Jump to content
Server time: 2017-08-16, 13:22

Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Guilty by association?

Recommended Posts

Guest   
Guest

Report: http://www.dayzrp.com/t-S1-RDM-in-Stary-Sobor-30-10-2016

Ban appeal: http://www.dayzrp.com/t-Powergaming-3-day

I asked in the staff feedback thread and it was touched on in Thumper's thread here several days ago; however, I've yet to receive a logical answer that directly touches on and explains exactly why a certain verdict was recently handed down, and ban appeal denied. So here we are, clearly needed a thread dedicated to sorting out why the GMs and admins behind this decision have made the wrong choice, and why they refuse to correct it.

Let's start off by looking at the how powergaming is defined in the rules as of today.

10c0a8e163.png

The chat logs directly for CrimsonRain's character, Brad Johnson, pulled from post #18 in the report.

23:31:18 | Chat("Brad Johnson"): //Permission to make you fight each other
23:31:47 | Chat("Brad Johnson"): //?
23:37:51 | Chat("Brad Johnson"): *hits him in the gut with the brass knuckles*
23:38:21 | Chat("Brad Johnson"): *does it again*
23:43:50 | Chat("Brad Johnson"): //ITS up to you if this leaves a perm scar
23:44:44 | Chat("Brad Johnson"): *hits him in the gut with the brass knuckles*
23:47:56 | Chat("Brad Johnson"): //Whats bugged*

So, how do CrimsonRain's chat logs violate the powergaming rule? Nothing in the logs posted above violate this rule by any stretch of the imagination, no matter how any GM or admin may try and twist it. Yet in both verdicts by Asriel and Castiel, they each claim he drove the nail into the hand, yet there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest it. If we want to pay attention to the one chat log, then perhaps some attention should be paid to who it was who actually performed the action(s), which are his two associates, not him.

So this leads me to believe he simply guilty by association, as the other two were the ones who forced the nail into the man's hand and failed to ask for permission, or this is some new standard where everyone in the group is responsible for the actions of others. The rule state and have always been interpreted as you are responsible for your own actions. How can the teams that verdicted both the report and the appeal justify giving someone a ban for actions for which there is no evidence? Is he guilty of powergaming by giving an option (not forcing, major difference there) to his ally's actions?

Now anyone who has spent time in staff, dealing with reports, will tell you that you cannot and should not ban without evidence. Why is this any different? If his actions were somehow powergaming in the eyes of staff, I would like a more thorough explanation to his exact actions and for a correct verdict to be posted in the appeal. As it stands right now, both verdicts against CrimsonRain are 100% incorrect and no justification has been given for his ban, as both have blamed him for the actions of others.

Hypothetical situation.

Myself and my ally (X) take a hostage. After some while, X chooses to execute the hostage despite having no rights to do so. I realize this, and decide to seek OOC permission from the hostage afterwards. Am I now guilty of RDM, despite not having shot the person, because I sought to correct someone else's mistake?

So, please GMs and admins, explain.

slide_321105_3009299_free.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

"The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword."

Same goes here. The one that did the actual powergame should get the ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Seems like a genuine phuck up by the GM team that handled that report. Hopefully its addressed by the staff team, but Ill let them speak for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering too what is going on here. Following this logic, if someone KoS's another player, everyone in that player's dynamic group would also be guilty of KoS? Where does it end? Are we going to punish players who don't warn another player who is breaking the rules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Was thinking the same tbh , doest really make sens and its kinda sad that it got to this point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Big ol +1 right here Shark. If you didn't make the thread I would have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

+1 i thank everyone who is helping me get the right verdict

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Seems like a genuine phuck up by the GM team that handled that report. Hopefully its addressed by the staff team, but Ill let them speak for themselves.

Not even just the GM team, as multiple admins were also involved in the report and the denied appeal.

So here is my request for a direct answer from Rolle, I guess, as I disagree with the decision handed down by multiple admins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

He's guilty for his association. Clearly if he valued his warning level then he would've stopped the rule break before it occurred, instead he acted as an accomplice. Should've just pleaded guilty, would've lessened his sentence.

(The above is a clear joke)

I'm genuinely disappointed in the clear lack of attention given to this report, and I cannot wait to see what the reasoning is behind his ban when it's clear that Crimson did not actually break any rules himself. Everyone makes mistakes I guess but I fail to see how so many staff members overlooked that he did not actually powergame anyone. Perhaps one GM overlooked it and the rest of the staff team simply went along with the word of that one GM, rather than actually researching the case and the evidence themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

23 Staff members missed this... 24 if you count Rolle. Think bout that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Well I'll be damned.

Seems like this is a big fuck up by the Staff that handled it. I would love to hear from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Well I'll be damned.

Seems like this is a big fuck up by the Staff that handled it. I would love to hear from them.

