Jump to content

Server time (UTC): 2021-09-25 00:31

This Verdict


Guest

Recommended Posts

Quote

In this report we see that G19 is mistakenly shot by an aggressor, and then let go by the man that shot him. Leaving the town, G19 passes Sasha to which Sasha turns around and shoots him in the back. Sasha state in his POV that in an instant, G19 could have turned around and killed him, so he took action by killing G19 before that could happen. You also state in one of your POVs that we should not try and pull a ruleplay verdict, well thats exactly what were going to do! From POV's we can see that at the time of you killing G19 that he was no real threat, that you killed him for something he could have done, but he had not done yet. You used your rights within the rules to kill him, rather then to hold him up and continue RP. By killing him, you have ended all chances of RP continuing, which is why you have been found guilty of ruleplay. In the future, do not use your kill rights just to use them, only use them if necessary. Take actions that will continue RP instead of ending them.

 

Can someone explain this to me? Is there a statue of limitations on being an inside man? Cuz that's what G19 was in this scenario. His own official group initiated on everyone, making him part of the aggressing party and granting the agressed KoS on him, whether he knew about it or not. Sasha made a guess and guessed right, he wasn't maliciously trying to use KoS rights whenever he clearly could've took the roleplay option. Keep in mind this is all happening in an active firefight, while G19's friends were shooting at Sasha and his friends. This didn't happen 45 minutes after the fight, three towns over. You really expect Sasha to take the roleplay route when his group has been initiated on and is being actively engaged?

As far as I understand, as the initiating party, you are at the mercy of the defender's right to either comply or fight. You can't just be part of an initiating group and then expect to not get shot as long as you don't look threatening. That's the defender's right, not the aggressors.

Guess my question is this: Is inside manning protected by the rules now? So say we know for a goddamn fact G19 is part of the aggressing party, yet he doesn't pull his gun or act as part of them. Are we not allowed to use our KoS rights to protect ourselves until he pulls his own gun and starts to fire on us? That seems to give the aggressing party quite an advantage - I guess from now on we'll only have some of our guys clearly show aggression and then if they don't comply we'll just come back and kill them later, and we're fully protected by the fact that if we get shot, even if the defenders know we're the bad guys, we can report for ruleplay.

I'm not trying to be an asshole I am just really confused on this, because this report sets a really weird precedent, where previously this would've been tossed out as a case of getting burnt as an inside man.

Link to comment

You forgot the part where Dew told him to take his gun and run away.  He did that.  He got shot for it.

Link to comment
Just now, ExoticRP said:

You forgot the part where Dew told him to take his gun and run away.  He did that.  He got shot for it.

You forgot the part where G19's group initiated on them, whether he had knowledge about it or not. It's on him that he wasn't communicating effectively, he got burned as an inside man and now we're banning people for that?

Just now, G19RP said:

Its because you lot took me hostage instead of using your rights, then told me to leave and killed me when I did so.

Read above. It's my understanding that when your group initiates, your rights of not dying are gone. The people defending themselves took a guess and got it right.

This has no bearing but you know you were gonna come back and fight. It's what always happens. It's not Sasha's fault that you didn't know your guy was gonna initiate.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, ExoticRP said:

You forgot the part where Dew told him to take his gun and run away.  He did that.  He got shot for it.

A followup;

So if Dew shot G19 with his hands up that's okay? So if Dew doesn't make that decision right at that second on whether to kill someone or not, then it's ruleplay. But, if Dew confirms that a man is enemy after originally letting him go, then it's ruleplay. Makes sense right?

Link to comment
  • MVP
5 minutes ago, G19RP said:

Its because you lot took me hostage instead of using your rights, then told me to leave and killed me when I did so.

If someone takes you hostage, they don't give up their KoS rights.

I am not gonna lie, I tried reading the report, it's a bit of a cluster, but from what I saw it didn't really look like ruleplay.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Cipher said:

So if Dew shot G19 with his hands up that's okay? So if Dew doesn't make that decision right at that second on whether to kill someone or not, then it's ruleplay. But, if Dew confirms that a man is enemy after originally letting him go, then it's ruleplay. Makes sense right?

Yea that's how it is.  I understand you were gone for a year and a half may I suggest you take a second look at the rules because they have become a lot looser and up for interpretation by the staff team ? 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, ExoticRP said:

Yea that's how it is.  I understand you were gone for a year and a half may I suggest you take a second look at the rules because they have become a lot looser and up for interpretation by the staff team ? 

