Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2019-11-19, 19:03
Sign in to follow this  
Conor

Killing two combatants during a firefight

Recommended Posts

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

Why the verdict is not fair: Throughout this whole situation it is clear to me that @Duquesne and @Pepper do nothing in order to distance themselves from the situation that they claim they want no part in and instead do the opposite. They put themselves in harms way and do every thing that people in this community are discouraged from doing if they find themselves in the middle of a gunfight that does not involve them. They run around with their weapons out, deliberately running towards shots whilst knowing that since they have not been initiated on they are technically protected by the rules. Using the rules regarding hostilities as armour to be protected is a prime example of ruleplay. Watching the video of the OP it seems pretty clear to me that they know they are protected by the rules, from the way that they sprint around with their weapons out after the gunfight begins. They know they personally have not been initiated on and seem to believe that due to that, they are untouchable and can do whatever they want.

Additional statements/comments explaining your point of view: In this situation I killed two people. @Pepper and @Duquesne. I might not have had any legitimate rights on them in accordance with the rules but let us examine the facts.

I killed the two of them shortly after they had been engaged by @Kordruga. I did not have radio contact with him since he had been killed. All I know in and out of character is that he had been in the trees near me, firing north at people near the castle. He is then silent on the radio as a hail of gunfire ring out from the area I had last seen him. As I approach I do not see him but see a man and a woman running away, with their weapons out, whilst the woman exclaims out loud something along the lines of "I'm hit" (After reviewing the video from the OP of the report it appears she was actually saying "I hit, I hit.", confirming or celebrating the fact she had shot somebody). I have no way of knowing that they do not wish to be involved in the situation. As far as I am concerned they have just gunned down the leader of my group in an active firefight.

When the firefight began they were both aware of this. Both of them decided to keep their weapons in their hands in the middle of an active firefight and run towards one of the many sources of gunfire. This is something that they admit to in the report. The OP states in his PoV: "I go towards the shots".

In the PoV from the OP he says that they ran towards the shots thinking they originated from a friend of his who they could question as to what was happening in this situation. I do not quite understand this as throughout the whole situation (as evidenced in the video from the OP) he was in radio contact with his group, even asking at this timestamp "Who the fuck opened fire?" - They did not need to run towards gunshots during a firefight in order to ask their friends what was going on. They had radio contact with their friends.

The OP of the report puts an armband on to "Not get hit in the crossfire". This armband is a green armband. The same colour armband as the man who initiated on @AndreyQ earlier this session who we as a group still had defender rights on.

In the video from the OP at this timestamp you can hear @Pepper saying "Shoot the fucking hobo."  -  The hobo she refers to is @KennethRP who had become a captive. She claims she is not involved in the situation at all however she gets herself involved by giving orders for a member of our group who had been unarmed since his arrival on the island to be executed.

In this situation I believe everybody in my position would have opened fire. The OP and his friend put themselves in harms way despite having numerous opportunities to actually get away from the situation and properly show that they are not a part of it, but they did not. They used the rules to feel protected and dance around in the middle of a firefight when they are well aware of what is happening and when they are killed, they post a report and claim ignorance of the situation.

 

_______

 

To me this verdict gives a bad example for any community member on how to act in a firefight. It shows that if you are caught up in a firefight, you can just run towards shots with your weapon out and not worry. The rules are there to protect you. If you are not involved you will have to be initiated on first, despite the fact your appearance makes you look like a combatant.

What would you like to achieve with this appeal: Ban and points removed.

What could you have done better?: A: Positively identify the fact that the two people who I was about to engage were in-fact not wishing to be involved in the situation and were hoping the rules would protect them from death, despite them running towards gunshots with their weapons out as well as calling for an unarmed member of my group to be executed. 

B: Get a better group leader who can secure two kills with ease so I do not have to do it.

Share this post


Link to post

Hello @Conor

A separate team of staff have looked over your appeal and have come to the decision to reduce the points that were given from 10 to 5, as well as removing the remainder of your ban. The reasoning for this is as follows:

@Duquesne and @Pepper run towards gunfire with their weapons drawn. They claim to be looking for the source of the shots, trying to figure out what is going on. Tension on the island was already high, and both @Duquesne and @Pepper were aware that it was highly likely hostilities were imminent. @Duquesne and @Pepper, if you did not wish to engage in hostilities taking place, or needed to figure out what was going on, it is recommended to:

Spoiler

 

Holster your weapon immediately - this shows you are of no threat to any hostiles, and are less likely to be confused for someone involved in the firefight.

Leave the area - Do not approach gunshots, try to determine their location and avoid getting any closer. Try to seek cover or shelter in a building, away from the firefight and radio your comrades to determine what is happening.

Raise your hands in surrender/Raise one hand to show you are not a threat - Raising one or both arms shows you are unarmed and unwilling to partake in the firefight at hand, it shows your innocence & will avoid you being a target. Raising only one hand will allow you to leave the area more quickly and let you also use your radio to contact your allies to figure out the situation. 

 

Once you can determine the source of the shots, and who is actually under attack - then you may rejoin the firefight with a clearer view of the situation, providing you have gained the correct attacker/defender rights, or plan on initiating.

@Conor In this situation your ally miss identifies two individuals as hostiles of yours and as a firefight begins to break out between you and them your ally dies, you then proceed to kill two enemies in question. As the two players you killed were a result of a rule break, your kills will still be deemed invalid. However, as tensions were extremely high and a firefight was imminent the staff team have decided to rule this in your favour as we believe that although your ally miss identified your targets, they could have done a much better job to not identify themselves as hostiles.

Signed by @Saunders + @Randy

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...