Other then Rolle backing up the goons doing this we will not hear anything from it. Even when in case like this its completely justified, cause he'll just use the rule 4 excuse where he can justify any wrongdoings with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Other then Rolle backing up the goons doing this we will not hear anything from it. Even when in case like this its completely justified, cause he'll just use the rule 4 excuse where he can justify any wrongdoings with.

Or he will have a look and revoke the ban. But the "corrupt staff team" image you are describing here is quite amusing. Not everything staff does is biased and wrong. They make mistakes, they fix them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolle    2440

Well I'll be damned.

Seems like this is a big fuck up by the Staff that handled it. I would love to hear from them.

Other then Rolle backing up the goons doing this we will not hear anything from it. Even when in case like this its completely justified, cause he'll just use the rule 4 excuse where he can justify any wrongdoings with.

I am offended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Yeah this is a bummer. I am sure the staff team (who generally does a great job) will learn lessons from this and improve in the future. This was a pretty big oversight though. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Well I'll be damned.

Seems like this is a big fuck up by the Staff that handled it. I would love to hear from them.

Other then Rolle backing up the goons doing this we will not hear anything from it. Even when in case like this its completely justified, cause he'll just use the rule 4 excuse where he can justify any wrongdoings with.

I am offended.

So? Its what you do after all, solving stuff based on feelings and assumptions and what you had for lunch. If you're offended by that, you should maybe try something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

I don't agree with the verdict either as I have been banned due to association before. To put it simply it just seems unfair. I think it was a mistake for that verdict and I believe we all make mistakes, we should just try to correct them.

It's staff choice on all that stuff though. You guys should bring it up in the Team Speak meeting though, I think it would be a good topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phoenix    1030

Seems like this is ANOTHER big fuck up by the Staff that handled it.

Fixed it for you <3

Just when I thought staff was getting back to normal. Im keking so hard right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
   81

Can we ease back on the salt for a minute here? Jeez.

The problem is not with staff; the problem is the rule phrasing. As Asriel quoted"

Examples of powergaming:

Telling other players they have been hurt or even killed without that actually happening in game.

This right here. This is wrong. In countless reports where a hostage died from being whacked with a blunt instrument/fists/rubber chicken/whatever, the killer states something along the lines of "I didn't mean to kill him" and the staff adjudicator will reply with something along the lines of "emote that shit out next time". Which makes perfect sense.... except that it violates the quoted section of the rule. I can decide to torture my hostage with:

*punches Hostage in the stomach*

Based off of staff advice, this is exactly what I should do instead of actually punching them. But I just decided that they were hurt just then (unless you want to tell me with a straight face that getting punched in the gut without armor or padding wouldn't hurt). Ta da, I am now violating the powergaming rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Seems like this is ANOTHER big fuck up by the Staff that handled it.

Fixed it for you <3

Just when I thought staff was getting back to normal. Im keking so hard right now.

They need to listen to the people more thats all really

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

23 Staff members missed this... 24 if you count Rolle. Think bout that.

That's an unfair statement.  There are GMs/other staff members like myself that disagreed with the verdict.   But I have a full time job, plus a family I like spending time with.  Same with other GMs/admins/staff members.   As much as I like doing reports I can't (along with other staff) dedicate an equivalent to a full time job doing this stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

23 Staff members missed this... 24 if you count Rolle. Think bout that.

That's an unfair statement.  There are GMs/other staff members like myself that disagreed with the verdict.   But I have a full time job, plus a family I like spending time with.  Same with other GMs/admins/staff members.   As much as I like doing reports I can't (along with other staff) dedicate an equivalent to a full time job doing this stuff.

First off I agree that is an unfair statement, I am attempting to address something else

As I can see it, its not a matter of simply disagreeing with a verdict. He, as shown by the logs, did not actually break any rule. He didn't force anyone to a tree with no chance of escape, outside of the game mechanics. There was no rule break yet he was charged with one due to his accomplice's actions. 

So are we doing guilty by association now or? I dont have an opinion either way this plays out but since we are looking to make the rules as clear as possible, this is something I think needs clarified, either now or tomorrow during the community meeting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

23 Staff members missed this... 24 if you count Rolle. Think bout that.

That's an unfair statement.  There are GMs/other staff members like myself that disagreed with the verdict.   But I have a full time job, plus a family I like spending time with.  Same with other GMs/admins/staff members.   As much as I like doing reports I can't (along with other staff) dedicate an equivalent to a full time job doing this stuff.

First off I agree that is an unfair statement, I am attempting to address something else

As I can see it, its not a matter of simply disagreeing with a verdict. He, as shown by the logs, did not actually break any rule. He didn't force anyone to a tree with no chance of escape, outside of the game mechanics. There was no rule break yet he was charged with one due to his accomplice's actions. 

So are we doing guilty by association now or? I dont have an opinion either way this plays out but since we are looking to make the rules as clear as possible, this is something I think needs clarified, either now or tomorrow during the community meeting.

your 100% right to say its unclear .... and it does need clarifying +1 to that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×