Yeah I read them dude, don't worry. Rule 4.4:

Quote

You shouldn't use defense or kill rights in situations where it doesn't make in-character sense as it can be seen as rule play. In other words, obtaining defense/kill rights alone does not give you explicit permission to use them any time you want and in all situations. Think about if using them to kill another character is viable in the current situation considering role play and In Character information. Defense/kill rights gained from any rule breaks (including but not limited to baiting, invalid initiation) are considered invalid and their use will be punished in the same way as if they were not obtained at all.

Y'know, during an active firefight if one of my guys let someone go who was part of a group that was actively shooting and killing me and my guys, and I figured it out, I'd shoot him too, so he doesn't turn the corner, unshoulder his rifle, and start shooting at me.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Cipher said:

and

Well friend it doesn’t sound like you will be here all that long then.  Goof luck but again the staff teams decision here is sound.

Link to comment
  • Diamond

Dew starts to RP with G19, why he didn't shoot him right there is a mystery but he doesn't, he allows him to pick up a gun and walk away, now he has become a compliant hostage because you went through the extra mile had he lets say turned around and fired at you or placed the wepone in his hands he would have been none compliant allowing you to gas but due to dew allowing him to go with his gun he had no rights to do so, group or not you turned him into your hostage and then a compliant hostage. That's how I imagine the staff team looked at it comparing it to the verdict itself.

A single group member shooting doesn't grant you any rights unless you have confirmed them as hostiles.

Edited by Eagle
Link to comment

 

1 minute ago, Eagle said:

Dew starts to RP with G19, why he didn't shoot him right there is a mystery

Perhaps because he didn't want to shoot someone uninvolved. Again, if he doesn't confirm then and there and lets the man on his merry way then his group loses KoS? Doesn't make sense to me.

Link to comment
  • Diamond
6 minutes ago, Cipher said:

 

Perhaps because he didn't want to shoot someone uninvolved. Again, if he doesn't confirm then and there and lets the man on his merry way then his group loses KoS? Doesn't make sense to me.

If you guys were so sure he was an inside man why didn't you just kill him? since Sasha does so afterward. 
You made him a hostage, he was following your demands, he walks away with a gun that you allowed him to keep and then tell him to go to a certain direction, he follows the demands to the teeth but you felt he was a hostile due to his gun but if that would be the case your playing on rules because you made him into a possible threat.

You could have taken his gun and told him to fk off if you suspected something bad about his motives of being there, seen him again snooping around? blast him.

Edited by Eagle
Link to comment

This thread seems to me like both parties involved just want an avenue to argue some more. No one is going to achieve anything here other than petty arguing in my opinion.

To me... the situation could go either way, and I see what you both are saying so using my big centrist brain I will just not take any sides.

I can't see a ban appeal yet... so maybe one is in order to sort this out instead of this lovely discussion.

Link to comment
  • Legend
Just now, Eagle said:

If you guys were so sure he was an inside man why didn't you kill him? since Sasha does so afterward. 
You made him a hostage, he was following your demands, he walks away with a gun that you allowed him to keep and then tell him to go to a certain direction, he follows the demands to the teeth but you felt he was a hostile due to his gun but if that would be the case your playing on rules because you made him into a possible threat.

You could have taken his gun and told him to fk off if you suspected something bad about his motives of being there, seen him again snooping around? blast him.

If you get into an altercation with someone and you manage to escape and you run into the guy later on and take him hostage, as long as you're within the 2 hour period, you can use your KOS rights and kill them. 

In this situation, House gained KOS on the entire group, regardless of the fact that he was a hostage, they could still use KOS rights. He was running up to the trees with an SVD, everyone involved knows he would have helped fighting back with that high powered sniper. But, according to that verdict, he wasn't a threat. I agree with Cipher whole-heartedly. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Eagle said:

If you guys were so sure he was an inside man why didn't you kill him? since Sasha does so afterward. 

It takes time to communicate information.

"Hey, let a guy go, Gorka jacket, jeans, has an AK, Chernarussian sounding"

"Wait that guy was talking and running around with the guys who initiated on us just a few minutes ago"

"You think he's with them?"

"Yeah"

"Shoot him"

2 minutes ago, Asriel said:

This thread seems to me like both parties involved just want an avenue to argue some more. No one is going to achieve anything here other than petty arguing in my opinion.

