Nevada - False Warn Appeal

[KLONDU]

2. Your In-game:

Vice Sovereign Sun Tzu

3. Your SteamID: 

STEAM_0:1:497585588

4. The admin's name in-game:

Nevada

5. The admin's steam name (If you know it):

Dont Know

6. What warning did you receive:

RDM

7. Evidence of the warn (REQUIRED):

Uploaded below

8. Why do you think this warn was false:

I don't believe this is RDM, as the offending player attacked me first.

Using a passive force power such as Force Slow on someone does not initiate combat. It never has, as proven by this report I made a while back, where an SMT member stated it does not: Frog Stating that Force Slow does not initiate combat Frog in fact stated that I initiated the combat in that particular instance for attacking the player that force slowed me. In the sit video i will post on this appeal, Starch claims that I initiated the combat by using force slow, and that he was reacting to my combat by using lightning strike, which is not true, as stated by SMT.

In this situation, I used it properly in an attempt to defend brig, as stated in Royal Guard SOP:

• "The brig belongs to Shock, if there is no Shock on, then we could send a RG down to guard it so that no unauthorized personnel can enter."

There was no shock guarding brig at that point in time, nor were there any remotely near it, which allowed for me to defend brig under my SOP. My intent here, as shown in the video, was not to hurt him or kill him in any way. The force slow allowed me to get to the door, as it was my original plan to body block and call for shock, I did not pull my saber or any offensive force powers until starch attacked me.

You may ask, "why were you following him in the first place?" My answer is this: I was following starch, as he had an active AOS on him for trespassing in bridge, and my intent was to monitor his movements so I could report them to shock, so that starch could be arrested.

After my use of Force Slow, Starch used Lightning strike, which is a non-passive force power, and did damage to me, which is also stated in the RG SOP that I can then kill him for:

• "If someone happens to shoot you while you are not guarding a VIP, you may kill them but if guarding one, let the higher RG or SHG kill that person unless been instructed to yourself."

 

9. Any extra information:

I would like to add that in this particular situation, Starch was intentionally trying to minge on the server and get people in trouble. He was running into areas he, as former Grand General, should know are off limits to him while on his CC. He was also Micspamming, as seen in one of my clips, which as a former staff member he should know is unacceptable. He was also intentionally being abrasive in the sit to try to get a reaction out of me. 

Clips Below: 

https://imgur.com/a/pZTDGt0 - The entire incident, as it happened. I wish to be completely transparent.

https://youtu.be/WFXVqPeGmKo - MOST of the sit regarding this Issue, I was unable to capture the whole thing with my capture software.
 

 

[Bon]

@Nevada

[SawickM]

+Support 

In all honesty Starch got on the server to minge a bunch evident by the fact he was banned for MRDM shortly after this interaction. Although the actions Sun Tzu took were a bit extreme for a trespasser in brig Starch did attack him doesn’t matter if it was “self defense” for being force slowed, an ability that doesn’t harm the player mind you, it’s still a policy in RG to kill someone who deliberately attacks you even if you instigated the interaction within reason of course ie. Bodyblocking, standing off, or warning (at least that was the policy when I was a shadow guard IV.) 

I can say with no reasonable doubt that had Sun Tzu not been knocked back by the force lightning Starch would have continued to damage Sun Tzu until he died. All this is completely arbitrary since Starch was actively breaking rules and RDMing people. Also the way starch is speaking in the sit is entirely out of line and immature holding a rank you no longer possess over someone’s head in an effort to belittle and demean is not only rude it’s very cringe aswell. 

In conclusion I propose that Klondu have this warn removed and Starch should be retroactively warned for NITRP and FailRP due to him trespassing and using force abilities to evade being arrested.  

[JackForPrez]

No Support 

I was called over to the Sit, I would like to say that you both in the sit were acting inappropriately. You were talking over each other and being generally argumentative with each other. This is one of the main reasons why a formal warning was chosen. You were running after Mommie (Starch), you then followed him into Brig. You then Force Slowed him, He Force Lightninged you, Then you Force Choked him and Killed him (Might not of used force choke but you killed him). This was blown way out of proportion. At the start of the Sit you were just talking about Following him, you then later claimed you were allowed to guard it in your SOP. You appeared to pull this out after you were challenged on it and this was not your original intention, it also states that "If there are no Shock on". You were both behaving Childishly. 
 

@Starch

[KLONDU]

12 minutes ago, JackForPrez said:

No Support 

I was called over to the Sit, I would like to say that you both in the sit were acting inappropriately. You were talking over each other and being generally argumentative with each other. This is one of the main reasons why a formal warning was chosen. You were running after Mommie (Starch), you then followed him into Brig. You then Force Slowed him, He Force Lightninged you, Then you Force Choked him and Killed him (Might not of used force choke but you killed him). This was blown way out of proportion. At the start of the Sit you were just talking about Following him, you then later claimed you were allowed to guard it in your SOP. You appeared to pull this out after you were challenged on it and this was not your original intention, it also states that "If there are no Shock on". You were both behaving Childishly. 
 

@Starch

I would like to point out that you essentially just admitted that this warn was completely erroneous, as I was warned not on a basis of pure fact in RDM, but because I was being "too argumentative" also, if that's the case, why was starch not also warned for ARDM? All you did was "talk to him" while I got another formal warn on my record. Personally, that sounds kinda biased.

I'm sorry that I'm not the greatest at coming up with defenses on the spot, but when you come up against someone like starch, who is former high command, and is very comfortable throwing his weight around, I'm bound to sound a bit argumentative in my response. 

That is why I am placing this formal appeal up is because this is a WAY better thought out defense of my actions than I ever could have provided you in the sit at that moment.

