Peril

Summary: @Ophelia005 and @IvarTheNarrator find @Earl in the prison in Livonia. Believing Earl is 503, the duo initiate on him, prompting Earl to break into a sprint, take out his weapon, and begin firing. In response, Ophelia shoots at Earl and Ivar draws his weapon to do so as well, leaving Earl and Ophelia dead. No Value For Life: In the simplest terms, this is not No Value For Life. Earl engaged in a fight against two people, one of whom didn't have their gun drawn at the time, and almost won. Earl did not engage in a fight where he was heavily outnumbered or act in a way that would definitively lead to his death. In this situation, he had a chance of success and almost succeeded. Short of some incredibly damning video evidence, which all parties lack, this sort of engagement cannot be deemed NVFL. Verdict: @Earl | NVFL | Not Guilty. No action taken. Signed by @Peril, @Eddie, & @Eagles

@Earl, do you have any video evidence of this situation?

You are still required to offer a text based, detailed POV recounting all events leading up to and including the situation you've recorded.

Hello @River, A separate team of staff has reviewed your appeal and come to the conclusion of denial. Firstly, we'd like to address that we know you did not call anyone a snowflake directly, nor did you flame anyone. You were punished for flamebait, as you took a dig at other members of the community without directly naming them in the insult. Let's be real, calling someone a snowflake is an insult because of the connotation of the word, and it was used as such in your status update reply. The only difference here is that you implied people getting 'offended' over your views are snowflakes, rather than directly calling someone a snowflake. Indirect insults are still in violation of rules 1.1 and 1.2, and we expect not to see this behavior continue. With that said, Appeal denied, warning points remain. Signed by @Peril & @Eagles

If you'd like some helpful pointers in finding the password, feel free to join the Helpdesk on our Discord. Otherwise, submit a support ticket explaining that you'd like your account deleted.

Thank you for the feedback. I appreciate your candor in admitting your mistakes.

Summary: @Conor and @Wolfen meet @JJRambow nearby Brena industrial. The three men chat, then take refuge from the rain in a warehouse, where @AndreyQ and @Ducky barge in and initiate on JJRambow for wearing 5.0.3 garb. JJRambow notably does not have a radio on his person at any point throughout this encounter and confirms such OOCly when searched. The Nameless then relocate the hostage a great distance to the northwest debug corner of the map to deal with the situation. Concurrently, @MaybeleleLR, @Earl and @Elijah Johnson mobilize to rescue JJRambow, acting on information that JJRambow had communicated to them over Discord. The rescue party eventually finds the Nameless and a brief firefight ensues, leaving Wolfen dead and JJRambow freed. Metagaming: We'd first like to address the metagaming that occurred in this report. While we cannot confirm that there was metagaming done after @JJRambow put his hands up to comply with the initiation from the Nameless, the rescue party as a whole has agreed that JJRambow said something to the effect of, "4 guys in Brena," over Discord. This is not reflected in the video evidence provided by @Conor at any point, either before or after the four Nameless showed themselves as a group of 4. Additionally, JJRambow did this without a radio on his person, which, in combination with the lack of double mic-ing, is in direct violation of rule 3.6. The rescue party, comprised of @MaybeleleLR, @Earl, and @Elijah Johnson, acted on this metagamed information, using it to find the trail of JJRambow and the Nameless, and eventually to kill @Wolfen. The staff team is not asserting that the rescue party did or did not metagame locations past the point of the Nameless leaving Brena, but that does not change the fact that the initial information acted on was metagamed. Rule 3.5 states that information cannot be acted on when there is not a way for the information to be learned in-character, and seeing that @JJRambow physically could not transmit the information you acted on in any method but OOC communications, you will all be punished for metagaming. However, the staff team has decided to lower the punishment, as we cannot definitively prove that you did or did not know that the information was metagamed, or that any metagaming continued during the hostage's trip to the northwest. Lying in a Report: @JJRambow, at the onset of this report, you firmly asserted that you did in fact have a radio on your character whenever you were transmitting any information to your group mates over Discord. Contrary to your statements in your POV, the radio attachment on a Military Mountain Backpack appears on the left shoulder strap, and, thanks to the video and photo evidence provided by @Conor, it is plain to see that your left shoulder strap, as well as any inventory slots inside the bag itself, are totally void of any radio. Furthermore, you assure @AndreyQ that not only were you not streaming your game over Discord, but that you don't even know how to do so. Simply put, you activated AndreyQ's trap card, which came in the form of a video captured earlier in the day of this report's events clearly showing you acknowledging and utilizing your ability to stream on Discord. On top of all of this, you eventually admit to lying in this report in an attempt to avoid punishment. This is something we will not tolerate. @Elijah Johnson, you have gone to bat for JJRambow in this report, claiming that you arrived in Brena and found JJRambow's dropped bag, as well as a radio attached to it. While we have no reason to doubt that, whilst in Brena, you did find JJRambow's bag, there is hard evidence that contradicts your claim of a radio being attached to the backpack. This attempt at deceiving the staff team and reporting party to save your group mate from points will also not be tolerated. Evidence: Suggestions: To the rescuing party, we'd like to remind you that metagaming can go both ways. Always ensure that the information you are acting on in-character was actually and properly received in-character. At no point is it acceptable to transfer information you've received out-of-character to in-character, and any information that cannot be transmitted in-character cannot be acted on in that way. @JJRambow & @Elijah Johnson, we are, at the very least, disappointed that your points of view were issued the way they were. Rarely ever do people want to catch bans or be found guilty in reports, but when you are called into a report, just tell the truth. A 3 day ban for metagaming hurts a whole lot less than a 7 day ban for lying in a report. In the future, conduct yourself honestly in reports. Apologize if you are in the wrong. You may be surprised by the amicability of your fellow community members when you try to deal with the report respectfully and take responsibility for your actions; lying in a report to cover your own tracks will always end worse for you than not doing so. Verdict: @JJRambow | Lying in a Report, Metagaming | GUILTY. 7 day ban, 15 warning points. Character reset. @Elijah Johnson | Lying in a Report, Metagaming | GUILTY. 7 day ban, 10 warning points. Character reset (Metagaming punishment reduced). @MaybeleleLR & @Earl | Metagaming | GUILTY. 2 day ban, 5 warning points. Character reset (Punishment reduced). Signed by @Peril & @Eagles

