Jump to content
Server time: 2017-10-17, 07:36
Safe Zone: CLOSED

  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Capitan_Miller

No-fear-for-dead debate

Question

Question is as follows:

In the Lopatino Church massacre I've been verbally warned for No fear for dead because I fought against 4 hostage takers.

But...the situation is not that simple:

I carefully selected the moment for action really wanted to free us and live, so I chose the moment according with the following:
- Hostage "side" outnumber considerably Hostage "takers" side.
- 2 Hostage takers are bandiging, 1 is double carrying and manuviring with the main weapon on the floor, the 3rd one is dazed and recovering from unconciousness.

- My character is a Veteran ex-special forces guy, not rambo, but definatelly the kind of person that take action when have a chance in Terrorist attacks and robberies. If you don't believe it check youtube, there is thousands of examples.
- The hostage takers are quite angry and desperate as from the very begining they took a huge group of armed hostages with a guillie guy with a revolver (the guy itself ask for help to their mates severall times).  This makes the character to think the situation is quite fucked. I know according the rules they can't execute, BUT, in my opinion this should not be used as a reason to punished the ones that fear for life. Actually, because of rp reasons noone should not fear at all in a hostile action, as you never know the intentions, but I've seen many many people reacting with security as pressing F2 is a 100% that the're going to live. I understand the reasons in which the rules ban the executions but not the RP reasons. This, paradogically would be no-fear-for-dead.


- In psycology, there are 3 natural reactions to hostile situations: 
1) Freeze and hide (if you have a place to hide)

2) Run Away (if you have scape)
3) Fight (if you don't have a place to hide, a way to scape and you fear for your life)

If you read the situation you can see clearly I have no place to hide, no way to run and a very angry injured enemy...

At the end an considering I reacted with no fear for dead, I end up killing 3/4 hostage takers and the 4th is killed by another hostage. 

What do you think guys? Which is the limit of people you can fight to not be punished/warned and....do the situations matter? Cause I've observed many people think that say "hands up" is a secure against reactions and...It shoudnt...it should be a very delicated operation, planned and executed realistically (not 1 guy with a revolver against 12 people)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Oliv    1874

As some one who signed the verdict that gave you the verbal warning, you know my thoughts already. 

To answer your other questions, there is no magic number of people you can take on, Rambo or no Rambo. NVFL is a very specific to the situation kind of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Poppy    378

As oliv said, I agree that there is no certain number of people you can go against. It all comes down to the situation. 

You might have five hostage takers, however if they leave you with an AK when all they have is their fists, there is one situation, whilest if you have no weapon and they do, its another.

As the rule states, you can not act in any way that indicates that you do not value your life, and since all situations are different, from numbers to weapons to area and so on, I think you have to just judge it on a case by case basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Oliv    1874
6 minutes ago, Capitan_Miller said:

Sorry to make you lose your time Oliv.

I was probably going to waste that time on something else unproductive anyways :) Always happy to chime in when I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
10 minutes ago, Saradomin said:

As oliv said, I agree that there is no certain number of people you can go against. It all comes down to the situation. 

You might have five hostage takers, however if they leave you with an AK when all they have is their fists, there is one situation, whilest if you have no weapon and they do, its another.

As the rule states, you can not act in any way that indicates that you do not value your life, and since all situations are different, from numbers to weapons to area and so on, I think you have to just judge it on a case by case basis.

If is evaluated according to the circunstances, I think the circuntances I described are quite consistent and realistic. And your answer does not respond any of the 6 reasons I've explained. And there was 4 hostage takers...the 5th guy was a sniper out of the action.

But is ok, I dont see any wills to aswer and guide me for future actions so you can close the Question to not generate any more lose of time. 

I just wat to say that I didnt want to create a discussion based on defending admins decisions or not, but based on concepts so I dont feel fear-for-punishment as I've been feeling in the last actions in which I pressed F2 and become a dolly.

Thanks anyway and seriously, no ofence, I know you work hard, and your results are the best RP community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Poppy    378
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Capitan_Miller said:

And your answer does not respond any of the 6 reasons I've explained.
 

My answer was more pointed to  Which is the limit of people you can fight to not be punished/warned and....do the situations matter?  this question.

 

As for this situation, I agree with the verdict of the report. In the end, you did die, and therefor it shows that you could have valued your life more by complying, imo.

Edited by Saradomin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 minute ago, Saradomin said:

My answer was more pointed to  Which is the limit of people you can fight to not be punished/warned and....do the situations matter?  this question.

