Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2020-09-26, 18:56



Dedicated Player

"You count sheep. ‎‎‎‎⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀I count cows."

  • Rank

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Cowmoo last won the day on April 2 2019

Cowmoo had the most liked content!


2404 h Super Soldier

Community Reputation

864 Experienced

Account information

  • Whitelisted YES
  • Last played 4 weeks ago

Personal Information

  • Sex

Recent Profile Visitors

  • Ruan

  • Burak

  • YBN Panda

  • Mazer

  • waVer

Single Status Update

See all updates by Cowmoo

  1. Let me get this straight, you run around and harass players, saying you that they can either give you their shit, or you'll fight them. Then you move in closer saying "I like those pouches and want them.", and you expect them to not blast you away? You threatened them without threatening them, of course they're likely to shoot you. I'd shoot you myself. Lmao.

    1. Cowmoo


      1. 1.
        a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.

      You gave them the flight or fight option when you strong armed them, in my opinion.

    2. YNW Viking

      YNW Viking

      But that's not an initiation, that's not how the rules work my dude, no weapons were raised and no threat of injury was implied or said.

    3. Zero


      I kind of agree with Camo, I am all for strong arming people. Sometimes it's interesting instead of just scream initiations. But if you something like "We can take your stuff with a fight or without a fight", it implies you are threatening them with a fight AKA harm if you don't hand your shit over to the bandit.

    4. Cowmoo


      @Viking Hostile actions are player interactions where you or your group members lives are threatened by other players, you are forced to do something against your will under threat of violence, someone is stealing from you, etc. 

      They didn't "initiate" officially, but they still threaten violence the second when he said "We see something and we take it, and it can be with a fight or without a fight." Then he leans in forward and implies "Do you understand where I am going with this?" Then he says "I like those pouches, I want them." --- Strong-armming is acceptable to a certain degree, but the way he went about it, came off as threatening to harm the victim. His implication, to my understanding, was that he wants it or he's going to "fight" (harm) the victim. He didn't make an official "initation" by pointing guns or screaming at him to drop his gear, but his threats of violence to me gives the victim defensive kill rights, in my opinion. If I completely misinterpreted what I just watched, then feel free to tell me what I am wrong about, because frankly I suspect I will be in the same problem in the future and would like some guidance on how to handle it, before the offenders get the drop on me. --- I had a similar issue, happen back in 2017, when the VDV rolled up on me, and strongarmed that I dropped my shit or else "there will be consequences", so I dropped my shit, waiting for my chance, and gunned the "officer" of the group, when he was alone. I spoke with them OOC, and they completely agreed it was a valid reason for me to gun them down 10 minutes later.

      I was strong-armed the other day for my plate carrier & pouches, I think it was actually the same group of guys too. I told them it wasn't for sale, and they kept on strong-armming me, but they never threatened me, and just when they said "alright" and it their tone to me indiciated to me, that they were positioning to initiate on me, and that's when I thought "fuck it" and said I would be willing to trade, even though I got the shitty end of the stick, but at least I didn't get shot or completely robbed for my gear.

    5. Cowmoo


      If they honestly think they can go around strong-arming people for their gear, (which to me looked like like the definition of GearRP rulebreak, for plate carrier pouches because he didn't have one on his plate carrier). They should expect that what they're doing is dangerous and should expect to what had happend next frankly. I with the player who was reported 100% that it was valid enough for kill rights to take them out.

      If anyone is in the wrong for breaking the rules, I would think it would be them for GearRP. They were essentially strong-arming, threatening violence, for the particular item the player had. Props to the player for gunning them down. I think they should file a report too.

    6. YNW Viking

      YNW Viking

      4.2 If you are attacked by other players and subjected to a hostile action you are allowed to defend yourself by gaining  DEFENSE RIGHTS

      In the report we're gonna have to see what the take of the GM's opinion on hostile action is, I've been in many cases where strongarming isn't hostile at all but just the presence of 4-6 armed guys around you will make feel unsafe and willingly give up your gear.

      Funny you'd bring up the VDV since I was in the group, and if I had been in the channel when you spoke to whoever you gunned down, I would see it as invalid as we could have had many ways for there to be consequences, like kicking you out of Kab until we stopped controlling it, removing your civilian gun license, or maybe disarm you using our guns.

    7. Cowmoo


      I am too genuinely curious how this report goes as well, because it will clearly define and may be used as an example for future reports & debates on what is considered a valid threat, and what may be considered a hostile action, by in which would be enough to grant defensive rights (to the player who are reported).

    8. Eagle


      By that logic, I should be able to shoot anyone who points a rifle at me at any range.

    9. YNW Viking

      YNW Viking

      I could also see it as going in another direction as a case of ruleplay

      • 3.3 You may not focus on out of character gains to the detriment of RP. For example, "rule play" is prioritizing things like kill rights or OOC information above more appropriate IC actions or behavior. Always prioritize role play over rule play.

      Since no actual initiation was dropped but the defensive rights that would be valid in the case of an actual initiation, but since no initiation was dropped then defensive rights would not be valid

    10. Cowmoo


      @Eagle Well, I mean no. I wouldn't actually consider that to be as similar in a logical comparison. If someone is pointing a gun at your direction, it's an involuntary threat. If they're clearly pointing at you, then it would be understandable if you were to respond to them to quit pointing their gun at you. But depending on the circumstances, I wouldn't necessarily say it would grant you defensive rights to kill them, no. If you they continue though, yeah, I would shoot them. Just because you don't make a verbal threat in the form of an "official initiation", doesn't necessarily me you won't get shot. --- There's a reason why the rules are re-written. The rules now don't say "You need to be initiated on in order to return fire." , or whatever they use to be. I like the way they are written now, because they can be interpreted from situation to situation and judged accordingly by the staff team who handle a report.

      F.Y.I. there's a reason why I chose to create a status instead of a forum post, because frankly I want to hear what people have to say, without violating Rule 1.5. - I know that threads that start off aggressive like my status, don't go anywhere. But I feel like the more so "honest" responses wouldn't be allowed in a thread without getting cautioned. Though I do expect the replies here to be passive-aggressive, as long as you don't flame.

    11. Ender


      Imo. Strong arming is literally just a thing so people can abuse a loophole in the rules to avoid giving people defense rights. and should be punishable via Rule play or invalid initiation. 

    12. YNW Viking

      YNW Viking

      There's a reason why the rules are re-written. The rules now don't say "You need to be initiated on in order to return fire." , or whatever they use to be. I like the way they are written now, because they can be interpreted from situation to situation and judged accordingly by the staff team who handle a report.

      4.1 All hostile actions must be clear and unambiguous to all involved players.

      But you would need to make a clear statement with your intent for it to be a hostile action in which all parties can understand. Such as "Put your hands up or die" which in my opinion can only be interpreted in one way


      @Ender you do know that saying "No" is an option when getting strong armed...

    13. Cowmoo


      @Viking Oof... Viking 1 | Camo 0  ? ... I have to say, you bring up a great compelling response, that could be a guideline for how the admins may come to their decision for that report... I feel silly now.. I mean, when I read the rule again before I posted this status, I didn't even think of in this context...  But I still think the argument stands on whether or not their threats is valid enough to be killed for... ?

  • Create New...