Calling in @MaybeleleLR for their full and detailed POV, as well as any unedited video evidence they may have.

Summary: @Woodzie and the 5.0.3 run into @Czacha at the hospital in Topolin. Czacha begins throwing bones at the 5.0.3 and is instructed to stop by Woodzie, which causes Czacha to throw bones directly at Woodzie. Woodzie responds with an initiation, demanding Czacha puts his hands up. Czacha simply says, "Okay, just shoot me then," just before the 5.0.3 obliges with a spray of bullets, killing him. Rulebreaks: @Czacha, the actions portrayed in the video provided are nothing short of No Value For Life. This case is so clear cut that you literally asked for your character to be gunned down and killed. On top of this, repeatedly throwing bones, or anything for that matter, at a group of armed people that have instructed you to stop is also not exactly a good idea to ensure character help. Additionally, we'd like to add that, while not worthy of a BadRP ban, simply standing around throwing things at people isn't exactly stellar roleplay. We expect to see you engaging more in the future. Evidence: Suggestions: @Czacha, you must always prioritize your character's life. Throwing away your character's life by quite literally asking to be shot is not something we tolerate; in the future, when surrounded by a large number of hostiles, it's in your best interest to comply and see where that roleplay goes. Be an engaging hostage and have some fun with hostile roleplay. In your POV, you state that you did not think the 5.0.3 would shoot you in the area of the Topolin hospital, but there are no rules in place that establish safezones. So long as they have the proper kill rights, anyone can you shoot anywhere. It is within your best interest to act as though the angry man pointing a gun at you can and will shoot you from here forward. If you intend to engage in verbal altercations or wars of words with people, we suggest you actually do so vocally, rather than just engaging in actions that may indicate hostile intent. Yell at them, call them names, do some good old fashioned trash talk (so long as you're not attempting to bait an initiation, as that is against rule 4.7). Taking any action that can express your distaste outside of just throwing bones around is something we'd encourage, so long as you stay within the binds of the rules. Consider other ways to roleplay out any aggression, such as the ones I've detailed prior. Verdict: @Czacha | No Value For Life | GUILTY. 3 day ban, 10 warning points. Character reset and permakilled. Signed by @Peril, @Inferno, & @Job

GENERAL KENOBI! Good to see you again Joey

Because @Czacha has been in game since being called into this report, he will be temp-banned until he provides his full, detailed POV, as well as any video evidence he may have.