Jump to content
Server time: 2017-08-22, 20:31

Sign in to follow this  
Hebi Kotei

NVFL?

Recommended Posts

Hebi Kotei    302

Alright so I was looking at this report:

And I saw the verdict which got me thinking. The accused could only see the two men in front of him and the woman, who up until the initiation began was clearly unarmed. She only pulled a pistol out at that point, which hardly even counts as a threat given the accused was double carrying two assault rifles. That leaves a fourth person not to be seen.

 

The verdict says “the video shows four people, the two males talking with you, the female on the hay bale and the final male, at the tail of the chopper.” but this is not from the accused's viewpoint. At no point in the video was he looking at the chopper tail, he could not see Mexi over there. The woman was also leaning against a hay bale getting comfy for most of the situation up until initiation was dropped, then she’s hiding behind it with a pistol drawn. I think it’s very likely accused could have survived this situation, especially given that he took out the 2 guys by himself. (The only two real threats that he was aware of).

 

The accused also stated that in his POV that he did not see the person which was at the chopper tail and he didn’t see the woman’s pistol. It’s clear to me that the video was watched but the POVs weren’t read properly., otherwise something would have been stated about it in the actual verdict.

 

My question for @Cow and signing GMs is, how is it considered NVFL when it looks like a 1v2 situation from the accused’s perspective?

 

Also, Did you actually read the report or did you Ctrl+F everything because this is the second verdict in a row which a punishment has been given out unjustly or incorrectly?

Edited by Hebi Kotei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Castiel    1124

I have to agree. Having read through the report and even leaving notes on it as a GM (If I remember correctly) I am stuck scratching my head as to why he was punished given all the reasons above. That woman was chilling out and relaxing on the hay bale and is considered a direct threat? Not at all. Not to mention that Mexi was nowhere to be seen hiding behind the heli crash. It was a 1v2, in which the accused actually dropped both of them in a trade. He could have survived very easily, it was chance.

I think it should also be noted that the report sat open and unsolved for 45 minutes until I asked a Moderator to handle it.

Edited by Castiel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Very well pointed Hebi. I feel like the report was not read fully, otherwise, things like this would not have happened.

Edited by Andrey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

I expected a verbal warning. To me the guy does successfully take down the two he saw (within his vision), I mean it was a gamble, but look at his gear. He had an automatic firearm. It wasn't impossible. Not sure it was a hundred percent NVFL as in a 5v1 situation, bit surprised. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
Just now, Post said:

I expected a verbal warning

Hmm, I could see a verbal fit, depending on how you look at it, but not a punishment when the guy clearly says he did not saw one person and the other was yawning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Yeah, I looked over the report and I couldn't see NVFL, from what he saw it was a winnable battle. I could dig a verbal honestly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
William    398

I asked myself this question too this morning. It sure as hell looked liked it was 2v1, I was also expecting a verbal warning or a not guilty verdict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hebi Kotei    302

I wouldn't even agree to a verbal, the rule wasn't really broken because it really is no value for life when it looks like a winnable fight from the accused's perspective. It would also be fairly inconsistent as this has been the way we the staff team has handled reports similar to these in the past. I'm thinking that a mention in the verdict would be far better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Castiel    1124
13 minutes ago, Hebi Kotei said:

I wouldn't even agree to a verbal, the rule wasn't really broken because it really is no value for life when it looks like a winnable fight from the accused's perspective. It would also be fairly inconsistent as this has been the way we the staff team has handled reports similar to these in the past. I'm thinking that a mention in the verdict would be far better.

Yeah I have to agree. Not guilty was the way to go here or even inconclusive given the fact he said he only saw 2 threats but they couldn't prove it. A ban was not needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

how is it nvfl if its a winnable situation from the op's pov ?

So you are telling me that the report in question is NVFL while this is not ? what changed ? 

Hello inconsistency my old friend 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
Just now, Keedz said:

 

 

Remember signing that verdict. I don't think the problem is inconsistency and more that the accused's PoV was not read fully and such it was missed that the situation was a 1 v 2 from his perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
1 minute ago, Andrey said:

Remember signing that verdict. I don't think the problem is inconsistency and more that the accused's PoV was not read fully and such it was missed that the situation was a 1 v 2 from his perspective.

Maybe yes maybe not

We'll see what gamemaster @Cow has to say about it 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
5 minutes ago, Keedz said:

-snip-

That report should not have even mentioned NVFL. Can't be NVFL when no one has KOS rights, but that's a separate topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hebi Kotei    302
2 minutes ago, Andrey said:

Remember signing that verdict. I don't think the problem is inconsistency and more that the accused's PoV was not read fully and such it was missed that the situation was a 1 v 2 from his perspective.

