Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2020-08-04, 18:01
Sign in to follow this  

Clarification on using Valid Defender rights

Recommended Posts

These questions arise due to the verdict here

 and the resulting Appeal here:

Can I please get an admin and possibly @Roland to answer these questions as the appeal is full of contradicting and/or incorrect statements and I am left somewhat confused.  I have laid out some of the contradictions in my questions but there are also false statements (which I would assume are unintentional) in the appeal verdict, I would be happy to point all these out if needed to give more context.  Please note that despite staff saying "...got nothing more then a quick identifiying greeting and an execution" it was not an execution as per the rules as the two who were killed were not taken hostage or initiated on, they had killed one of our group members (without rights) and a few of us used our acquired defenders rights to kill the two responsible (please note I didn't kill either of the two that died but shot one of them 4 times.).


  1. Why does someone who shoots and tries to kill another person without any rights whatsoever get a lower punishment than someone who has valid rights,  and shot at but did not kill the person they had rights on?  It seems to me that a kos or attempted kos is a greater injustice, would you agree here?  Does something need to come into play to balance this sort of thing out?
  2. How is it ruleplay to SHOOT but NOT kill a person you have valid and active rights on? To quote staff "There is no attempted ruleplay as Ruleplay is not contingent on killing someone" but then also state "the issue was that we do not agree with how, when, and why you chose to apply your kill rights." Staff claim the ruleplay was simply using Defender rights but they were not fully used as I did not kill anyone.  As per the rules "Defender rights allow you to kill attackers," in my case that's not what occurred.  Isn't the line being stretched too far here?  To quote the completely contradictory comments of staff in the appeal "This only further evidenced by your own admission that after you killed ... you were not then immediatedly killed by Wolfpack in return," and "but instead elected for the quick kill. That is what ruleplay is, prioritizing kill rights over roleplay."  Again I didn't kill anyone, so the staff have clearly contradicted themselves leading to my confusion.
  3. When the rules say using defender rights should make sense IC, why does a characters IC state of mind and history between two groups not come into play even when a quick killing (again i didnt kill anyone just shot them) can be justified?  Do you think that this quote taken from the appeal verdict, "While we can understand that it made sense ICly, this is not justification. As an example, it makes sense for a bandit not to initiate and just shoot people from ambush if you want their gear, but obviously on a roleplay server that would not result in good roleplay" is contradictory to the rules when the rules basically say that it isn't ruleplay if using the rights make sense IC, and isnt the example given a poor one given that there is a major difference between one of your leaders being killed in cold blood for no reason and "I want loot"?
  4. Is the whole "eye for an eye" principle no longer valid?  i.e if someone kills/tries to kill someone without any rights or RP, you can't return the favour after spending a considerable amount of time IG figuring out who did it and getting to them before the timer runs out?
  5. Would the situation have been different if 1 person had run in to confirm who they were and then others just sniped them from the hills as retaliation for killing one of our leaders?  Why does it matter whether we "stumbled on to them" or tracked down where and who they were through IG means and RP?  Why would stumbling on to someone you have valid rights on make any real difference to tracking them down?
  6. Can someone please explain this quote "The Report and objection by @Roland quoted has no bearing on this situation, as it is referring to an incident where a character was attacked and defended themselves"?  Interesting as that is not what occured in the report, and not what I was referring to at all, in fact I had specifically left out the execution of the hostages in the comparable facts.  There, the accused had gained defender rights, they waited some time, they yelled a one-liner which was not an initiation or demand and then opened fire on everyone they knew were involved in the previous situation they had gained rights from.  The fact that not all of them died is irrelevant, the attempt was made and there was no ruleplay there.  If we are going to argue that it is different becuase it was an "ambush", well they could have attempted to stop the truck to roleplay, but they didn't make any such attempt.   Why is this so different from our situation, or what would have brought our situation into line with the report I linked?


@Randy @Roland @Voodoo  This has been up for 10 days now and multiple other questions have popped up in this forum and been answered since then, can I get some answers to the above questions please?  Given the amount of people who have contacted me on Discord it is pretty clear that I am not alone in the confusion and it would be nice to get some clarification please.


Edited by Dustup

Share this post

Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...