 

As for this situation, I agree with the verdict of the report. In the end, you did die, and therefor it shows that you could have valued your life more imo.

Well, I still thinking is a quite narrow answer, as with this reasoning any hostile action should be forbidden for fear-for-dead.

I did reasons based on:

- Character,s background.

- Human psicology.

- The specific state of the hostage takers in the moment of action.

Still no asnwer for any to clarify which part of my reasoning is wrong.

The 4 hostage takers in sight did died as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1
Poppy    378
Just now, Capitan_Miller said:

Well, I still thinking is a quite narrow answer, as with this reasoning any hostile action should be forbidden for fear-for-dead.

I did reasons based on:

- Character,s background.

- Human psicology.

- The specific state of the hostage takers in the moment of action.

Still no asnwer for any to clarify which part of my reasoning is wrong.

The 4 hostage takers in sight did died as well.

 

As for the first two questions, no matter what type of character you play, how it thinks and what type of background it has, you still have to follow the rules. No matter if you play as a crazy suicidal person, or a little kid, you still have to follow the rules. Lets say you would play as a crazy suicidal person, even though the background may suggest he would try to take on 20+ people due to his nature, the rule does not allow it, and so he could not do it. Same goes for human psychology. Even if you in some situations think that this is what I would do or any one would do, the rules still restricts what you can and can not do. 

 

From this, I can partially agree. Yes, there have been times where people fought against their captors and one, but oh so many more where they lost. To this, all I can answer is that it has to be looked on from a case by case basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 minute ago, Saradomin said:

As for the first two questions, no matter what type of character you play, how it thinks and what type of background it has, you still have to follow the rules. No matter if you play as a crazy suicidal person, or a little kid, you still have to follow the rules. Lets say you would play as a crazy suicidal person, even though the background may suggest he would try to take on 20+ people due to his nature, the rule does not allow it, and so he could not do it. Same goes for human psychology. Even if you in some situations think that this is what I would do or any one would do, the rules still restricts what you can and can not do. 

 

From this, I can partially agree. Yes, there have been times where people fought against their captors and one, but oh so many more where they lost. To this, all I can answer is that it has to be looked on from a case by case basis.

Thanks for the asnwer, I disagree but at least is an answer more close to the matter.

If you want to know why I disagree is because the comparison with a suicide who takes 20  lifes is a "Reductio ad absurdun" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Anyway. Thanks guys! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
   87
1 hour ago, Capitan_Miller said:

If you want to know why I disagree is because the comparison with a suicide who takes 20  lifes is a "Reductio ad absurdun" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

It's not. Shit like that's actually happened IG (was more like 10 guys, IIRC) with the accused trying to claim his character was "mentally unstable/crazy". Reductio ad absurdum only applies if the example is improbable hyperbole.

That said, I've fought back against incompetent hostage takers and won before, so it's obviously possible. The question is, as always, whether there was a reasonable chance of success, and since AFAIK it's really hard for someone who wasn't there and doesn't know the exact PvP capabilities of the involved parties to accurately judge that, staff relies on the best metric of "did the accused survive the encounter and prevail".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
15 minutes ago, FiftyFootAnt said:

It's not. Shit like that's actually happened IG (was more like 10 guys, IIRC) with the accused trying to claim his character was "mentally unstable/crazy". Reductio ad absurdum only applies if the example is improbable hyperbole.

That said, I've fought back against incompetent hostage takers and won before, so it's obviously possible. The question is, as always, whether there was a reasonable chance of success, and since AFAIK it's really hard for someone who wasn't there and doesn't know the exact PvP capabilities of the involved parties to accurately judge that, staff relies on the best metric of "did the accused survive the encounter and prevail".

It is a reductio ad absurdun not because someone somewhere is doing it but because it elongates my reasoning to an absurd point which is far of the circunstances described.

 

Anyway, I dont think I behave urespectfully and I,ve found a wall of blind loyalty to admins veredict. A veredict i think was done influenced in thr whole situation not in my single action. And all this in a matter that is, worse case scenario doubatable, not water clear punishable. Ive explaind how fear for death drives persons to freeze, run or fight.

 

Anyway thaks for the coments :( have a good night/morning/whatever

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Undead    313
22 hours ago, Capitan_Miller said:

It is a reductio ad absurdun not because someone somewhere is doing it but because it elongates my reasoning to an absurd point which is far of the circunstances described.

