Use IC means to form alliances and open a trade hub with traders and sufficient security, cut deals with "trouble groups" to leave you and traders alone/assist with security and enjoy all the RP you will get along the way.
History has shown that "safe zones" (or as close as you can get to them) never work , are abused in multiple ways, and increase the sodium levels of the server which ultimately ends up in a case of exponentially increasing forum bitching with a side of "report wars".
Andrei had grown up from a young age without parents as his mother had died in a car accident when he was 10 and his father was shot in a drug deal gone wrong two years later. Shortly after his fathers death he was tasked with selling drugs and doing other delivery's for one his uncles in the the Tsepov family. As he grew older he gained a reputation for going to extremes to collect money owed to him which caught the attention of senior members of the Tsepov's, and he worked his way up to being a trusted enforcer and debt collector for the family, and eventually began working for Adrik Tsepov.
Is it safe to assume a person wont get hit if they spawn, head towards their body cause it's dark and they have no idea where they are, then get some clue about the town, realise and turn and move away without looting their already dead body or meeting a friend in that town who hands over their gear?
Even if you have legitimately gained rights, it makes IC sense and you do this there is no guarantee that staff will not ban you if it goes up in a report. It depends on a number of things including:
how outnumbered are you (could be considered nvfl)
whether you survive (can't be NVFL if you live)
which way current staff decide to interpret and implement the rules (which can be the complete opposite of previous staff, because consistency doesn't matter and should not be expected apparently)
can we all just agree that @Hollows should be compensated for his suffering. I think it would come close to adequate compensation if he was given his own personal character model that is a walking, talking FAL that shoots bullets just by talking. Before anyone else says it, yes I do agree that this would be "realistic" and "completely immersive" (you know those completely argument winning buzz words that people like to use) and could only better the Rp on the server, especially if he can be picked up and used (not in the same way I heard happens to him on the regular every Friday night though).
honestly best thing to do is to try and wear stuff that makes you look like a civilian with not much on them and don't carry a military weapon. The goal is to look like you wouldn't be worth robbing.
The best peice of advice anyone can give you is to not get attached to your gear and don't be afraid to lose most of it as items can be replaced and you should value your life more than anything else. This means complying if someone tries to rob you, if you comply and don't go overboard on the shit-talking back to them, then they have no reason to kill you and you should walk away with most or at least some of your stuff.
Once you learn to focus on your life and not your gear on an OOC level you will have more energy to put into your RP IG.
Perhaps you can clear a few things up. Are you suggesting that you get offline raided and they steal, ruin the remaining stuff and change your locks for shits and giggles? If this is the case, then yeah it's griefing and a shitty thing. However, if you are saying the "raid" is as a result of a seige on your base, then it is fair game. Changing a lock prevents others from easily getting into the base while you are taking the spoils of war, and if they are just shooting the gear of the dead so survivors cant use it on them or those who died cant run back and loot it while breaking nlr, then that is fair game imo.
As for the "PVP" do you mean they are initiating and you guys are choosing to fight back and are just losing? If that's the case, sounds like that's your fault. Can't RP with the dead and the moment you choose to not comply you shouldn't complain about dying. If you mean they initiate, you comply and you get no RP then this isn't a PVP problem, it's a bad RP problem (which is subjective) and you can always record and report if it is that bad and you aren't actually getting any RP.
If you set up a base and you store stuff, especially if it is a mountain of stuff and you have thousands of rounds of ammo and dozens upon dozens of guns which you try and kid yourself is solely for "RP purposes" (which other groups have done in the past and also recently) you deserve to be raided and you give people a good IC reason to keep raiding you. In those situations, people are just doing the server a favour and helping the loot economy. If you don't really store much valuable stuff, you won't get raided as much as it wont be worth it, or you could could follow others by abusing the game and put like 4 gates in front of a tent and/or make it more difficult for those raiding by using smart placing of fences etc.
I haven't run into your group as far as I am aware, but out of curiousity, you aren't one of those groups that just hide in their bases refusing to really RP with anyone beyond a "what do you want, go away" are you? I have run into these and as hard as I try I get no RP, other than those two lame lines and maybe a "now's not a good time" over and over again, and I understand why these groups get initiated on so much.
