Disagreement on Handling of Situation | Staff Decision Appeal

[SpacedSloth]

Your Steam Name: Spaced Sloth
Your Steam ID: STEAM_0:0:33701160
Your Character Name (If Applicable): Trevor Williams

Admin being reported( Tag by writing @ before their forum name) @heyitskev

Reason for Report: Disagreement on staff ruling, not abuse.
Time of Occurrence: 8:30-9pmish EST
Evidence to support your claim: Only the logs that show my sit was claimed and closed, and potentially confirming statements about the situation from the mod mentioned. I didn't save the Shadowplay as this incident was the reason I relearned how to set it back up.

Additional members involved/witnessing: Unknown
Read, understood and followed staff report rules?: Yes.


Let me start by saying I don't want this staff penalized in anyway if my opinion here is determined to be in the right, I just strongly disagree with the outcome of the sit and worry what it means for the community and others like myself that are returning members or new players getting the hang of the game mechanics. The staff in question didn't do anything wrong, again I just disagree with the verdict they handed down, they handled the sit well within reason.

First let's reference some rules here:

Spoiler: Rules

1:2 : This community has respect as a core value; therefore, we ask that you treat everybody with respect and give them a chance to experience the community. Treat those the way you would want to be treated.

1:13 : You may not grief, troll, harass or do other things with the intention of annoying other players.

2.2.15: You are required to give the opposing party a reasonable time-period to respond and act upon your commands in situations where the rules allow various outcomes based on how the opposing party reacts. You need to make sure the opposing party hears you. Keep the voice-chat delay in mind.

2.4.6: When under FearRP you must obey orders given to you as long as they are within server rules.

Backstory before the Sit:

Spoiler

The reason for my player report last night regarded all of the above, anyone who knows me from back in the day knows I've always preferred to play passive, I have a few guns in the bank but haven't pulled out a rifle in quite literally, years. That being said I usually have a Makarov or some pistol on me due to the machete wielding new players who almost always try to rob me for my plants. While in the process of leaving a house (Townhouse #3) I just finished cooking some turkey in, I had a group of 3, maybe more people rush into my house and put me at gun point. Fair enough, I comply with every demand they give (2.4.6) they start by saying to put my hands up, then not to say anything, then to drop my equipped weapon. All reasonable, but an issue arose, as I'm a returning player, I don't remember how everything works. So while in my inventory it won't let me drop my equipped gun, and I get the notification that I cannot do this while my hands are up. Well, immediately I remember back when I played if you ever put your hands down after ordered to put them up it was an excuse to kill you. Seeing as I was just ordered to put them up, I try saying "Hey I can't do that with my hands up" while being ignored by the robber who has, at this point, already started counting down from 6 speedily and ignoring anything I said, once he hit 0 he just shot me. I argue this is against 2.2.15, he provided me time sure, but didn't tell me what to do with it based on the conflicting orders and question I had. If rule 2.4.6 applied, then I already had to comply, I cannot pull out a gun while I have 4+ people aiming at me, I'm under fear RP, they were at 0 risk. But instead of telling me while I was alive "you can put your hands down to drop the gun" they just shot me. While I'm dead I hear them making fun of me, calling me "Should've put your hands down then retard" while they laughed to themselves, as you can understand that seems pretty shitty to me. They could ignore me and not reply to the 4+ times I said I cannot do it while my hands are up but they all start talking and making fun of me when I'm dead. I really feel like that's against 1.2.

The Sit:

Spoiler

After claiming the sit Flatbed Towtruck/heyitskev teleported us both only for the other player and I to immediately begin arguing because he assumed I called the sit over the exact amount of seconds he counted, as if I was trying to nitpick catch him for some specific time related rule. The player argued that it's common sense for me to put my hands down and listen to the freshest demand even if it conflicted exactly with a previous one. (Personally it seems like common sense that since you ordered someone to put them up you would tell the person they could put their hands down before you shoot them for it.) However again, based on my personal experience beforehand administrating I figured this was a minge tactic used to have an excuse to kill someone for 'not listening to demands'. In response the player in the sit says "Oh well then, I didn't kill you for that, I killed you because you spoke when I told you not too" completely changing his reason and arguably making it more of a rule break. (How are you going to kill someone for talking when what they are saying is the game is not allowing them to listen? Doesn't seem fair.) At this point it became clear to me that this player was purposely doing this, or rather breaking rule 1.13. They didn't have a real in-game, or roleplay reason to kill me, they just were looking for a rule to justify it, and that would be the core of this issue. In response to all of this heyitskev ruled that it's "common sense" to follow the most recently given order, regardless of the time any previous orders were given, even if the new order itself contradicts a previous given order. This ruling sets a bad precedent that could easily be abused, and cause a whole stir of problems if a player wanted to nitpick and say, for example, rapidly in 8 seconds bark multiple contradicting orders quickly and confusingly, if the player failed to keep up with how many double negatives you did in the 5-6 second count you immediately start doing after, you shoot them for not listening.

