The page still pretends you have spent too much...

Link to the source of punishment (report/post): Why the verdict is not fair: Throughout this whole situation it is clear to me that @Duquesne and @Pepper do nothing in order to distance themselves from the situation that they claim they want no part in and instead do the opposite. They put themselves in harms way and do every thing that people in this community are discouraged from doing if they find themselves in the middle of a gunfight that does not involve them. They run around with their weapons out, deliberately running towards shots whilst knowing that since they have not been initiated on they are technically protected by the rules. Using the rules regarding hostilities as armour to be protected is a prime example of ruleplay. Watching the video of the OP it seems pretty clear to me that they know they are protected by the rules, from the way that they sprint around with their weapons out after the gunfight begins. They know they personally have not been initiated on and seem to believe that due to that, they are untouchable and can do whatever they want. Additional statements/comments explaining your point of view: In this situation I killed two people. @Pepper and @Duquesne. I might not have had any legitimate rights on them in accordance with the rules but let us examine the facts. I killed the two of them shortly after they had been engaged by @Kordruga. I did not have radio contact with him since he had been killed. All I know in and out of character is that he had been in the trees near me, firing north at people near the castle. He is then silent on the radio as a hail of gunfire ring out from the area I had last seen him. As I approach I do not see him but see a man and a woman running away, with their weapons out, whilst the woman exclaims out loud something along the lines of "I'm hit" (After reviewing the video from the OP of the report it appears she was actually saying "I hit, I hit.", confirming or celebrating the fact she had shot somebody). I have no way of knowing that they do not wish to be involved in the situation. As far as I am concerned they have just gunned down the leader of my group in an active firefight. When the firefight began they were both aware of this. Both of them decided to keep their weapons in their hands in the middle of an active firefight and run towards one of the many sources of gunfire. This is something that they admit to in the report. The OP states in his PoV: "I go towards the shots". In the PoV from the OP he says that they ran towards the shots thinking they originated from a friend of his who they could question as to what was happening in this situation. I do not quite understand this as throughout the whole situation (as evidenced in the video from the OP) he was in radio contact with his group, even asking at this timestamp "Who the fuck opened fire?" - They did not need to run towards gunshots during a firefight in order to ask their friends what was going on. They had radio contact with their friends. The OP of the report puts an armband on to "Not get hit in the crossfire". This armband is a green armband. The same colour armband as the man who initiated on @AndreyQ earlier this session who we as a group still had defender rights on. In the video from the OP at this timestamp you can hear @Pepper saying "Shoot the fucking hobo." - The hobo she refers to is @KennethRP who had become a captive. She claims she is not involved in the situation at all however she gets herself involved by giving orders for a member of our group who had been unarmed since his arrival on the island to be executed. In this situation I believe everybody in my position would have opened fire. The OP and his friend put themselves in harms way despite having numerous opportunities to actually get away from the situation and properly show that they are not a part of it, but they did not. They used the rules to feel protected and dance around in the middle of a firefight when they are well aware of what is happening and when they are killed, they post a report and claim ignorance of the situation. _______ To me this verdict gives a bad example for any community member on how to act in a firefight. It shows that if you are caught up in a firefight, you can just run towards shots with your weapon out and not worry. The rules are there to protect you. If you are not involved you will have to be initiated on first, despite the fact your appearance makes you look like a combatant. What would you like to achieve with this appeal: Ban and points removed. What could you have done better?: A: Positively identify the fact that the two people who I was about to engage were in-fact not wishing to be involved in the situation and were hoping the rules would protect them from death, despite them running towards gunshots with their weapons out as well as calling for an unarmed member of my group to be executed. B: Get a better group leader who can secure two kills with ease so I do not have to do it.

I demand both an 'Apache helicopter' option as well as a 'Main battle tank' option. In all seriousness though, no. If you can't pick between the two options, don't pick either of them and leave it.

@Roland pls fix ty

Fast travel was already polled and it failed miserably yet it is still being added... There is no point in polls it seems.

Can confirm. Not sure about the time for the first car to despawn but the second car despawned in the time it took me to run like 250m and back to get water for a new radiator. Was less than 10 minutes.

I could've sworn that the poll to add fast travel failed horribly... We are not playing Skyrim and in need of a quick teleport to Dawnstar. This is a roleplay server. We have recently had a host of new vehicles added for people to use in order to transport themselves and their friends around the map. Fast travel makes no sense for roleplay. Cars make sense. Why can we not just stick to cars? _____________________________ I like the idea of a trade post. It brings back somewhat happy memories for me however I completely disagree with the idea of NPC traders. Once again, this is a roleplay server. Let people go there to roleplay and trade with eachother, creating roleplay. Why would anybody need to roleplay as a trader now when the competition for their business is open 24/7 at the trade post. Trade post good. NPC traders bad. _____________________________ Spray painted guns... this is a feature that I have missed since it was part of the vanilla game back in the day. I am happy to see it however I am not sure how I feel about fluorescent pink/yellow/cyan guns etc. Black is nice, other camouflage colours are nice but do we really want to see all the gun bunnies running around toting bright coloured guns? I feel it would just kill immersion a little bit. It was not long ago that bright coloured gorka jackets were suggested but the idea was shut down for them not being realistic or something... but these new colours for guns are fine? Please no. _____________________________ Besides the physical tradepost, without NPC traders. I pray for the "may not" option.

For the record, I did not see you until after you shot at me. I aimed to shoot Peppers body once in the head as stated in my PoV immediately after which I was shot by you. I then moved out of cover to shoot at you only to witness you get gunned down. _____________________________ What I still do not understand regarding this whole situation is why, after being aware a firefight has started and not wishing to be caught up in it, do @Duquesne and @Pepper continue to run around with their weapons out along with running towards a source of the gunshots (that source being Kordruga killing Kevin O Shea from 275m away). For the longest time the advice for anybody caught in the middle of a firefight who does not wish to be involved is to put your hands up to signify you non-involvement or at the very least put your bloody gun away. Not run with your gun out on what appears to be a flanking maneuver.

Does today get a part 2 of this thread @AndreyQ?