Have you and your group tried doing something IG like reaching out to the group, setting up meetings, trying to get some kind of cease fire or an arrangement which would encourage them to stop if you know who it is?
These questions arise due to the verdict here
and the resulting Appeal here:
Can I please get an admin and possibly @Roland to answer these questions as the appeal is full of contradicting and/or incorrect statements and I am left somewhat confused. I have laid out some of the contradictions in my questions but there are also false statements (which I would assume are unintentional) in the appeal verdict, I would be happy to point all these out if needed to give more context. Please note that despite staff saying "...got nothing more then a quick identifiying greeting and an execution" it was not an execution as per the rules as the two who were killed were not taken hostage or initiated on, they had killed one of our group members (without rights) and a few of us used our acquired defenders rights to kill the two responsible (please note I didn't kill either of the two that died but shot one of them 4 times.).
Why does someone who shoots and tries to kill another person without any rights whatsoever get a lower punishment than someone who has valid rights, and shot at but did not kill the person they had rights on? It seems to me that a kos or attempted kos is a greater injustice, would you agree here? Does something need to come into play to balance this sort of thing out?
How is it ruleplay to SHOOT but NOT kill a person you have valid and active rights on? To quote staff "There is no attempted ruleplay as Ruleplay is not contingent on killing someone" but then also state "the issue was that we do not agree with how, when, and why you chose to apply your kill rights." Staff claim the ruleplay was simply using Defender rights but they were not fully used as I did not kill anyone. As per the rules "Defender rights allow you to kill attackers," in my case that's not what occurred. Isn't the line being stretched too far here? To quote the completely contradictory comments of staff in the appeal "This only further evidenced by your own admission that after you killed ... you were not then immediatedly killed by Wolfpack in return," and "but instead elected for the quick kill. That is what ruleplay is, prioritizing kill rights over roleplay." Again I didn't kill anyone, so the staff have clearly contradicted themselves leading to my confusion.
When the rules say using defender rights should make sense IC, why does a characters IC state of mind and history between two groups not come into play even when a quick killing (again i didnt kill anyone just shot them) can be justified? Do you think that this quote taken from the appeal verdict, "While we can understand that it made sense ICly, this is not justification. As an example, it makes sense for a bandit not to initiate and just shoot people from ambush if you want their gear, but obviously on a roleplay server that would not result in good roleplay" is contradictory to the rules when the rules basically say that it isn't ruleplay if using the rights make sense IC, and isnt the example given a poor one given that there is a major difference between one of your leaders being killed in cold blood for no reason and "I want loot"?
Is the whole "eye for an eye" principle no longer valid? i.e if someone kills/tries to kill someone without any rights or RP, you can't return the favour after spending a considerable amount of time IG figuring out who did it and getting to them before the timer runs out?
Would the situation have been different if 1 person had run in to confirm who they were and then others just sniped them from the hills as retaliation for killing one of our leaders? Why does it matter whether we "stumbled on to them" or tracked down where and who they were through IG means and RP? Why would stumbling on to someone you have valid rights on make any real difference to tracking them down?
Can someone please explain this quote "The Report and objection by @Roland quoted has no bearing on this situation, as it is referring to an incident where a character was attacked and defended themselves"? Interesting as that is not what occured in the report, and not what I was referring to at all, in fact I had specifically left out the execution of the hostages in the comparable facts. There, the accused had gained defender rights, they waited some time, they yelled a one-liner which was not an initiation or demand and then opened fire on everyone they knew were involved in the previous situation they had gained rights from. The fact that not all of them died is irrelevant, the attempt was made and there was no ruleplay there. If we are going to argue that it is different becuase it was an "ambush", well they could have attempted to stop the truck to roleplay, but they didn't make any such attempt. Why is this so different from our situation, or what would have brought our situation into line with the report I linked?
@Randy @Roland @Voodoo This has been up for 10 days now and multiple other questions have popped up in this forum and been answered since then, can I get some answers to the above questions please? Given the amount of people who have contacted me on Discord it is pretty clear that I am not alone in the confusion and it would be nice to get some clarification please.
