Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2019-12-12, 18:04 WE ARE RECRUITING
Sign in to follow this  
Ryan Shepherd

False Report & 2.4

Recommended Posts

Server and location: N/A

Approximate time and date of the incident (SERVER TIME): N/A

Your in game name: Ryan Shepherd

Names of allies involved: The Trade Union Dynamic

Name of suspect/s: @Burak

Friendly/Enemy vehicles involved (if any): N/A

Additional evidence? (video/screenshot): N/A

Detailed description of the events: 

Hello Roleplayers.

https://www.dayzrp.com/forums/topic/100554-s1-grishino-constant-attacks-44-and-23/

In the above, @Burak reports The Trade Union for 2.3.

Quote

2.3 Be a good sport. Do not focus on PvP aspect of the game and attack everything that moves just because you can or are good at it. Remember that not many players will enjoy being constantly attacked, therefore you should not dominate other groups or players into submission to a point where they can no longer accomplish their regular role play or enjoy the game.

He claims that The Trade Union attacked them 3 times rendering them defenceless and ruining their roleplay experience, however the truth be told, I asked him the following:

Spoiler

  On 11/1/2019 at 7:11 PM, Ryan Shepherd said:

Did Grishino and its allies initiate on @Challenger outside the front gates of Grishino while he was simply looting? Yes/No.

Did Grishino and its allies initiate on @OxeN while he was in the airfield, rolling on him 15 (approx) people strong and initiate on him? Yes/No.

After refusing to answer the above report changing questions a grand total of 4 times, why you ask? Because he knew that they themselves were the instigators to the entire events that unfolded. I requested admins to make him amswer the questions, he then admits:

Spoiler

Both simple Yes and Yes. If Staff seek only that answer

He admits that they started the first two attacks by initiating on members of our Trade Union. The attacks were also spaced out, they were not concecutive attacks day after day.

  • 27/10/19 - They initiated on @Challenger. We prevailed.
  • 29/10/19 - They initiated on @OxeN. We prevailed.
  • 30/10/19 - We initiated. We prevailed.

These were simply actions causing concequnces. Not a casse of esentially bullying players into submission.

During the report, @Burak states the following:

Spoiler

i read a conversation between @Roland and @Ryan Shepherd and decide it wouldnt work communicate with him. Because whenever people try to show him his wrong sides , or suggest him something , as i saw he just describe a lot to avoid or reason his own rulebreaks.
If I could understand i could solve with Ryan without any report , i could do. But I wanted to create report and see how Staff decide.

He slanders my name essentially claiming, I am a loop hole abuser, unaproachable and unnegotiable with, yet he has never spoken to me and I had no idea who be is until this report. He then admits the report was made with the intention of solving their IC issues (caused by none other but themselves) by OOC means in the vessel of a report:

Spoiler

  On 11/5/2019 at 2:42 PM, Burak said:

However after report it got calm down.At least it worked a bit i guess.....

This report was made simply because they started a war and we ended it, swiftly. Which leads me to 2.4:

Spoiler

2.4 Don't be a sore loser. Items in game can be replaced, there is no need to be angry and hold grudge against someone just because someone was better. Keep in mind that it is just a game. Take regular breaks from the game if you have trouble separating In Character events from Out of Character real world.

The report was made simply 'because someone was better'.

Due to this massively wasting my time and staffs time in solving this report with zero evidence and zero truthfulness, I would like to report @Burak for false report and breaking rule 2.4.

Go raibh maith agat.

Share this post


Link to post

Calling in @Burak, to post their POV for what has been said to give their opinion. 

Please do not turn this into a back and forth argument. If there is a question that needs to be answered I expected both sides to answer the question if it was asked to them.

While the Staff Team reviews the previous report and this report.

Thanks,

Randy

Share this post


Link to post

@Randy i am busy a bit and outside, i will post really detailed one at home.

Share this post


Link to post

@Burak has been tempbanned until PoV is posted since he's been playing on the server while being "busy".

Share this post


Link to post

Hello Everyone, I am so sorry to make Staff and @Ryan Shepherd wait a bit. English is not my native tongue and I wanted this POV to be as good as I can write it.

In the report @Ryan Shepherd mentioned, I want to thank everyone who spend their time on working on it. I appreciate any outcome.

First off all I made the 2.3 report, because I believed the trade union broke that rule. I gave my reasoning for that in the report itself, which the staff gave a conclusion for. But I basically reported it, because the trade union continuesly came back to Grishno with pvp intentions resulting in attacks. I wanted to have this looked into in a report. I am suprised this report has even been posted as it sets a very worrying precedence for any reports in future.

According to @Ryan Shepherd I have done the following Quote:

Quote

'Due to the incredibly misinformed report and false ill informed accusations damaging the reputation of The Trade Union that I & my friends have been working hard for, I would like staff to accept my request to counter report @Burak for false report in the case of 2.3 .

 

Quote

 ''He slanders my name essentially claiming, I am a loop hole abuser, unaproachable and unnegotiable with, yet he has never spoken to me and I had no idea who be is until this report.''

While I only wanted to have staff look into the situation that we thought was a rulebreak. Meanwhile @Ryan Shepherd also doens't mind slandering my name aswell. At first I didn't want to answer his questions, since I didn't want it to turn into a back and forward and both of us already had posted our POV's. Then he kindly requested Randy and Saunders to ask me to answer his questions and he said the following thing aswell

Quote

''Your life must be one big roundabout mate''

 

Note that this slander was before all my words that he claimed to be slandering his name. @Ryan Shepherd was also cautioned for this post. The things @Ryan Shepherd calls slander are not slander in my opinion. I only quoted a similar incident that happened in the past. I thought bringing this up could add to the report. I stated

Quote

''... and decided it wouldn't work communicate with him''

, because I saw the same thing happening on the report that I saw in my quote. Then I didn't admit it was for solving our IC issues, I said I wanted the opinion of the staff. Like I said above aswell. I wanted an unbiased opinion on an ingame event without any intentions to 'slander your name'.

