is no log for when combat ended with the thief or why the thief even started combat i believe the actual player may have been trying to ardm since he has so few hours on the server

3 hours ago, Bartholomew said:

despite him not having died, he still did inv holster it mid combat.

this report is valid as of August 17th, Beans made a report on cuke for almost a indentical situation where the player was forced to remove his barrett despite the player not having died.

 

[Trumpo]

5 hours ago, Lime King said:

+Support

-I think its been made SUPER clear in previous situations that you CANNOT inv holster any guns until the entire situation is code 4. That also applies to switching your tactics in case the sniper is too close. Everyone that has done this before was had it destroyed to keep it fair.
-Never inv holster anything until its code 4. 
-No warn needed just destroy barrett  

Well said

[Clarkie]

8 hours ago, Lime King said:

+Support

-I think its been made SUPER clear in previous situations that you CANNOT inv holster any guns until the entire situation is code 4. That also applies to switching your tactics in case the sniper is too close. Everyone that has done this before was had it destroyed to keep it fair.
-Never inv holster anything until its code 4. 
-No warn needed just destroy barrett  

Really well said.  Thing that gets me is stated how its habit to put barret away after shooting it rather than confirming the kill before holstering it

[Aaron Faustin]

+ / - Support.

I truly do see both sides to this. Rules were broken, However there are also mitigating factors that decide if the punishment is anywhere from a verbal warning to the maximum punishment of a warn and barret destruction.

 

In this case i believe Kev was being honest about it being muscle memory. With that being said I think we should still set a precedent on how this should be handled. and in my opinion (trying to be as unbiased as possible) Kev should have his barret removed but not be given a warning. It should not be muscle memory to inv holster a barret. It needs to be clear that there is a risk when using a barret. We need to uphold this risk. Even though Kev won the fight and their was very little chance that he would have lost after the barret shot, I still think the precedent needs to be set here so people understand the risk of pulling out a barret. Anyone can and will lie and use this as an excuse in the future if their isn't some sort of consequence.

 

As for the staff bias, I just don't see it. You can't say, "Because they were in the same family, there was bias." Sure there is always going to be a minute amount of unconscious bias. But even if there was, 1. It can't be proved and 2. It likely wouldn't effect the outcome in this scenario. I don't think you should toss those words around a respected staff member very lightly.

 

Conclusion: I believe the barret should be destroyed purely out of setting a precedent that more care needs to be taken by players when it comes to barrets and inv holstering them. A line needs to be drawn, and i personally believe this is where to draw it.

[Phil]

Denied. Due to a lack of evidence, or for no rules or guidelines being broken by the staff and or player, no action will be taken against them.