Link to the source of punishment (report/post):
Why the verdict is not fair:
The rules have been used in the verdict without considering related rules, their meanings, the situation as a whole, extremely recent verdicts with similar situations and without further background which may have further had an effect on the verdict and which I should have mentioned at the time, but had not thought it necessary.
The verdict is also not fair as my actions in just shooting someone and not killing them while having valid rights to kill them, do not constitute a rulebreak.
Additional statements/comments explaining your point of view:
So, hear me out. The rules do not exist in a vacuum. Rule 3.3 was quoted as the reason for the alleged "ruleplay" which states: "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."
Now in this particular situation, the kills were exercised using "Defender Rights" which had been obtained. Let's take a look at what the rules say about what constitutes "Ruleplay" in such a situation shall we? "Defender Rights" come under the heading of "Hostilities". Now the rules say the following about such rights:
"If you are a defender - the one being initiated on or subjected to other hostile actions that threaten your life which you did not start or provoke - you are allowed to defend yourself by gaining DEFENDER RIGHTS on the attackers. Defender rights allow you to kill attackers for 2 hours or until your character dies. Defender rights can be shared with anyone who you recently role played with as well as all your group members, if you are a part of an approved group."
Now looking at what the rules say about such "Defender Rights" and when using them become "Ruleplay", rule 4.3 states:
"You shouldn't use defender or attacker rights in situations where it doesn't make in-character sense as it can be seen as rule play. In other words, obtaining kill rights alone does not give you explicit permission to use them any time you want and in all situations. Think about if using them to kill another character is viable in the current situation considering role play and In Character information."
I would like to now bring to the forefront of staffs mind, these quotes from the swedish overlord:
"Usually equal force should be used as a response to an attack on you - eye for an eye principle ( if someone shoots, you shoot, if they kill, you kill, if they punch, you punch). A good example for this is the execution rule 4.6 where you can only execute a hostage if that hostage was responsible for death of your ally"
Now let's analyse what the rules themselves basically set out as the core foundations under ruleplay when using defender rights shall we?
Kill rights shouldn't be exercised if there are more appropriate IC actions or behaviour;
When using kill rights it should make sense "in Character";
Equal force in retaliation is usually appropriate.
Now this report was put up by those who had kos'd and attempted to kos our group member, but basically had both tried to murder our guy, one was just more successful. The situation that kicked all this off was the OP and his buddy murdering our innocent comrade in cold blood, without so much as having the regard to find out if it was the person whom they claimed was shooting at them or even bothering to go and see if he was still alive after finding out they screwed up (I asked his group members to get them to go see if he was still alive as shown in the stream and they seemingly ignored me). Their kill and attempted kill, were subsequently confirmed IC to us. OOC it was was found to be invalid in this report:
The invalidity of the kos and attempted kos STILL granted us "Defender Rights" and did not invalidate our rights, and given that the guilty parties were part of an approved group, and had killed a member of our approved group, we actually gained rights on ALL wolfpack members, including the ones in our truck. But none of us exercised those rights, instead choosing to RP out the situation and get them to hand over the murderers of our fallen comrade (who it turns out was in fact related to jesus and rose again from the dead).
It has already been acknowledged that we did in fact have kos rights.
Some further background and context to the situation that occured:
There is relevant history that our group has with the Wolf Pack. I will just highlight some of this:
The two groups have had multiple gunfights with each other, there has been losses on both sides, and both sides have started the various fights;
Hostages from both groups have been taken;
Our group members IC for the most part DO NOT LIKE the Wolf Pack and view most of them as "weak" which is the worst type of person to be in our core belief system IG;
An arrangement at peace was attempted and this resulted in the death of our members Nik and Bobby by members of the Wolfpack. This information was subsequently given to various members of the jackals IC by someone present at the time and then the information was spread throughout the group. We, as a group, and my character included, viewed this as a serious slight against the Jackals and suspected that this may have been a planned ambush/backstabbing. From what we gathered from the situation, the actions were done by people low in the WP ranks and the higher ups didn't really do much about it in the way we would have expected them to deal with it (death to those that disobeyed and did the shooting). Someone has been gracious enough to inform me that the situation was streamed and has sent me this link ;
After this, peace was somewhat achieved and we moved into the compound with the WolfPack in what can only be described as a very fragile peace.