 

Yeah, I also doubt they checked thread notes either, there must've been some info in there to actually, you know, prevent this sort of unjust punishment from occurring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

NVFL is situational.  In an open field with 5 guys pointing weapons and the person retaliates is NVFL.  3v1 with good positioning is not NVFL.  He obviously killed one and uncon'd another.  Had he killed both, he would have had good cover on the third and could of clutched that as well.   There was a good chance of survival therefore NVFL would not apply.  What is going on with the verdicts lately?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Castiel    1124

I guess Cow won't be responding to this since he's been tagged twice in a span of 4 hours and been online plenty. I just hope an Admin takes notice of this and reverts the unwarranted ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Yeah, I never agreed with the report being put up at all, let alone getting the guy banned for it. The evidence provided just wasn't damning enough for me and looked like he actually had a chance of fighting back. However, knowing what really happened and what you don't see in the video the guy kinda did NVFL. So technically, the ban was correct, but he shouldn't have been banned for it if the GM's stood to their correct protocols. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beni    686

I mean, this isn't a question for me to solve because well... What am I? just a support... I know I'm suppose to do this sort of stuff BUT I was not involved in the verdict, and if I was well... Just read:

I mean, I've done 3v1's before and took out two... I've done 2v1's and took out two... I've done 1v1'S and got shot down... but that's not the point. After actually watching the video the person who was accused of NVFL took one down, then one went unconscious... Then well, he may or may have not been taken down by the third person behind the chopper and the women chillin' on the haystack thing.... That would depend on the choices he made...The point is that fight could of went in his favour... 

But yeah, in my opinion that would not be NVFL. If that was me in that situation I would've done the same thing... But yano.. It's just me.. Beni the support... ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I mean... Maybe if we saw the full situation from the start to the finish.... That might change a thing or two...

I'll leave this one to the GM'S I suppose... I can't solve this one.... 

 

Edited by Beni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hebi Kotei    302
16 minutes ago, Castiel said:

I guess Cow won't be responding to this since he's been tagged twice in a span of 4 hours and been online plenty. I just hope an Admin takes notice of this and reverts the unwarranted ban.

 

I would like GM @Cow to come here and defend the verdict he wrote or at least have the admins take note and revert this but you know. I'm just gonna sit here and wait for someone to answer and thank you @Beni for being the only staff member to even respond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

My opinions are in the verdict, myself and two others had input on that very verdict. I would appreciate you lot getting off my back.

I am still new to this as I stated on the last thread that was put up, full of bias accusations and bashing of my ability.

Had the accused been against three and not four, it would not have been NVFL. We determined that the positioning and number of hostiles he had within 20 meters were too great for anyone within in reason to take out on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
9 minutes ago, Cow said:

My opinions are in the verdict, myself and two others had input on that very verdict. I would appreciate you lot getting off my back.

I am still new to this as I stated on the last thread that was put up, full of bias accusations and bashing of my ability.

Had the accused been against three and not four, it would not have been NVFL. We determined that the positioning and number of hostiles he had within 20 meters were too great for anyone within in reason to take out on their own.

Being new to this doesnt excuse bad verdicts or banning someone wrongfully , maybe if you are new to this seek help from older gm's ? 

this is far from being a personal attack 

Edited by Keedz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Castiel    1124
3 minutes ago, Cow said:

My opinions are in the verdict, myself and two others had input on that very verdict. I would appreciate you lot getting off my back.

Had the accused been against three and not four, it would not have been NVFL. We determined that the positioning and number of hostiles he had within 20 meters were too great for anyone within in reason to take out on their own.

Nobody is on your back. We are questioning the incorrect verdict. Nothing personal.

The accused could only see 3 people, one of whom only pulled a pistol at the last minute. So really it was 1v2 considering Mexi (the fourth guy by the heli) was nowhere to be seen. For all he knew that guy had left. If I remember correctly this information was in my notes on the report. Who were the two others working on the verdict with you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
6 minutes ago, Cow said:

My opinions are in the verdict, myself and two others had input on that very verdict. I would appreciate you lot getting off my back.

I am still new to this as I stated on the last thread that was put up, full of bias accusations and bashing of my ability.

Had the accused been against three and not four, it would not have been NVFL. We determined that the positioning and number of hostiles he had within 20 meters were too great for anyone within in reason to take out on their own.

Being new is by no means anyway to excuse a bad verdict, that's two in a row. You have plenty of GM's and admin that I know would be willing to help you and would have helped you in your verdict, people would have had to agree with that verdict before it was posted. This is in no way a personally attack on you nobody is 'on your back' we're simply showing our concerns with the verdict and want you thoughts on why you and the other GM's agreed with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
6 minutes ago, Cow said:

My opinions are in the verdict, myself and two others had input on that very verdict. I would appreciate you lot getting off my back.

I am still new to this as I stated on the last thread that was put up, full of bias accusations and bashing of my ability.

Had the accused been against three and not four, it would not have been NVFL. We determined that the positioning and number of hostiles he had within 20 meters were too great for anyone within in reason to take out on their own.

 

Having worked with you, I know how you are as a GM. Instead of jumping on things, you should read through the verdicts thoroughly and take your time, and don't work alone!

You have a team, get 3 or 4 other GM's if you're not sure about your work and do it right instead of making mistakes. 

Your excuse is invalid. Work harder at being better. We've lost every amazing GM we had, you have big shoes to fill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Goku    61
1 minute ago, Castiel said:

Nobody is on your back. We are questioning the incorrect verdict. Nothing personal.

The accused could only see 3 people, one of whom only pulled a pistol at the last minute. So really it was 1v2 considering Mexi (the fourth guy by the heli) was nowhere to be seen. For all he knew that guy had left. If I remember correctly this information was in my notes on the report. Who were the two others working on the verdict with you?

As you know unless those GM's decide to come forward we will not share that information.

However to state that it was an incorrect verdict is a little far fetched isn't it? It is your OPINION that it is wrong and until stated otherwise the verdict is correct. If a ban appeal is put up and is accepted then by all means your OPINION is correct. I won't respond further as I was not involved in the report discussion I just wanted to state that until a ban appeal is put up and if it is accepted then everyones OPINIOn is that the verdict is wrong.

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.

×