Additional point if I may on the topic of proportionality; which was the reason for the verdict. I'm being told that dropping the items on the floor was not proportionate to the IC Reasoning. The IC Reasoning was that The Legion shot and killed one of our group during an interrupted raid; I would say that dumping a few items on the ground is barely punishment for taking a life. In the grand scheme of things; destroying items? That's criminal damage. Taking a life? That's murder. The only thing out of proportion about all of this, is a 7 day ban for a few trash items that didn't even despawn ... all of which happened because someone was SHOT.
Proportionality. They shoot and kill one of my guys. I throw some vegetables and shovels on the floor and run away with two tents. Are we now trying to argue that hypothetically destroying a few items is not proportionate to a life being taken? I'm shocked.
But they should be. We're playing a god damn video game. If you don't want someone to do something - you tell them simply and clearly. DO. NOT. DO. IT. You yourself say that the rules are a grey area. Imagine if someone with learning difficulties wanted to play here and made an innocent mistake? They get absolutley shafted for it, because they read the rules as they were written? Are we going to say to them "Sorry, I know you are Dyslexic, but it's not my problem they weren't clear enough for you". No we're not; because we're all here to achieve one common goal; to have fun. I'm in no way, shape or form perfect. I made a mistake, I think it is an easy error to make. The first report didn't have a verdict by the time the second report was opened and to be honest I didn't feel it was a rule violation - if it later on is deturmined that it is; then it needs to be made clear *shrugs* Rules should be clear. End of story. That's why they're rules.
Link to the source of punishment (report/post): Why the verdict is not fair: I supposedly broke Rule 4.8 which states: The rule itself is not 100% clear. I posted a suggestion thread to have the rule amended to make it easier to understand, so it categorically states it's intention. The suggestion thread I posted sparked interesting debates, however the findings of this thread are that there are a lot of conflicting opinions from different members of the communtiy around the rule and the overall conclusion would be that not a soul could certainly say what was a rule break, and what wasn't. Therefore I find a 7 day ban and 10 warning points a little excessive for breaking a rule that nobody can agree on. What would have been a more fair judgement would have been to issue a verbal warning (as was issued with the other report of a similar nature). Additional statements/comments explaining your point of view: POINT ONE The situation itself occoured because of hostilities with The Legion. They interrupted a raid we were carrying out on another compound and shot one of our men, we then decided to take the raid to their compound for a little 'lawful chastisement'. I went into their base (skipping out the boring details) and stole two of their tents, I was not interested in the contents; therefore I left the contents of the tent on the floor and got out of there. As per the definition of the rules, I did NOT Damage or destroy any base items, storage containers, vehicles or contents of storage containers. I didn't do anything with OOC Knowledge I didn't do anything with malicious intent/ill-intent I didn't do anything without IC Reasoning. The rule doesn't state that if raiding, I must then clean up after myself. If it said anything anywhere near this - I wouldn't have left the items on the floor. POINT TWO A long ass time ago I reported someone for NVFL (this does have relevance, hang on) I approached them from the rear and had my gun against the back of their head. I said to him "Don't move or I'll blow you away". The first thing this person did was spin around and empty his clip into me. Obviously - I was pretty pissed therefore I reported him for NVFL. The conclusion of the report stated that he was NOT-GUILTY of NVFL because he didn't die, I was told a NVFL violation can't be committed if they actually survived. Therefore I ask - if the items were never destroyed, how can I be guilty of griefing? Because the rule states; Griefing is act of damaging or destroying a player base, storage container, vehicles or their contents. None of the items were damaged or destroyed. This was merely a misunderstanding that can be resolved with words of advice and a wording amendment on the rules. What would you like to achieve with this appeal: I would like for the rules to be amended so they are CLEAR for new and returning players. I would like the rules to clearly state what is and isn't permitted. This would avoid people being banned/warned for something they TRULY didn't know was an issue. I would like to be issued a verbal warning as I had received for the other report. I would like for the ban/warning points to be removed. What could you have done better?: I took the advice from the Legion members, who said that it would have been better to plan the raid online, and to have a plan of attack and treat it more like a heist. Therefore if it happened again - I'd probably do it like that. However the reason I didn't? Is because we get offline raided and have our shit left all over the place on a daily basis - why should I treat people with dignity when others shit on our playstyle? If the rules clearly stated that what I did was a violation (which they do not) then It wouldn't have ever happened. This was an unintended mistake, blown completely out of proportion. I close with some quotes from community members; Is it griefing?