Personally speaking, I have had some of who I assume are lower ranking members of the WP start talking shit or just come and try to be as annoying IC as possible. From an IC perspective, it appears that they clearly don't have too much care or worry about us, and they really should given the short history between the groups. We aren't their "buddies" IC and are a known hostile group who have no issue with dealing with our enemies in the most violent of ways.
Situation which occurred:
As shown in the stream, we continued to RP with the wolf pack members who were with us, including at least 1 person we are aware was a "higher up" and whom we had been informed was present at the situation with bobby and nik being initiated on and killed whilst discussing possible peace. I had told them on at least 1 occassion to have them ready and tied up when we arrived. As can be supported by what the stream shows, it was my belief that the two murderers knew we were coming up to exact our revenge.
When we got to the Wolfpack Base, despite my request, we were faced with two still armed murderers not tied up and not standing by the grocery store as requested, but towards the two stalls where people in the prison building would easily have shots on us. We had a few WP members in view and I suspected that there were likely more hidden in the impenetrable fortress of death and loot (AKA the prison building), or the other surrounding building that had eyes and positions on us on us. As the stream shows the two murderers didn't give a shit about what they had done. We get out, and start talking to them, we did not immediately gun them down. It then becomes clear that they showed absolutely no fear, there was no attempt to try and apologise, no concern shown etc, just a very blasé "So what" attitude. There was absolutely no emotion shown at all despite them KNOWING what they had done and they would have also known about our group and it's tendancies. This IC leads me to the conclusion that they didn't care what they had done, and likely had backup coming and/or were going to try and screw us over as they had done with the nik and bobby situation. to me justice could only be achieved by their deaths, blood for blood! IC I thought that this had to be done quickly to avoid anyone trying to interfere or rescue them.
Now knowing that they had already screwed us over as a group (i.e. the bobby and nik situation) once before, we had every right IC to suspect that the same was about to happen to us, especially when faced with the uncaring attitude of the soon to be deceased. Now if this were to happen, not only would we likely die/be severely injured if we resisted, but the death of Big John would have been without consequence, and the Wolf Pack, or at least the lower downs would have thought they could harm and or kill us with no consequences. We could not let this happen, and an example needed to be made to the group as to what would happen to all those who tried killing our members again.
You can see, even after the kill the bodies are disrespected and theres some poking at the remaining WolfPack members including me accusing them of not giving a shit and laughing about their guys. It becomes clear to me IC at this point that my initial and legitimate suspicions were wrong and that the wolf pack had actually kept their word about letting us do what we wanted to them and not interfering. Some of our guys are then involved in the taking of another member hostage and moving them out of the base just to help rub the point in that we will not be messed with and will not sit there and take it. This person had an "S" and was done right in the face of a wolf pack higher up with the point being that nothing would keep them safe if they tried to kill our guys, not even an "S".
Applying the above to the Rules:
The deaths were not "executions" within the meanings of the rules, as that would have required them to be our hostages, which they were not. Instead, I, much like my other ban-buddies, was responding to the fact that they KILLED OUR GROUP MEMBER, who is IG basically the groups 2nd leader and equivalent in status to the groups official leader. He is deeply respected IG by our group members as a truely "strong" person who is at the apex of our core belief system IG.
were there "more appropriate IC actions or behaviour"? I would argue that there was not. Blood for Blood, and eye for an eye etc etc. We worked hard to RP with the Wolfpack members and get all the information we needed, they had murdered someone very special to us as explained above, and didn't give a single fuck about their actions.
Did the use of kill rights "make sense "in Character"? Yes, yes it most definitely did! I think I have explained this enough already above, let me know if you want more elaboration on this.
I am really not sure what other IC motivation would be "appropriate" at this stage if someone can get away with killing one of your groups leaders and you cant return the favour in fear of it being "ruleplay" to kill the guys that killed your guy aprroximately 1/2 an hour ago and don't give shit about having done so.
