Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2019-11-22, 16:40 WE ARE RECRUITING
Sign in to follow this  
Daddy19RP

G19 Ban Appeal

Recommended Posts

Link to the source of punishment (report/post): 

Why the verdict is not fair: To start off, in my verdict it is said "The OP was completely unaffiliated and acted as a neutral representative as stated in his POV here.". However, this is blatantly not true, and I had pointed this out in my POV which was seemingly ignored here. The OP was directly affiliated with multiple of the people fighting us in the firefight. All going back to a firefight at Lopatino castle where we, as Anarchy interacted with his character, resulting in multiple of our deaths and multiple of there's. In addition to the OP being present there, his boys began bragging about being in that fight when we got up to the prison building. Inside they claimed they would destroy us like the castle again, etc, etc. I find it incredibly hard to believe that the OP is "completely unaffiliated" with men who fought alongside him for weeks in the same official group called "legacy", on the same characters and all. Not only were his claims of non affiliation not backed by any facts or evidence, the staff team handling the report seemingly believed his word over mine, with no evidence, claiming him to be "completely unaffiliated". Not only this but they claim "Hostages may only be killed when the captor in question takes fire from members of the hostages approved group or the hostage's allies which also have to be an approved group." Where in the rule does it say this? The rule states "Approved group of the hostage or their allies refuse to negotiate or open fire on hostage takers.". Keyword here is or, never after the "or" is approved mentioned, nor would it make any sense for it to be mentioned here. Sure, in the report that was linked with Rolle both the group and allies were approved, but it would not have changed the outcome. Rolle's reasoning for the rule change was the loophole it created where your allies could open fire on the hostage takers with no repercussions for the hostage. Seen when he states "This essentially allows any allies to bypass negotiation demands and go straight to shooting and hostage takers would not be able to act upon this since they have no way of determining whether it is the hostages group or their allies shooting at them." Approved or not, the allies of an individual can still open fire here, making the same loophole possible with how the staff team involved have verdicted the report. It is also important to note that the sniper on the mainland was not a "possible sniper on mainland", he ended up hitting people later on and was subsequently taken hostage by our allies. All in all, I feel as the staff team overlooked my POV and took one person's word over another with no facts backing the claim. In addition, they have misquoted a rule and gave it functionality that it does not state in the rulepage, allowing for the very loophole that Rolle intended to stop to be present once more. 

Addition: If the intention in the rule change that Rolle implemented was to make the rule for approved groups and their approved group allies then that should be written in the rule. How can I be banned for a rule that is written incorrectly? I'm not psychic and cannot read the staff team's mind. That is like charging someone for a crime after they put a law into place. If the rule was written wrong, then change it and dont punish people for something that is inherently your own fault. 

Addition 2: The people on the island had been warned for the hostages on mainland that we would execute them if they fired on us. Their response was that they were "collateral damage". This attitude was obviously taken again from the OP's video in the report. 

Additional statements/comments explaining your point of view: N/A

What would you like to achieve with this appeal: Points Removed and Ban removed

What could you have done better?: I could have gone into greater detail in my original POV as to how the man wasn't "completely unaffiliated".

Edit: When the hostage we already had mentioned that "Andy" was coming over, my ally NorwayRP, aka Arri Graham told me that he was the same Andy he has extensively known for a while now, and has supported the resistance, having his license(s) already revoked over it. Hence how we knew IC who he was, and who he was directly affiliated with. 

Edited by G19RP

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, G19RP said:

To start off, in my verdict it is said "The OP was completely unaffiliated and acted as a neutral representative as stated in his POV here.". However, this is blatantly not true, and I had pointed this out in my POV which was seemingly ignored here. The OP was directly affiliated with multiple of the people fighting us in the firefight. All going back to a firefight at Lopatino castle where we, as Anarchy interacted with his character, resulting in multiple of our deaths and multiple of there's. In addition to the OP being present there, his boys began bragging about being in that fight when we got up to the prison building. Inside they claimed they would destroy us like the castle again, etc, etc. I find it incredibly hard to believe that the OP is "completely unaffiliated" with men who fought alongside him for weeks in the same official group called "legacy", on the same characters and all. Not only were his claims of non affiliation not backed by any facts or evidence, the staff team handling the report seemingly believed his word over mine, with no evidence, claiming him to be "completely unaffiliated". Not only this but they claim "Hostages may only be killed when the captor in question takes fire from members of the hostages approved group or the hostage's allies which also have to be an approved group." Where in the rule does it say this? The rule states "Approved group of the hostage or their allies refuse to negotiate or open fire on hostage takers.". Keyword here is or, never after the "or" is approved mentioned, nor would it make any sense for it to be mentioned here.

