Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2019-09-21, 10:02
Sign in to follow this  
Q-ChilliDivision

defender rights

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

A punch B in the face and B is raising the gun at A AND kill him, have other groupmembers from A  also defender or better kill rights after the puncher get killed or must they use an initiation?

Edited by Q-ChilliDivision

Share this post


Link to post

A is the attacker, B is the defender. So by the rules they have to initiate if they are not in an official group, I think. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, AndreyQ said:

A is the attacker, B is the defender. So by the rules they have to initiate if they are not in an official group, I think. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

but if they are in an official group with A they can kill the killer without initiation, right?

Share this post


Link to post

Punching someone is a hostile action as confirmed in this report by @Roland 

So B would be able to kill A for the punch. As for A's group if dynamic they would need to initiate individually as the original punch would be under attacker rights.

If an official group id still suggest that they initiate again after the person is killed to guarantee attacker rights should the guy that killed the puncher not comply. If you for instance use the rights gained (a punch being the initiation) then it can be seen as baiting.

Like everything its completely situational but my main point is Roleplay>Ruleplay if you don't need to kill someone for punching you well then don't.

Share this post


Link to post

If you're attacking, i.e: Person A, your friends don't gain defender rights as person A was a part of the aggressing party. This is assuming the party is dynamic.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Voodoo said:

Punching someone is a hostile action as confirmed in this report by @Roland 

So B would be able to kill A for the punch. As for A's group if dynamic they would need to initiate individually as the original punch would be under attacker rights.

If an official group id still suggest that they initiate again after the person is killed to guarantee attacker rights should the guy that killed the puncher not comply. If you for instance use the rights gained (a punch being the initiation) then it can be seen as baiting.

Like everything its completely situational but my main point is Roleplay>Ruleplay if you don't need to kill someone for punching you well then don't.

ok thx

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Q-ChilliDivision said:

ok thx

As I said a lot is situational when it comes to IC actions.

The old rule was if you are unsure if you gained rights to kill the other person then its better to re-initiate to clear everything up

Share this post


Link to post

It's always situational but if I'm understanding you correctly then group A would be the attackers and they cannot gain defender rights since their member was the hostile party. If you'd like to talk over it in a voice chat you're more than welcome to jump into a voice chat and I can talk over situations with you to help you better understand things as it would be much easier to do than try to explain via text.

Share this post


Link to post

Sadly in that situation, my intention wasn't even to kill, you hear me say in the video on the report "GET-" before I get gunned down. 

Always RP over ruleplay. The situation in the report it was just assumed that I(A) would gun down B, so C opened fire. 

To take away from this, don't assume things. Also, differentiate the difference between a warning and an initiation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Kain said:

Sadly in that situation, my intention wasn't even to kill, you hear me say in the video on the report "GET-" before I get gunned down. 

Always RP over ruleplay. The situation in the report it was just assumed that I(A) would gun down B, so C opened fire. 

To take away from this, don't assume things. Also, differentiate the difference between a warning and an initiation. 

I completely agree with @Kain, but this discussion is getting boring. I never felt threatened by Kazimir. My personal opinion is this:

a) When I punched Kazimir, I gave him kill rights, which he could not have used because it would have been ruleplay. The punch was meant as RP (just to clarify, he was not robbing me, and I was not his hostage, as some people seem to believe).

b) Within the RP, both during and before the video that people have seen (the situation lasted for about 30 minutes, and the video is just 1 minute long), Kazimir threatened Grace and prevented her from leaving, which gave her kill rights, but she should not have used these rights because, from my point of view, shooting Kazimir was ruleplay.

As a rule, if you want to be hostile, you should always drop a "standard" initiation to avoid any ambiguities.

 

PS. I do consider that the verdict that @Samti and @Saunders gave to this report, as full non-guilty was valid for baiting/invalid kill/NVFL. Only that they did not evaluate the possibility of ruleplay. Roland's interpretation is also ok, but it does not consider that Grace did obtain kill rights on her own, independently of my punch. I think that even admins are confused.

Edited by William89

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, William89 said:

I completely agree with @Kain, but this discussion is getting boring. I never felt threatened by Kazimir. My personal opinion is this:

a) When I punched Kazimir, I gave him kill rights, which he could not have used because it would have been ruleplay. The punch was meant as RP (just to clarify, he was not robbing me, and I was not his hostage, as some people seem to believe).

b) Within the RP, both during and before the video that people have seen (the situation lasted for about 30 minutes, and the video is just 1 minute long), Kazimir threatened Grace and prevented her from leaving, which gave her kill rights, but she should not have used these rights because, from my point of view, shooting Kazimir was ruleplay.

As a rule, if you want to be hostile, you should always drop a "standard" initiation to avoid any ambiguities.

 

PS. I do consider that the verdict that @Samti and @Saunders gave to this report, as full non-guilty was valid for baiting/invalid kill/NVFL. Only that they did not evaluate the possibility of ruleplay. Roland's interpretation is also ok, but it does not consider that Grace did obtain kill rights on her own, independently of my punch. I think that even admins are confused.

I'm not quite understand what you mean, could you elaborate on what you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Saunders said:

I'm not quite understand what you mean, could you elaborate on what you mean? 

Sure. What part? a? b? PS? or something else?

Share this post


Link to post

Specifically this bit 

image.png.fcd554eff6966f60ea60a302cae7c2ad.png

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I think that you initial verdict was ok. You completely ignore Nikolai's actions (which is correct), and consider that Grace killing Kazimir was valid, because he was not letting her leave, and he was also not leaving himself. What you wrote was exactly this:

the Accused either tried to leave OR requested for @Kainand @WongRPto leave but the OP and his ally's decided to stay and further the situation

This is 100% right. Therefore, you argue that the kill was valid (and of course there was no baiting, and there was no NVFL) and I respect and agree with that.

However, I believe that @lunathecat may have been guilty of ruleplay, as @Kain suggests here:

Spoiler

image.png

Grace just cut the RP by shooting Kazimir. But @Kain never accused @lunathecat of ruleplay. Therefore, I think that you, as volunteer, unpaid admins did a great job, and I thank you for your work.

 

Then, people saw the 1 minute long video (some without reading the report), and they started arguing a lot about me, and asking the staff about my punch (some say weird things, like that it was a robbery, or things about hostages... XD!):

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

This led Roland to modify your verdict, and he punished @lunathecat for invalid kill. He argues that she did obtain kill rights because of my punch, which is 100% true. But this was never an issue in the original report.

 

She, @lunathecat has always considered that she obtained the kill rights on her own, as she says both in the original report and also here:

Spoiler

 

Her opinion is arguably right. I agree with her: I think that the kill was valid (though I think that it was ruleplay). Sadly, the staff member that closed this appeal gave her a weird response that did not answer her arguments at all.

 

I hope that nobody will get angry with me... did I answer you, @Saunders?. This is my whole opinion.

Edited by William89

Share this post


Link to post

That was extremely detailed and I now understand what you were getting at, thank you for the big explanation. I'll be more than happy to discuss your opinion with you in a more private setting if that's something you'd like to do? Just drop me a message on discord, note that any opinions I may give during our talk are as a community member and most definitely not as a staff member so do not take my personal opinions as my staff member opinion or as a staff team opinion as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...