I would now like to bring up this situation and recent report which was subsequently overturned by an admin:
Now here we can see two people who were originally found guilty of invalid kills had their verdicts overturned. NOBODY AT ALL was found guilty of "Ruleplay". The facts are comparible and bear a striking resemblance, except that I would argue, we had more IC motivation to want to kill those who had shot a group leader. Lets compare:
Overturned report verdict: Current verdict:
people take a member of Group B hostage and then kill said hostage Two members of the WolfPack shoot one of our leaders and kill him, no initiation at all
Group B gains "defensive rights" as they recently roleplayed with the victim The Jackals gain Defensive rights on the entire Wolfpack as victim is in an approved group with the jackals
People of group B start looking for and observing those involved in taking the hostage We RP with WolfPack members all the way up to the base and find out exactly who killed and shot our guy.
People of Group B set up an ambush and wait for the truck We, thinking the wolfpack is going to screw us over and stop us from having our justice, go into the Wolfpacks own compound and see the two suspects still armed and roaming free despite what was said.
The truck comes, someone says "Dobreden motherfucker" and they try to gun We talk and see they dont give a shit about what they did from their attitude and suspect we have been set down everyone who they think took their friend hostage up/help is coming to stop us getting our justice, bobby says "Joe Dewski" sends his regards" and him and I shoot at the 2nd person. He dies.
NOT RULEPLAY! RULEPLAY?
To me it just seems like the classic quote from George Orwell's "Animal Farm", "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." I hope I am wrong and can have it explained to me as to why this is not the case here.
Did I infact break any rules at all? (NO SERIOUSLY):
My next and final argument is that I, the great Dustup, did not infact break a single rule! Even if you were to STILL claim it was ruleplay after everything I have listed, to have killed the two MURDERERS whom we had valid Defensive rights on, the logs show that I didn't actually kill either of the two that were killed but just shot one of them 4 times. Now as a comparison, if you kill someone without rights it is kos, but if you just shoot them without rights, it is "attempted kos". How can not actually killing someone but just shooting them while actually having "Defender Rights" be ruleplay? At best it's "attempted ruleplay" but there is no such rulebreak now is there? If I am wrong, please point me to where it lists such a rulebreak and its corresponding punishment in the report punishment guide.....
What would you like to achieve with this appeal: Ban overturn, points removed, some consistency in somewhat similar reports so close to each other, world peace (it is almost xmas after all), or alternatively perhaps just a verbal and no points with this being a learning situation for the community as a whole given that I couldn't even track down a report where someone exercising their valid Defensive rights acquired after someone intentionally killed and attempted to kill a group member was ever found to be ruleplay.
What could you have done better?: explained more in the report, attempted to have the two who murdered our group member in cold blood moved out of the compound to try and minimise the risk of ambush so we could potentially take a bit longer to kill the two that in my characters eyes had to die for their actions and blasé attitude about killing our guy IG.
If you are getting triggered about something fairly minor like what you showed, then I don't what to say. The whitelist right now is widely viewed as shit, they are potentially just as much a "victim" of the shitty whitelist as you are. Here is what I generally do when I run into things like this:
say something to them IG to give them a hint (e.g. using the vids you showed, "what the fuck do you mean restart?" or "what, like you hold some kind of key when you run, is it from your house? Does it have sentimental value?"
//stop OOC in voip (if they continue and dont take the hint)
find out who they are on the forums and let them know in private (so as to not try and publically humiliate the new community members who may be completely new to RP) and contact them either via dayrp DM or through discord and let them know what they did and why they shouldn't do it, explain that to me it isn't a huge deal, but they should be more careful because some people get super triggered about these things and may throw up a report against them.
I will point out that there may be situations that are so bad a report is probably the best thing, but personally these would be extremely rare.
@Realize @Roland (tagging you in as ultimately it will be your decision)
As one of the former official mentors, I think that bringing this back is a great idea. Having said that, you haven't posted much and I hope you have a plan beyond "give me your names and I will let you know".