 

Anyway, I dont think I behave urespectfully and I,ve found a wall of blind loyalty to admins veredict. A veredict i think was done influenced in thr whole situation not in my single action. And all this in a matter that is, worse case scenario doubatable, not water clear punishable. Ive explaind how fear for death drives persons to freeze, run or fight.

 

Anyway thaks for the coments :( have a good night/morning/whatever

 

Remember the rules are in place not only to be realistic but to provide more rp. Can't rp when one guy decides to spray into 6. Whether or not in reality your special forces character could headshot everyone before they killed you, in dayz you wont. The rule is in place to protect rp. (At least as far as I know)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
51 minutes ago, Undead said:

Remember the rules are in place not only to be realistic but to provide more rp. Can't rp when one guy decides to spray into 6. Whether or not in reality your special forces character could headshot everyone before they killed you, in dayz you wont. The rule is in place to protect rp. (At least as far as I know)

Ok, they were 4, the simple fact of mentioning 6 and headshots is pure exageration to ridiculize my argument.
2 of them were  100% incapacitated, another one was Bandiging one of the incapacitated and the other had to pick up the gun he left in the floor and shoot me, reason why I have time to kill 3 men in diferent locations before one of them shoots me. If this circunstances are not enaugh to consider my action as Not punishable, that I dont even have 1% of reason in my arguments...seriously, I will think the motivation of your speches is not friendly with me or my question, bat based entirely on blinded loyalty.

Second. The rules are subject to human interpretation, and that's actually the matter of the whole point that insted of receiving discussion based on the CIRCUNSTANCES that is the most subjective, complex and difficult matter and reason why I think this jugdments and other similar are wrong.

And the next answer, of course, will keep ridiculazing all described by adding more targets to the ecuation and more rambo stuff. 

Please close this dialogue cause I fell 0 understood for anyone and I don't think there was any friendly aproach to the matter.

 

Thanks guys, enjoy the new lore.

Don't worry about my doings, I've refused to use guns, and I think It will take me too long to use any. The machete is my new best friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Undead    313
1 minute ago, Capitan_Miller said:

Ok, they were 4, the simple fact of mentioning 6 and headshots is pure exageration to ridiculize my argument.
2 of them were  100% incapacitated, another one was Bandiging one of the incapacitated and the other had to pick up the gun he left in the floor and shoot me, reason why I have time to kill 3 men in diferent locations before one of them shoots me. If this circunstances are not enaugh to consider my action as Not punishable, that I dont even have 1% of reason in my arguments...seriously, I will think the motivation of your speches is not friendly with me or my question, bat based entirely on blinded loyalty.

Second. The rules are subject to human interpretation, and that's actually the matter of the whole point that insted of receiving discussion based on the CIRCUNSTANCES that is the most subjective, complex and difficult matter and reason why I think this jugdments and other similar are wrong.

And the next answer, of course, will keep ridiculazing all described by adding more targets to the ecuation and more rambo stuff. 

Please close this dialogue cause I fell 0 understood for anyone and I don't think there was any friendly aproach to the matter.

 

Thanks guys, enjoy the new lore.

Don't worry about my doings, I've refused to use guns, and I think It will take me too long to use any. The machete is my new best friend.

My opinions are my own, and your poor attempt to claim some sort of loyalty to the staff team is a meme.  But yea since u requested it to be closed, I won't bother to continue to explain. Machete eh, I see another nvfl report in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Mexi    1288

It's a rule for a reason..

Don't be a tit and attempt a 1v4 if you're for sure gonna die which I presume you did due to you making this thread about your ban.
It's rather simple.

On 17/07/2017 at 5:11 PM, Capitan_Miller said:

Well, I still thinking is a quite narrow answer, as with this reasoning any hostile action should be forbidden for fear-for-dead.

I did reasons based on:

- Character,s background.

- Human psicology.

- The specific state of the hostage takers in the moment of action.

Still no asnwer for any to clarify which part of my reasoning is wrong.

The 4 hostage takers in sight did died as well.

Character backgrounds or not your character doesn't have the ability to magically become rambo, again.. Rules for a reason.
Human PSYCHOLOGY - You've got people with guns aimed at you, my brain would kick in and say remain safe an comply to their demands.
3rd one doesn't really matter, you had guns on you.

YOU died, doesn't matter if they all died it's still NVFL if you trade in an outnumbered situation, you put YOUR LIFE in danger in an attempt to escape instead of taking part in the RP that would have been provided.

In the future I'd take a couple of steps back and calm yourself instead of making rage filled threads, asking for others opinions and then completely dismissing them and saying they basically bend the knee for staff.

/rant 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×