@Roland Could we have some final clarification. I just got a 7 day ban for this. A 7 day ban for a rule that simply does not clearly state that what happened was a rulebreak. In the years I've played here, I've never been banned, never had a rulebreak. It's not somerhing I do.
You've hit the nail on the head. I don't pay much attention to the reports section because other peoples problems are not my problems. I also have returned to DayZRP in the last few weeks after being away for what's almost two years I think. That's why I've said that rule clarifications should be there, especially for new and returning players; who don't live on the forums or are out of touch. Rules that don't exist or rules that subtly suggest something shouldn't be enforcable. That's why actual laws in the real world are worded the way they are, to prevent confusion and to plug all that fun stuff.
If you want in-character reasoning; Whilst we were conducting a raid, The Legion interrupted and prevented us from taking what we needed. They also shot down one of our men; they invited us to their compound. Of course you keep your friends close and your enemies closer. An oppertunity arose to take what we couldn't get from the base we initially attempted to raid, from the Legion. It's subtle revenge. The point about the items being dumped on the floor? What people fail to understand is that it wasn't with ill intent, it wasn't malicious. IF it is a rule violation, it wasn't intended as I read the rules so I can understand them; It's not stated in the rules therefore I didn't think I should need to put all the shit into tents from the one I stole. Some people have different thoughts on the matter. That is why this suggestion thread is here. To any other potential people getting involved in this dicussion. Keep the topic of conversation on the subject matter itself. Please. @General Rickets We only took two tents. One Military tent and one car tent. Further complicates an already GREY rule? I think it makes it much more clear, considering you've just said that the rule is already grey? ...
In no way, shape or form does the rule say that. There isn't any variation or order you can put the wording of that rule in, that would make that rule say that. Once again ... this is a suggestion to add clarifiction to the rule. Does the spark in debate with this topic not make it clear that the rules are obviously misunderstood? It's not just one person ...
I think the point is being missed here; This post isn't suggesting to make what happened ALLOWED. What its suggesting is to make the rules reflect what the rules should actually say ... If someone were to be punished for this - it would be relativley unfair as the rules don't touch on it. Now there is such a conflcting opinion around the topic from all sides, I don't know how anyone can say "YOU BROKE THE RULES" because it seems that through this debate, really ... there isn't a rule ... So, back to the topic ... Could a member of staff, if possible - lock this down and move it to the ask the staff section? I think this is now better being answered offically by an Admin or GM. The horse is dead and beaten. @Realize
@AkaRand Just write it in Belgian and translate it I guess XD *shrugs*
Or maybe the rules don't specify that we are required to give the base a spring clean before we leave? A requirement to do so introduces an unrealistic expectation that someone ransacking your place and taking your stuff should clean up and potentially wait around to get caught, shot or killed. For clarification Items were not left intentionally to despawn, there was no malicious intent, OOC knowledge, ill-intent or IC Reason NOT to do it. Rule clarification = No more complaints of this nature.
Yes. I had a military mountain backpack and the items in the tent would not fit in my backpack with the Military tent and the car tent. I didn't want to run with a tent in my hands with the risk of being seen/stopped by passers by or members running the compound as they could have come back to base at any given moment. This compound is operated almost 24 hours a day, they have members across all timezones; hense the reason I don't understand why the expectation is that I should sit there and put everything into neat little piles in the other tents, waiting for the owners to come back and question my presence; it's not at all a realistic request or expectation.
This suggestion is directly a result of those two reports. You're correct. It's to get clarification. Your passive-aggressive approach wasn't appreciated, unless you have something constructive? Let's keep it on topic.