As a quick list, if history is anything to go from in terms of such this program, the mentors are going to have to be mature, approachable and patient community members who are able to potentially deal with, but not limited to:
People who are IRL socially awkward/lack self confidence;
people who don't know how to play the game (I once spent about 1 1/2 hours trying to get to a person IG cause they had just got the game and kept dying after spawning);
People who are a bit, um "wierd"
people who have a hard time admitting that they really don't understand the rules
young comunity members (especially with the no age restriction thing now)
people of different race/ethnicity/gender/sexual preference etc etc.
There will NEED to be some kind of staff oversight on this, even if it just a nominated liason like the old program had as some people in this community just shouldn't be let into this program no matter how badly they want to help. Just some things to think about before putting this together:
There are some real creepy fucks in this community that shouldn't be let near females or kids (if you think there aren't or haven't been pedo's in this community or those with such tendancies you are delusional, and grooming over the internet is a real thing).
Some females may feel more comfortable having a female mentor at times.
There are what I would define as "toxic" people in this sommunity whose toxicity may only "infect" newer members and/or put them off the community.
Maybe have a range of people to cover different types/styles of RP as theree was last time.
Seek assistance from official groups who are willing to let you run into them IG with your mentor and agreeable to letting some potential minor rule breaks slide (again not every group will be suitable no matter how bad they want to help).
you will need a range of timezones, don't forget about those in or with similar timezones as NZ and Autralia.
There was a document or two lying around from the last mentor program about procedure and basics to cover I think, I can see if I can find it if you would like, perhaps it may assist you, let me know.
Sadly I don't have the time to volunteer again right now, but I am willing to help you get this setup properly and let you know what did and didn't work with the last official program and what else you might need to plan for for you to incorporate into or at least take into consideration whether you want to implement any of it, just message me.
I would just like to point out that since I was able to definitively show that we knew abut @thicdickdaddy27 and that all info was gained IG, the OP and his co-reporter have started clamoring to cherry pick things out of that stream in an attempt to put their own spin on things without context or proof of such things, even after confirmation that it wasn't @thicdickdaddy27 talking, knowledge that he couldn't have been talking as he was in helpdesk at the time of that last clip and the others, plus confirmation in my pov of how we were able to find out IG.
So here is what I think we can agree on what was or became known to the two people reporting:
Prior to the two of them shooting and killing @thicdickdaddy27, no wolfpack member, including themselves had been initiated on or shot by any member of the Jackals. Pretty sure they even admit in the stream that there were snaps against the walls that they heard, not actual shots, and even if there were shots (which they have provided no evidence to show) I am pretty sure that their base does not count as an official member of the WP group.
They both shot at and/or killed @thicdickdaddy27 and there is no absolutely no evidence to show either of them getting shot by him at all.
We had rights on them after they killed @thicdickdaddy27 (Invalid initiations and kills grant rights to those who have been invalidly initiated on and their official group members).
We knew about our guy taking shots and that he was possibly going to die BEFORE he died.
The reporters have watched the stream and know the contents of it.
We acknowledge he went quiet and even people in the truck try to re-establish contact with him.
Their own guys told us IC that the reporters had shot our guy after their own investigation.
That we had another group member IG and in comms who was not in the truck and whom anyone watching the stream could not have heard, i.e. @choccymilkboy27.
Now here is what they didn't know, but had assumed and has since been clarified:
Who @Joe was actually responding to (clarified to show he was in fact speaking to @choccymilkboy27)
Here is the actual evidence that they have "proving" that it was @thicdickdaddy27 talking and not @choccymilkboy27:
Theyhave also clearly cherrypicked clips out of the whole stream knowing that the stream clearly shows how ALL INFORMATION was found out IG using IG and IC means. Maybe I am misunderstanding them though, are they also saying that the information given to us IG was metagamed by their own group and then given to us IG? If that is the case, we can't be blamed for receiving information IG that appeared to come from IG sources and they need to create a report against their own group members. Maybe I can go through the stream and help them pick any metagaming out by their own guys done in the presence of our group members and list it here to assist in that report if that is what they are claiming? To he OP and Co, would this be of any assistance? I am always happy to help.
To Staff, given the above (especially the provable cherry-picking and the fact that they had watched the stream and would have seen that all info was provided IG, as well as the clarification they have and zero pevidence to show otherwise) I hope that you can see that this is in fact a false report that they should not want to continue with.