 

Lately when I said ''It calmed down and it worked'', I pointed towards the fact that the constant attacking indeed stopped after the report. These constant attacks were the reason for the report and yes the report is linked to an IC reason. However this doens't mean the report was made to solve IC problems. For who knows, any other group could come and attack us without continuesly coming back. Conclusions to my report have been made and I am at peace with this. I hope you now understand my reasoning better.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Burak said:

snip

Thank you @Burak, your temporary ban has been removed. Please keep an eye on this thread in case you are asked any further questions.

Share this post


Link to post

There are a couple things I would like to address:

 

1. "Continuous attacks"

Spoiler
6 hours ago, Burak said:

The trade union continuesly came back to Grishno with pvp intentions resulting in attacks.

Below is a quote from @Randy in the 2.3 report verdict, which can be seen as fact.

Quote

The attacks/fights, the first one being on 10/27/2019, then on 10/29/2019, then the last attack on 10/30/2019. These attacks are spread out among a few days. With 2 days being in between the first two fights and then 1 day between the last two fights. These fights have enough time in between them, allowing the opposing party some time. Now, if these attacks were one after the other like in this example 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, with the group being attacked multiple times during the day by the opposite group than that would constitute under the 2.3 rule.

It is quite obvious here, there was no such 'constant' attacks. Grishino instigated the altercations on 27/10/2019 & 29/10/2019 by no force but their own. We/I instigated the attack on 30/10/2019 as a repercussion, all 3 times my allies & I were successful. It is beyond me how someone could even begin to think that this was 2.3, you were the one's to initiate 2 out of 3 altercations, if anything, Grishino were the ones focusing on PvP as any hostage scenario 99.99% of the time involves PvP be in it in the beginning of the altercation or the end. Kick a dog long enough and it is inevitable it will bite back. You chose to escalate both situations, it is not our fault we came out on top. The report was made clearly just "because someone was better." 

2. Slander

Spoiler
6 hours ago, Burak said:

Meanwhile @Ryan Shepherd also doens't mind slandering my name aswell.

Calling you a roundabout for avoiding two questions a total of 4 times isn't slander, mate.

As above in my opening post, you called me somewhat of a rule abuser & a difficult person to deal with however you have never spoken to me in game or out of game, you clearly held a grudge against me following the events that took place from you and your allies actions, "there is no need to be angry and hold grudge against someone just because someone was better. "


3. Solving in character problems via out of character means,

Spoiler


6 hours ago, Burak said:

These constant attacks were the reason for the report and yes the report is linked to an IC reason. However this doens't mean the report was made to solve IC problems.

Yet you showed a quite obvious sigh of relief with the following:

Spoiler

  On 11/5/2019 at 2:42 PM, Burak said:

However after report it got calm down.At least it worked a bit i guess.....

 

 

I would like to finish off my response by saying that @Burak and his allies knew exactly what they were doing when they first attempted to take @Challenger hostage, a firefight ensued and they all died. They knew exactly what would happen because of this when they decided to take @OxeN hostage, yet they still thought that was a good idea. A firefight ensued and they all died. Lastly, when they were initiated upon they were given the option of surrendering, not a single person complied.

  1. THEY decided to take @Challenger hostage.
  2. THEY decided to take @OxeN hostage.
  3. THEY decided not to comply to our simple demand of surrendering when we initiated.
  4. THEY use no means of in character use to repair the friendly relationship they chose to damage.
  5. Yet THEY play the victim card with 2.3 for 'constant attacks.'

It is quite obvious here that Grishino played with fire, burnt their fingers and now play the victim. Wasted my time, attempted to tarnish The Trade Unions reputation and most importantly wasted administrators time with a quite obvious false report.

As the saying goes, if you can't beat them, report them.

Share this post


Link to post

The staff team have reviewed this report and arrived at the following conclusion:

False Report - Not Guilty
Rule break 2.4 - Not Guilty

To start things off we will address the accusation of False Report regarding the following report here:

Spoiler

 

We have arrived at the conclusion above (Not Guilty) as we believe the report was made more as an enquiry at the time into a potential 2.3 rule break as they felt baiting had occurred into the lead up of several of the situations mentioned. The reason for them to believe in baiting possibly taking place was due to trade union members being alone and looting in the general area of the town. 

The report concluded that a 2.3 rulebreak was inconclusive as there was insufficient evidence that could help us determine all accusations in the report (such as possible baiting). As the report was deemed to be inconclusive this means it was neither guilty / not guilty in terms of a rule break thus meaning the report cannot be falsely made as there was no disproval of certain aspects of the report.

Due to the fact that the report was found to be inconclusive based on a lack of evidence from all sides involved and us believing this to be a genuine inquiry into a potential 2.3 rule break (for reasons mentioned above) we do not believe that rule 2.4 was broken. We do not see that the report brought forward was made with malicious intent based on the OP of said report being a sore loser but more as an enquiry into the possibility of a 2.3 rule break having occurred due to the nature of the attacks happening in the same area by the same people with the possibility of rulebreaks leading to the situations.

@Burak | False Report + 2.4 rulebreak - Not Guilty | No Punishment

Signed: @Voodoo @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...