The hostage who was killed is classed as not affiliated because he is not a member of the attacker approved group, nor an approved group that is marked as an ally of that group. Random people who are not a part of any group cannot be allies. The rule states "Approved group of the hostage or their allies refuse to negotiate or open fire on hostage takers." and those "allies" also need to be an approved group. It's pretty self explanatory since random people who just play together sometimes and are not in a group cannot have alliances.

 

13 hours ago, G19RP said:

Sure, in the report that was linked with Rolle both the group and allies were approved, but it would not have changed the outcome. Rolle's reasoning for the rule change was the loophole it created where your allies could open fire on the hostage takers with no repercussions for the hostage. Seen when he states "This essentially allows any allies to bypass negotiation demands and go straight to shooting and hostage takers would not be able to act upon this since they have no way of determining whether it is the hostages group or their allies shooting at them." Approved or not, the allies of an individual can still open fire here, making the same loophole possible with how the staff team involved have verdicted the report. It is also important to note that the sniper on the mainland was not a "possible sniper on mainland", he ended up hitting people later on and was subsequently taken hostage by our allies. All in all, I feel as the staff team overlooked my POV and took one person's word over another with no facts backing the claim. In addition, they have misquoted a rule and gave it functionality that it does not state in the rulepage, allowing for the very loophole that Rolle intended to stop to be present once more. 

Well not quite. The loophole is not possible because only approved allied groups have that possibility. The rule is there in the first place to prevent hostages getting killed because some random unaffiliated John Rambo decides to play hero and tries to kill the "bad guys", resulting in your death. We don't want compliant hostages to be killed because some random person whom hostage doesn't even know tries to rescue him. That's why hostages may only be killed only when it is their approved group or ally who attack and that's what the rule enforces. The loophole you are talking about is still covered with that definition.

 

13 hours ago, G19RP said:

If the intention in the rule change that Rolle implemented was to make the rule for approved groups and their approved group allies then that should be written in the rule. How can I be banned for a rule that is written incorrectly? I'm not psychic and cannot read the staff team's mind. That is like charging someone for a crime after they put a law into place. If the rule was written wrong, then change it and dont punish people for something that is inherently your own fault. 

The rule is written correctly. Alliances (and wars) are only possible between approved groups. It is not necessary to state the obvious at every single point in the rules. If the rule applied to "random people who hang out with the group" then the rule would say so. I don't think it's our fault for your misunderstanding of importance and meaning meaning behind "an ally" or "alliance".

 

13 hours ago, G19RP said:

The people on the island had been warned for the hostages on mainland that we would execute them if they fired on us. Their response was that they were "collateral damage". This attitude was obviously taken again from the OP's video in the report. 

I don't see how that is relevant? If they thought some random is is not a member of their group is expendable, then that is on them. Nobody is not forced to rescue random unaffiliated players taken hostage.

 

13 hours ago, G19RP said:

What could you have done better?: I could have gone into greater detail in my original POV as to how the man wasn't "completely unaffiliated".

I think what you could have done better is to properly identify the hostage, which would inform you that he is not a member of any approved group and then you would know that rule 4.6 point 4 does not apply in the situation.

 

13 hours ago, G19RP said:

When the hostage we already had mentioned that "Andy" was coming over, my ally NorwayRP, aka Arri Graham told me that he was the same Andy he has extensively known for a while now, and has supported the resistance, having his license(s) already revoked over it. Hence how we knew IC who he was, and who he was directly affiliated with. 

You need to check the persons roster and group affiliation here on the website unfortunately. A lot of rules which involve kill rights and hostages rely on group affiliation. If you are unable to get that information then it is best to be on the safe side and not use any kill rights that may not apply in the situation. Affiliated in the meaning of "he hangs out with them a lot" means nothing when it comes to rules. Also, I would suggest stop being so trigger happy. The hostage posed no threat to the group and there was no reason to kill him, even if he would have been affiliated with the group. Using kill rights when not necessary can be seen as rule break under rule 4.3.

 

You take a person hostage, you fail to properly identify the hostage, you assume he is in approved group of the enemy or allied approved group based on his previous interactions with these groups, based on that assumption you kill him using kill rights you don't have since rule 4.6 point 4 doesn't apply to non-affiliated characters = IK(RP).

Appeal denied.

Signed with @Voodoo, @Rover, @Peril, @Saunders

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...