[Jaeger.]

+ Support 

+ Feel like this would be more of contacting Inquisitorius High Command rather than staff

+ Cant really get warned for RDM When he never started the fight as it was starch who attacked attack him ( Force slow doesn't count as attacking or Engaging especially when someone has trespassed ) 

+ Should been given a Verbal warn because at this point when both members are being childish I would just suggest ending the sit in future reference and have JMT spectate them both when the site has ended. 

- You Cant really use guarding brig as your defense as you followed him in, I Would say if you were actively guarding brig, it would be fine but you weren't. 

Overall Both Members ended up in the wrong, Starting with starch but the way Klondu handled it is extremely childish and also a poor look for a Royal Guard command member. 

[Theta]

+ Mega Support

- "But where does it say you can kill me?" - Starch
This line grinds my gears. As a former member of HC and Command Representative at that, Starch should know better. If we included every finite detail within SOPs such as stating "you may guard brig AND kill trespassers" then our documents would be miles long. If someone is able to guard a location, I'd say its heavily implied (if not common knowledge) that said individual can kill (or arrest, if within their abilities) any violators of that location's policies (in this instance, Brig, which has a very clear trespassing line which Starch very clearly should know about). Furthermore, Starch as a whole, should know better than to just walk into brig on a CC and should be aware of the consequences of said action. (Also Starch, where does it say that you can force lightning someone? Shouldn't you have just called someone to force Sun Tzu to move?)

- Force Slow deals zero damage, which makes being force slowed not a combative action. For Starch to retaliate with force lightning was him initiating combat, as he was dealt no damage, nor put in harms way in any way by Sun Tzu before this. What did Starch expect after harming someone using a force power? That he was just gonna walk away and continue his minging spree?

- Starch referencing his prior rank, does not strike me as holding his rank over someone's head. However, since resignation, he should know documents could have changed. Furthermore, the words "enforce them as I see it" strike me as him pretty much admitting that he can/could/would enforce them how he personally interpreted them (whichever way suits him best in his situation), rather than how they're meant to be interpreted. I will also tack on that the way Starch speaks and conducts himself in the sit is rather out of line.

- He was banned for MRDM tonight as well. This shows to me that his intentions were not to be constructive, but destructive. It shows a recent HC and Admin no longer caring about the rules once they do not apply. For this reason, I wholeheartedly advocate for the warn to be removed. I do not agree with the above sentiment for a retroactive warn for FailRP and NITRP; rather I would issue one for NITRP and ARDM.

 

 

2 hours ago, KLONDU said:

starch, who is former high command, and is very comfortable throwing his weight around

This is what I refer to when I say his tone was out of line.

[JackForPrez]

Now that calmer heads have prevailed you’ve explained your side in a lot greater depth and perhaps last night would have gone differently. You were very frustrated and weren’t really providing backing to your claim. As at one point when a point was brought up by Starch, you then retracted a statement you said prior about having a Clip saying it was on Starch (Paraphrased but you get the Idea). Overall, I still believe it was something that could of been warned for as a Force Power. However, a formal warning may have been reconsidered by Navada if this had been made clear. However, I fully stand by how Navada acted at the time. I also think this could have been better handled by both of you for future I recommend you avoid each other.

[Zabuza]

8 hours ago, SawickM said:

+Support 

In all honesty Starch got on the server to minge a bunch evident by the fact he was banned for MRDM shortly after this interaction. Although the actions Sun Tzu took were a bit extreme for a trespasser in brig Starch did attack him doesn’t matter if it was “self defense” for being force slowed, an ability that doesn’t harm the player mind you, it’s still a policy in RG to kill someone who deliberately attacks you even if you instigated the interaction within reason of course ie. Bodyblocking, standing off, or warning (at least that was the policy when I was a shadow guard IV.) 

I can say with no reasonable doubt that had Sun Tzu not been knocked back by the force lightning Starch would have continued to damage Sun Tzu until he died. All this is completely arbitrary since Starch was actively breaking rules and RDMing people. Also the way starch is speaking in the sit is entirely out of line and immature holding a rank you no longer possess over someone’s head in an effort to belittle and demean is not only rude it’s very cringe aswell. 

In conclusion I propose that Klondu have this warn removed and Starch should be retroactively warned for NITRP and FailRP due to him trespassing and using force abilities to evade being arrested.  

I agree with everything stated in this +support. I would of done the same thing as Klondu in this situation he handled it correctly until the sit.

[KLONDU]

3 hours ago, JackForPrez said:

As at one point when a point was brought up by Starch, you then retracted a statement you said prior about having a Clip saying it was on Starch.

I didn't provide evidence in the sit because:

A. As you stated, I was frustrated. And 

B. It was more an act of defiance to starch, as I felt that since he made the sit, he should provide evidence first, as it should always fall on the accuser to provide evidence of wrongdoing, and not the defense to provide evidence for the defense.

 

[Akeru]

+support bad starch

[JackForPrez]

6 hours ago, KLONDU said:

I didn't provide evidence in the sit because:

A. As you stated, I was frustrated. And 

B. It was more an act of defiance to starch, as I felt that since he made the sit, he should provide evidence first, as it should always fall on the accuser to provide evidence of wrongdoing, and not the defense to provide evidence for the defense.

 

I do agree it should be on starch, however if we only see one side it can provide a limited view. (It was more just an example)

[Rivian Galaxy]

Forums Diplomat Message
Please cease the arguing
Please keep responses to only +/- support
 

[Bon]

ACCEPTED

To get the warn removed, navigate to the 'Bans' button at the top. Once you have the ban panel up, select 'profile', then click 'appeal' next to the warn that is needing to be removed. For the reason, enter the link to this topic!