I will refrain from posting any more unless asked by staff.
My (forum) name is @Dustup and this is my version of events:
OK so First off there was absolutely no metagaming by myself or any of the Jackals as far as I am aware.
So let me start at the beginning for some context. I "woke up" and hear a big chunk of the group are going down to Cherno with some WolfPack. I start making my way down there. By the time I get there the base raid/defending themselves from an attempted kos had finished and so I ran to where a truck was found where some of my group were.
I get in, we pick up Wolfpack members, and as you hear in the stream, we were to go and grab @choccymilkboy27 AKA Dusty AKA the no-frills brand of Dustup (the AKA's are there as I am not 100% sure this is the correct forum name and this should clear it up if I have @'d the wrong person), but @Joe had other ideas and left him (somewhere in or near Cherno if I remember correctly).
At some point @thicdickdaddy27 "wakes up" and is told we are heading to WP base (as that was what we were supposed to do originally before @Joe changed his mind) and I believe he said he was going to wait in the area for us outside of the base.
somewhere along the way we hear in IG comms from @thicdickdaddy27 that he is above WP base getting shot at and "is going to die" . We immediately tell @Joe to change direction and go to the WolfPack Base. @thicdickdaddy27 then goes silent and unresponsive. I believe @choccymilkboy27 continues to try and reach him via radio and @Apollo tries as well IG. We hear nothing and we then assume he is down for the count, but were not even 100% sure (see the timings given below which show I even asked the WP guys to check on him, which they appear to have ignored).
Through IG talking and IG information received from the OP's own group IG, we start piecing together exactly what had happened. Again, to avoid all doubt, Everything I learned was IG and no OOC comms or info was relied upon, used or even received by myself.
We continue to RP all the way up with the Wolfpack members, and while we knew we technically now had kos rights on every single member of the wolfpack, due to the invalid kos and/or attempted kos, we chose to roleplay with them and to NOT RULEPLAY them. As you can see from the stream, we get more agressive as we confirm facts and they basically know what is going to happen and go with it.
We get up to the base and use our acquired "Defensive Rights" on them after confirming they were in fact our targets. The rights were validly acquired AFTER the invalid kos and/or attempted kos on our group member which is the subject of another report.
I then RP a little longer before running to the hospital, I get lagged out and jump right back in after restarting my router, I get internet problems again, resart my router and log back in again, then finally log.
EVIDENCE SHOWN IN THE STREAM SUPPORTING MY VERSION:
The stream itself shows that all info was acquired IG. I note the following timestamps for staff:
3:46:27 - we tell the driver to turn around and go to WP base because there are shots there; 3:46:37 - I say he has gone silent; 3:47:06 - Apollo tries to make contact again; 3:49:00 - Hutch tells us their neighbours (doctors) are telling him that his men are shooting, Appollo tells him we think Big John may have gone down. Hutch then states that he thinks the neighbours were fighting WP or WP was fighting them; 3:49:00 Jackals members say they are going up to kill the doctors now (NB not the WP as we think its doctors at this stage); 3:50:20 - WP member starts asking us IG if @thicdickdaddy27 was on a hill, bobby confirms and says yeah he had a gun out not pointing and the gun was a winchester 3:50:38 - WP member starts trying to tell us that @thicdickdaddy27 was on the hill shooting at WP members; 3:50:58 - WP member again claims there was someone on the hill shooting at them with a winchester; 3:51:17 - I ask WP to get their guys to check on @thicdickdaddy27; 3:51:30 - it becomes clear that they shot @thicdickdaddy27, we all knew what he had when he logged in; 3:55:00 - bobby asks hutch who did it and says if it was one of his boys it wont be good, hutch admits it was WP but says he doesnt know who. 3:56:20 - DJ chance is asked if he knows who and he says he doesnt know, Bobby then asks who is in the compound and we are told Shelby, Ivan and Fish, Bobby then asks if any of them shot. 3:57:10 - Apollo asks where the doctor peple are, Hutch says he doesnt think it was the doctors, he think it was his people. He is told when we get there we want it sorted etc. 4:02:00 - Hutch says it wouldnt have been Fish. 4:02:38 - we get confirmation of who had shot at @thicdickdaddy27; 4:07:00 - I tell Hutch they better have them tied up and ready for us when we get there, hutch then goes on to say the only ones there are Ivan, Shelby and Fish but Fish had no involvement.
