CERT Commander Kevin Report- Accepted

[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: Happened again, during a raid one of our players shot kev exhcanged shots etc, then went to collect printers meanwhile 4 other players we standing a the front while the player pulled out a barrett during a active raid, then immedietly inv holstered it, as it was a active situation and he died this ensenuates that he has broken FAILRP and needs a second barrett destroyed no need for a warn.

Evidence (required):  https://gyazo.com/09bdd4119cf0bd49bd3ad08e8d0be404 https://gyazo.com/0357784abbedf32adcb2493da230245c

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

Any extra information: 

Edited September 1, 2022 by Bartholomew

[K e v]

 

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 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 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!

(Same reply as the other one)

 

[Foo]

Alright, time to give my thoughts on this. I have had a decent amount of interactions with Kitty and Jack (while all 3 might be in the same family) there were no other admins on, nor do I think Kitty or Jack would biased due to being in the same family. I due think there is still some problems here. I was there for the first situation that this happened in and can confirm  that it was mostly reflex, regardless of that, he could've still pulled it back out and continued. The second situation I'm a bit confused about but I still get the general idea. It seems like gov was raiding a base and shots were being exchanged, kev pulled out the barret again and didn't hit or kill anyone, once a pause in the fight happened (someone grabbing the money from all their printers) they put it away, I feel like this report is more valid due to this situation. Do I feel like this is a reason to remove a barret? Techinically yes due to the fact both of them happened in the middle of a situation. Do I feel like there was any bias? Fuck no, I've had lots of interactions with Kitty and Jack and never have had anything with  bias. The first situation happened in-game and was dealt with by giving a verbal. It's not as if I don't also reflex /invholster a barret too, I don't think any action other then a verbal about should be given out about this. 

Please correct me if I made a mistake
Foo

[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]

5 hours ago, Cammy said:

- 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  

in this situation the player did die but he 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

[Dry]

-support

I don't know why your digging further into this. Honestly a valid mistake. Starting to look like player targeting and is becoming petty. 

[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

[Bartholomew]

1 hour ago, Dry said:

-support

I don't know why your digging further into this. Honestly a valid mistake. Starting to look like player targeting and is becoming petty. 

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

Why? First off. If there is no active combat (i.e shooting you) againest a player during a raid,etc then you could in fact invholster since you are not at all being shot or killed and they have ran away. Next I believe you should not just create a separate forum on the same player, just edit your original post you made earlier last night about this.  (Theres also a lot more reasoning on his original post for my opinion in this)

Edited September 1, 2022 by MiniEpic

[Mr Yobo]

8 hours ago, Cammy said:

- 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  

Couldn't of put it better myself

[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

4 hours ago, Bartholomew said:

in this situation the player did die but he 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.

 

[Phil]

Accepted! Thank you for the report. Appropriate action against the player and or staff member will be taken to ensure that they receive the correct punishment.