Re: fun stuff

[Elmo]

So ye this wild ass report has concluded itself and I'm wondering what the GM team's criteria is for determining when people are sticking their face in the fan when it comes to firefights. In the video that the OP linked you can clearly see him and his friend do the following once shots are fired:

• Keep their weapons drawn.
• React to shots and take evasive action
• Put on identifying armbands
• Call for the execution of a member of the defending party
• Start flanking a position of the defending after exclaiming that the defending party opened fire

Its pretty clear that there's zero ignorance in the comms as to what is going on, all of the points above occurred in the last minute of the video and yet none of this was mentioned in the verdict. This was all that was mentioned:

Spoiler

 Why is it all heaped on the defenders when the OP and co. literally ran at them with guns out. Its not as though they were simply in the area or unaware, they were running at what they knew was an engagement and died as a result. Why is the personal responsibility for your own life completely ignored here?

I don't get it so I'd appreciate an explanation from @Rover & @Peril, as you two are the only ones that cannot be involved in the appeal process as you wrote/co-wrote the verdict.

Edit: @Roland with the deepest of respect, if you are unaware of the particulars of the situation, perhaps it is best that I hear from the attending GMs @Rover & @Peril. Assuming that they are now allowed to speak about the matter instead of being told to hold their tongues. Nevertheless, thank you for your personal opinion on the matter.

Edit 2:

Spoiler

Keep their weapons drawn. - Agree. This was the biggest black mark, but in and of itself, given the context of their situation and their actions, does not constitute NVFL nor does it grant kill rights.

Cool, we agree this was a dumb move.

Spoiler

React to shots and take evasive action - This makes sense. They were not involved and had no information, nor did they get any over the radio. They took evasive action to get out of the situation until they were informed.

Incorrect, they ran at shots and @Pepper herself calls for the killing of @KennethRP as well as she calls out that we have opened fire. These are facts that they are clearly aware of or believe to be true. Running at shots in a firefight you are not involved in is classic NVFL.

Spoiler

Put on identifying armbands - This is a merit point. They should have done this. It should have helped prevent them from being MIS-ID'd, but it clearly didn't work.

Could easily be misconstrued as trying to identify themselves to allies so as not to be caught in a crossfire. A small point to be fair but nevertheless an unwise move if you wish to be seen as neutral.

Spoiler

Call for the execution of a member of the defending party - This is not relevant to kill rights, and was not overheard in game so can not be used as justification by Conor and Kordruga to explain their invalid and attempted invalid kills. While it does lend evidence that they were aware of an issue with the Vultures/Kenneths people behind them, it still in and of itself  does not give kill rights. Had they actually had an ally to execute Kenneth, this would have been a rulebreak in and of itself obviously.

It is however relevant to context, as it displays a knowledge of ongoing hostility and thus provides valuable information as to the perspective of our supposed victim. Calling for a kill, assuming all rules are being followed, means you believe you have kill rights. Kill rights are gained through hostile acts, such as opening fire on an ally, which we most certainly did after they initiated on us. This statement from @Pepper proves she was aware of the fight, therefore her actions should be considered in this light. As a Game Master, it is your duty to see things from as many perspectives as possible, to assist in achieving the most just outcome. It seems you were aware of this call and yet it did not taint your overall view on their actions. This confuses me greatly as it is a critical piece of evidence that should decide whether or not they were aware of any armed hostility occurring.

Spoiler

Start flanking a position of the defending after exclaiming that the defending party opened fire - While I understand how this could be viewed as flanking the defenders position, it was viewed by me as trying to get out of the situation. They had already passed the location of the shooting before turning around on seeing Kordruga coming towards them being chased by an infected. If they were flanking, Kordruga should have questioned why they were trying to talk to him instead of shooting him.

There are many small islands that they could have swam to. Furthermore, why do they need to move? If there is true fear of death, put your hands up, nobody will shoot a compliant hostage. Running at shots in a firefight is a surefire way to die, therefore their actions are either negligent or calculated, per my above points, and should be treated accordingly. Of course, Kordruga and Conor should bear responsibility for the invalid kills, though the acts of running towards Kordruga's shots, as he was the first shooter, calling for kills on our people and having guns out the whole time, regardless of whether or not the fight erupted around them, should have made this a much trickier case to deliberate. They can't control the fight, they can however control their actions, and their actions were negligent.

Overall, if I were the GM examining this case, it would be difficult to sell to me that Pepper and Duquesne were unaware of any hostility occurring and should bear absolutely zero responsibility in punitive terms for their own deaths. Of course, I'm gladdened that you are now aware of exigent circumstance punishments being a tool the GM team can use, though to be fair this is a very basic tool that all GMs should be aware of to begin with.

Before signing off, I would like to urge both of you to consider this: in reports, perspective should determine the outcome. Examine all perspectives, leave personal biases aside, look beyond memey PoVs and straight into the facts, do all of these things and you will write much more balanced, fair verdicts. People will still disagree with you but you will have the confidence that you have done your work to the best of your ability, in the fairest way possible.

