a whole different team (not staff) has reviewed your appeal and came to the following decision for you and also for your group leader @Kordruga who failed to secure you.
Kord, you manage to kill the person who initiated on your bf @APositiveElmo. You are a person to be forward-looking, of course you expect potential allies of the fool you just killed to arrive soon. This is where combatant 1 and combatant 2 join the situation. Sprinting, holding their firearms ready, moving towards the last known location of the armed conflict. In conclusion of these facts, you opened fire on them, along with the thought securing your own survival.
As the report shows, you find yourself in a tricky situation. Your group leader was just killed a few meters away from you and what you encounter is two individuals sprinting right next to you, communicating their involvement in the ongoing situation. Even though you are one of the note passing role players, you could have initiated but from what you needed to identify your target, everything was given: Shots, friend not answering anymore, individuals from the other party at the direct location of the armed conflict, even communicating for you that they were indeed taking part in the fight.
Keeping in mind that the current set of our rules leave a lot of room for interpretation for the individual judging a situation, this one is pretty clear. Combatant 1 & 2 joined in under an invisible protection known as mighty armour. This rule break basically allows them to take part in a situation but not get harmed by other people who were already fighting for their lives, being initiated on twice. Our community defines this as a bad sport or as the definition from the rule pages states: rule play.
It is indeed correct to classify those kills as invalid wrongful deaths but the source of this rule break cluster does not lie within your fine role play group. It was the OP's party which started the chain of events which led to multiple rule breaks.
With that being explained,
you two should have never been banned in this report.
I was not brought into this discussion, but its seems pretty clear cut. Notes: I agree with Ron and Terra.
TBH I would change the ruleplay to NVFL maybe. After all they ran into a situation unknowingly, of whom they were against. Most of the time anyone who runs into a firefight and seemingly not involved get hit with NVFL.
Then again! They shouldn't be guilty anyway. So it probably would be ruleplay.