From this point onwards theres constant RP with Wolf Pack members about what is going to happen.
This clearly shows that the "what, who, how, when and where" were all found out through IG means!
EVIDENCE SHOWING WE ACQUIRED INFORMATION ABOUT THE SHOOTING BEFORE THE DEATH:
As definitive proof that the information regarding @thicdickdaddy27 was acquired IG and PRIOR to his death, we merely need to do a fairly simple exercise in Maths!
Lets compare the logs with the Stream Timings:
Key Server Timings:
Server time of Restart (When everyone DC'd) = 03:41:48
Server time of the death of @thicdickdaddy27 = 03:36:20
Difference in time between death and Restart = 5 minutes, 28 seconds.
Application to Stream timings:
Timing of Restart as shown on the stream linked as evidence = 03:51:58 into the stream.
Time of Death (Less Difference in time between death and Restart) = 3:46:30 as shown on stream
Time on stream of Jackals first notifying puncture that he needed to turn around and get to WolfPack Base urgently (AKA when @thicdickdaddy27 was telling us over IG comms of what was going on) = 3:46:27.
As you can see, even ignoring the lag between getting shot IG, telling us over comms and us receiving the comms which would actually add time for us to recieve the message from @thicdickdaddy27 , we responded IG about needing to get to WP base BEFORE HIS DEATH!
With that I think I have clearly put the final nail in the coffin of the OP's report.
Right, now on to the obvious. This is clearly a salty report and one which I believe falls within the confines of a "False Report".
It is clear from the OP's report, as well as that of his co-accuser, that they both have watched the stream. That means that they have both seen all the information which I have highlighted in the stream timings above, which only leads to one conclusion, that they are fully aware that all information was acquired IG of what had happened and how we came to know who had killed our dear, beloved friend @thicdickdaddy27.
In addition to the above point, they are both fully aware that they did in fact kos and attempt to kos @thicdickdaddy27 meaning that they are aware that as we are an official group, that we then acquired "Defensive rights" on them both (as shown by the logs, they were never shot but did shoot our group member). Despite knowing this and knowing that we killed them both within the allowable time limit, they have still proceeded to put up this report.
While I note they have carefully cherrypicked things said by Puncture IG, they do not have the context, nor did they bother to find out what/who he was actually talking about. They also knew that @thicdickdaddy27 was in helpdesk around this time as I understand he was there before them and left after them (a staff member may be able to confirm the accuracy of this statement, not sure who though). Instead they have deliberately put up a salty and false report whilst trying to clutch on to the flimsiest of straws, with full knowledge that their claims are not even true.
Now I realise that a "false report" requires some kind of malicious intent or OOC motivations, and in this case I think I can easily demonstrate as much. We can see that this is clearly a poor attempt at a tit-for-tat report as a result of this report. In addition to this fact, I am advised by @thicdickdaddy27 that one or both of the reporting parties tried approximately 3 times to get him to drop the aformentioned report. After being denied 3 times, this report was then put up in obvious retaliation. As this is second hand information, perhaps @thicdickdaddy27 can shed some light on whether I have understood him correctly? If I am accurate or close to accurate, then surely this crosses the threshold for "malicious intent or OOC motivations" which would mean that this is in fact a false report.
I would also argue that the behaviour of the parties reporting, would also fall into the category of being a breach of Rule 2.4 as they appear to be angry OOC after dying due to their own mistake in killing one of our guys without rights to do so.
@Aiko can you please add the connection logs prior to where it shows a connection to server from 3:44-3:46 by everyone as I am sure this is the reconnection after server restart, which occured after dews death. Also my connection logs after what ids up, i was kicked for high latency then reconnected and i think i was dc'd again then reconnected, cant remember exactly but logs would show. We don't want anyone falsely claiming we werent even on server for the death of @thicdickdaddy27. Will post a pov after I have had time to review the stream left as evidence to refresh my memory.