Thank you both for your replies, I now consider this discussion closed.

Edited October 19, 2019 by APositiveElmo

[Roland]

I personally only see the problem with keeping their weapons in hands. That is a big no-no to me if you are really trying to escape a firefight zone and you're not involved. All the other things you listed can be purely accidental due to trying to get away from the site ASAP and avoiding getting shot.

• React to shots and take evasive action - well I would hope they don't just stop and wait to be shot during a firefight
• Put on identifying armbands - attempt to identify themselves as an external, not an involved party so they don't get shot
• Call for the execution of a member of the defending party - that's surely metagaming? Nobody during firefight can possibly know that these two are involved in some kind of decision making on their radio while running away from the firefight
• Start flanking a position of the defending after exclaiming that the defending party opened fire - that could be purely to try and escape the area. It's logical to not run straight into the direction where the shots are coming from, but flank around instead.

I have no clue about the actual situation, but that's my take based on what you've written. In the end all kills must be justified with valid kill rights. If there are no kill rights, the kill is invalid. Even if the person is NVFLing by intentionally running around the firefight area, risking their life. One rule break does not justify another.

[Rover]

Now that appeals are done, I'm comfortable answering the query.

 

It was fairly straight forwards to determine the rule break. Did @Kordruga or @Conor have kill rights on Pepper and Duquesne? No they did not. That makes the kills invalid.

The next thing to be addressed, were the actions of @Duquesne and @Pepper enough to be considered NVFL? No, they were not. I'll explain that below.

 

Duquesne and Pepper did not run into an active firefight. The active firefight started around them.

We have a clear video that shows this. In the video if you watch it, you will hear at 4:15 gunfire from in front of Duquesne and Pepper, and from behind them. Watching the video you see he dips left and runs down the hill towards the water, not towards  either of the two immediate areas of gunfire behind him or in front of him. Knowing that they had potential 'enemies' behind them, Pepper and Duquesne went in the opposite direction of the known enemies in an effort to uninvolve themselves from the situation and figure out what was going on.

It is worth noting that at the point they run into Kordruga he is being chased down the hill towards them by infected and they have already run past his position, which lends more evidence to them not running directly at the gunfire. Neither one raised their weapons, and they greeted him with words and were met with bullets. Its also worth noting Duquesne was wearing a green armband, which is not the color of the people that initiated.

 

To address the points:

• Keep their weapons drawn. - Agree. This was the biggest black mark, but in and of itself, given the context of their situation and their actions, does not constitute NVFL nor does it grant kill rights.
• React to shots and take evasive action - This makes sense. They were not involved and had no information, nor did they get any over the radio. They took evasive action to get out of the situation until they were informed.
• Put on identifying armbands - This is a merit point. They should have done this. It should have helped prevent them from being MIS-ID'd, but it clearly didn't work.
• Call for the execution of a member of the defending party - This is not relevant to kill rights, and was not overheard in game so can not be used as justification by Conor and Kordruga to explain their invalid and attempted invalid kills. While it does lend evidence that they were aware of an issue with the Vultures/Kenneths people behind them, it still in and of itself  does not give kill rights. Had they actually had an ally to execute Kenneth, this would have been a rulebreak in and of itself obviously.
• Start flanking a position of the defending after exclaiming that the defending party opened fire - While I understand how this could be viewed as flanking the defenders position, it was viewed by me as trying to get out of the situation. They had already passed the location of the shooting before turning around on seeing Kordruga coming towards them being chased by an infected. If they were flanking, Kordruga should have questioned why they were trying to talk to him instead of shooting him.

 

 

As Roland stated above, running around with guns out is the only fault I could assign in the situation to Pepper and Duquesne. However people have been misconstruing and trying to strawman this situation to other examples in the past, and I feel that is where most of the confusion has come from. It was my belief that the pair of them made a good faith effort to remove themselves from the active engagement. They were not loitering around the firefight, did not run back towards the known hostiles, and did not start shooting without ID'ing their targets.

This was a difficult verdict and situation. There is clearly a lot of OOC animosity involved in this situation, and a past history of it between certain community members in the report. These are not things that were taken into consideration during the verdicting process, but I am sure this played heavily into the turmoil this verdict has caused within the community. While it boils down to a simple question of 'Did they have rights?' there is obviously a lot of context in the situation. It is easy for us  to digest and process in hindsight with video evidence, but is much more difficult to process on the fly in the game. There was a very robust internal discourse about this particular verdict, and in the end we ruled it as we did.

 

The only regret I have is that I did not know beforehand I was allowed to reduce punishments below those shown in the standard punishment section. I would have 100% considered it due to the extenuating nature of this verdict if I had a second chance to take a crack at it. That is something I have learned about this situation through the appeals process, and I will carry that forwards.

 

I hope this helps to clear things up.

[Peril]

Just for posterity's sake, I'd like to write here that Elmo and I have discussed the report, verdict, and appeals privately.

Thanks again for reaching out, and I'd encourage anyone else with questions to do the same.