Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2019-12-10, 23:11 WE ARE RECRUITING
Sign in to follow this  
Hunter

Appeal: Unreasonable Hostage Demands

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Link to the source of punishment (report/post)

Why the verdict is not fair: 

The demands we gave the hostage were not unreasonable so I don't understand at all how we are being hit with unreasonable hostage demands. He was simply told numerous times to answer our questions with something other than the same, monotone responses he had been giving us over and over time and time again. I do not understand how in any way these demands are unreasonable especially when his life is being threatened numerous times over the span of these questions if he answers with the same meaningless monotonic responses.

When he asked for water, he stated he was "a little bit thirsty." I'm sorry, but how is this in ANY means a reasonable way of notifying us that he is in DIRE need of water? As much as it is our responsibility to keep the hostage in good health, we did everything we could on our end with the knowledge we are knowingly able to be had, taking the current situation into account. The hostage was essentially non-compliant the entire time and was treated as such, I.E. being shot, beaten with the buttstock, etc. It would be unreasonable to expect us to provide no punishment whatsoever for the noncompliance, but we didn't want to jump straight to killing him, which was in our every RIGHT to do such. We were given NO means whatsoever by the hostage to tell us he was dying. We protected him from infected, and had he actually given us a reasonable notification, whether it be IC or OOC, that he was dying of dehydration, he would have then been given water. However, telling us he is "a little bit thirsty" in no way gives an impression of dying, so the responses given to withhold from providing this to him UNTIL he very SIMPLY COMPLIED and REPLIED to our questions with something other than the meaningless monotonic answers that provide us with literally no RP whatsoever, but also is not in any way a way to notify hostage takers that they are dying. With this in mind, us telling him that he would not be receiving such (even though he was plenty capable of providing himself the entire time and had no reason to ask us for our resources, but whatever) until he complied with our SIMPLE and ENTIRELY reasonable demands, seemed plenty appropriate.

We cannot see his hunger and thirst bars. Him not giving us any reasonable means of telling us in the manner he did does not display a desperate need for water. Derek states that " It's not only up to them to do all the informing, but you do also have large responsibilities as a hostage-taker to make sure your hostage is in good shape and the RP doesn't get abruptly ended with weird situations like this."

So in this case, we are now getting punished for the failure of the second party to inform us of something? For unreasonable hostage demands? I'm sorry, but what? If the hostage fails to properly inform us, then why are we getting punished?

 

I'm also going to link Phoenyxx's appeal as she goes more into depth regarding this situation, and our punishments and our appeals essentially go hand in hand and can essentially speak for myself here as well and go further into detail: 

 

Quoting more staff points here to counter unreasonable hostage demands:

"Not to mention that it wasn't a sensitive question they were asking in the first place." - Therefore, can also be assumed that since it is not so sensitive, would not be unreasonable to ask either and receive an answer for.

"It's not only up to them to do all the informing" & "Yes maybe a bit short and a little unclear"  - If it was unclear, that would show failure on the hostages end to inform us. Therefore it isn't unreasonable at all for us to not really notice and take this as a statement that they are in dire need of water and dying of dehydration. The staff team is even admitting it here that it isn't a clear indication to us, the hostage takers. So how are we supposed to act on something not being made clear to us?

"However, we see that as safer to be emoted out, and not using the game mechanics, as it runs the risk of shortening the RP" - Right, however, "a little bit thirsty" does not indicate us an emergency. Therefore, we felt it to be entirely safe to do such. Again, how are we supposed to act on something not made clear to us, as stated above.

"The hostile RP is almost a symbiotic relationship between hostage and hostage-taker" - Meaning that it is the responsibility of both parties to provide their own sides obligations to provide the best RP possible from both ends. However, when the hostage side fails to do such, the hostage takers get punished for it?

What would you like to achieve with this appeal: Points and Ban Removed as well as staff to again, RE-review the report and take into account all the things that were made countered against the suspect. He was hit with BadRP, NVFL, Lying in a Report, Avoiding RP (by attempting to NVFL and get himself killed), and tampering, yet I'm only seeing 2/5 being addressed here. As well as anything else that I missed from Norway's counter report which was closed, but not merged into ours.

To be hit with a ban and points when the staff have said themselves that it is the responsibility of both parties, and the other side failing to properly inform us, provide us with BadRP and NVFL, and essentially fail their responsibilities as a hostage,  is utterly ridiculous. Could I understand a verbal warning considering the lack of clarity in the situation due to the failure of the hostage to provide us any actual means of suspecting that they were dying of dehydration? Sure. But a ban and points? Yeah. Sorry. No. This is an obvious case where extenuating circumstances comes into effect. Having hostage takers punished when the hostage is committing bad RP to the point that their state of health is unclear, not only to us, but the staff as well as they stated, is ridiculous.

What could you have done better? When a hostage is handed off to us, to ask if they need anything. Instead of refusing the hostage water when they make it seem like it isn't an emergency, to just provide it, instead of trying to use it as a bargaining chip/tactic to get them to comply with our demands.

Edited by Hunter
Purple Text Added

Share this post


Link to post

After making many threats over the radio, ''Yakone Briggs'' is finally caught by the legion and escorted, down to the wolfpack by legion, at 02:22 of hunters clip he is asked, tell me what military you serve, and he repeats what he had been saying. Again he is asked at 02:40 what military or I will end you, again he repeats him self, at 07:10 he tells the group he is a bit thirsty, a bit, he is then told he will not receive water, until he answers the questions that have been asked of him, he refuses and dehydrates to death. NVFL will also be instated onto Drew for not using the food which was accessible to him and refusing to answer questions a ludicrous amount of times, that meaning that @Drew7822's character is now dead due to the NVFL punishment which will now be instated.

Appeal accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...