I find discussing reports openly is great for all parties to gain a further understanding of the rules as well as potentially find loopholes in the rules, such as this one.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
  • Diamond
1 minute ago, Cipher said:

It takes time to communicate information.

"Hey, let a guy go, Gorka jacket, jeans, has an AK, Chernarussian sounding"

"Wait that guy was talking and running around with the guys who initiated on us just a few minutes with him"

"You think he's with them?"

"Yeah"

"Shoot him"

Then why didn't you disarm him?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Cipher said:

I find discussing reports openly is great for all parties to gain a further understanding of the rules as well as potentially find loopholes in the rules, such as this one.

I've seen a lot of threads like this.

I'm just concerned people might take it a bit too far and get a lot of salt. Nice rule discussion is good, and so far so good but I think it might devolve into something worse if people aren't careful. 

Link to comment
Just now, Eagle said:

Then why didn't you disarm him?

Active firefight, you'd have to get into range which gives the attackers opportunity to shoot him. Why is the burden of the defenders to continue roleplay, putting themselves at a disadvantage both ICly and from a game sense, when the attackers are shooting at them?

Link to comment
  • Diamond
5 minutes ago, Cipher said:

Active firefight, you'd have to get into range which gives the attackers opportunity to shoot him. Why is the burden of the defenders to continue roleplay, putting themselves at a disadvantage both ICly and from a game sense, when the attackers are shooting at them?

Because you started an RP season with the hostile, you even made him drop his gun, then told him to pick it back up your fault for making him look like a threat.
If this is your belief, I will just put a pistol/riffle on one of your men during a fight that you started once taken hostage let him go then just blast him because I can.

Edited by Eagle
Link to comment

I'd also like to explain that technically (from a rules standpoint), sure, Dew initiated. But Dew's intention was to get an uninvolved (in his mind) person out of the area as soon as possible. Dew's intention was not to hold someone "hostage" and get something out of him.. Only after they confirmed that G19 was indeed part of the hostile party, did they shoot.

 

 

This verdict is ruleplay.

Link to comment
  • Sapphire

@Cipher just one question is there a appeal being written up atm?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Eagle said:

Because you started an RP season with the hostile, you even had already made him drop his gun, then tell him to pick it back up your fault for making him look like a threat.
If this is your belief, I will just put a pistol/riffle on one of your men during a fight that you started once taken hostage let him go then just blast him because I can.

Read my post below yours, if you look at it from purely a rules over roleplay standpoint, G19 was taken hostage from purely a rules standpoint. Dew at no point had initial hostile intentions against G19 until they figured out he was part of the hostile party, at which point he was shot.

2 minutes ago, Scar said:

@Cipher just one question is there a appeal being written up atm?

Yes, by and for Sasha, but I'm not Sasha and I want to talk about it

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
  • Diamond
4 minutes ago, Cipher said:

Read my post below yours, if you look at it from purely a rules over roleplay standpoint, G19 was taken hostage from purely a rules standpoint. Dew at no point had initial hostile intentions against G19 until they figured out he was part of the hostile party, at which point he was shot.

Yes, by and for Sasha, but I'm not Sasha and I want to talk about it

This thread would make sense if the appeal got denied because the staff could clarify on most points but just posting this up straight, looks like nothing more then just arguing on points that won't go anywhere.

Link to comment
  • Emerald

Quick question, how is this situation different from (for example), The House having Kam hostage, Kam attacking, and The House executing him? Remember that Kam is the group that initiated, then we learned who the person was we were letting go, and therefore he was killed.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Eagle said:

This thread would make sense if the appeal got denied because the staff could clarify on most points but just posting this up straight, looks like nothing more then just arguing on points that won't go anywhere.

Sure.

Requesting for this to be locked till an appeal is up and accepted or denied, EDIT: After this question is answered.

Just now, Zipcouda said:

Quick question, how is this situation different from (for example), The House having Kam hostage, Kam attacking, and The House executing him? Remember that Kam is the group that initiated, then we learned who the person was we were letting go, and therefore he was killed.

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
  • Sleepyhead locked this topic
  • Legend

// locked upon request

1 minute ago, Zipcouda said:

Quick question, how is this situation different from (for example), The House having Kam hostage, Kam attacking, and The House executing him? Remember that Kam is the group that initiated, then we learned who the person was we were letting go, and therefore he was killed.

I myself, personally, don't find it any different.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...