My Solution:

Spoiler

Use this ruling appeal as a staff precedent for how to handle these types of situations. The idea that a new player/returning old player could come on the server and be told it's common sense that someone can ignore your communications that you are trying to comply and just kill you for just not being quick enough is just wrong and unfair. The player in my report clearly knew I was trying to comply, they admitted they heard me in the sit, but regardless of that they chose to ignore it and kill me not for roleplay but because they could based on rule wording, proven even more so by the player changing their reasoning for the kill to be that I talked. That's FailRP to a T, and it's supported currently by the rules and a staff verdict.

 

[heyitskev]

EDIT: Got forums to cooperate. This reply contains my full response.

Hello @SpacedSloth ! Before I go any further here I would like to thank you personally for making this staff report in a respectful and organized format. This format is something that quite a few staff reports lack and it shows us that you care deeply about the matter at hand. So, thank you!

In regards to my response to the report, I will be going through it piece by piece and will be leaving a TLDR at the bottom. Here we go:

While I'm dead I hear them making fun of me, calling me "Should've put your hands down then retard" while they laughed to themselves, as you can understand that seems pretty shitty to me.

This is something that I do not recall being mentioned in the sit. Had this been mentioned, the outcome of the sit may have changed to some regard.

After claiming the sit Flatbed Towtruck/heyitskev teleported us both only for the other player and I to immediately begin arguing because he assumed I called the sit over the exact amount of seconds he counted, as if I was trying to nitpick catch him for some specific time related rule

I do not believe that you were trying to nitpick catch him at all. I was simply trying to gain a better understanding over exactly what it was that happened. If it seemed as if I assumed you were trying to nitpick, this was not my intention, and I completely apologize for that.

The player argued that it's common sense for me to put my hands down and listen to the freshest demand even if it conflicted exactly with a previous one.

For the most part, I still agree with this player. In an IRL situation with a gun at your head, you typically would do whatever the person is asking you to do at that moment.

However again, based on my personal experience beforehand administrating I figured this was a minge tactic used to have an excuse to kill someone for 'not listening to demands'.

I try to see both sides of every story, which is something that I should have made a little bit more clear in the sit. This sit truly could have gone either way. From the other players perspective, you not complying with commands could also have been seen as a minge tatic to attempt and stall the situation. This is something that I will address in a little more detail towards the end of my reply.

In response the player in the sit says "Oh well then, I didn't kill you for that, I killed you because you spoke when I told you not too" completely changing his reason and arguably making it more of a rule break. (How are you going to kill someone for talking when what they are saying is the game is not allowing them to listen? Doesn't seem fair.)

I agree with you. If your captors demands were complex, verifying them would be a proper thing to do. If captors are giving complex commands that are likely going to need clarification, they should allow you to ask for verification, waving the "Do not speak" command they issued you earlier. I truly do not believe that this is the reason the player killed you though. If it was, they would have killed you once you began to speak. I personally believe that the claim they made in the sit was made in haste as an attempt to try and defend themselves.

At this point it became clear to me that this player was purposely doing this, or rather breaking rule 1.13. They didn't have a real in-game, or roleplay reason to kill me, they just were looking for a rule to justify it, and that would be the core of this issue

I do not believe that the player was breaking rule 1.13. I do not think he was attempting to troll or harass you in any way shape or form. They took your statement and you not dropping the gun as non compliance and killed you for that non compliance.

In response to all of this heyitskev ruled that it's "common sense" to follow the most recently given order, regardless of the time any previous orders were given, even if the new order itself contradicts a previous given order. This ruling sets a bad precedent that could easily be abused, and cause a whole stir of problems if a player wanted to nitpick and say, for example, rapidly in 8 seconds bark multiple contradicting orders quickly and confusingly, if the player failed to keep up with how many double negatives you did in the 5-6 second count you immediately start doing after, you shoot them for not listening.

I still do believe that it is common sense to follow the most recent order. However, my ruling may have been different based on the situation. In the event that a player did rapidly give multiple confusing and contradicting orders and killed you when you didn't follow them to the t, it would be an entirely different situation and the player would be violating rule 2.2.4 which states:

Attacking to kill should be carried out sensibly and not as a first resort, unless you have a good reason for immediate lethal action.

In that type of situation, it would not be expected of you to follow their orders with 100% precision, and killing you for misunderstanding would be RDM. However, the situation at hand is different.

Use this ruling appeal as a staff precedent for how to handle these types of situations. The idea that a new player/returning old player could come on the server and be told it's common sense that someone can ignore your communications that you are trying to comply and just kill you for just not being quick enough is just wrong and unfair. The player in my report clearly knew I was trying to comply, they admitted they heard me in the sit, but regardless of that they chose to ignore it and kill me not for roleplay but because they could based on rule wording, proven even more so by the player changing their reasoning for the kill to be that I talked. That's FailRP to a T, and it's supported currently by the rules and a staff verdict.

I completely understand your side of things here, but I also understand the other players side of things as well. The most reasonable thing that the other player could have done was to simply say "lower your hands and drop it". It would have remedied the whole situation. However, they did not. While looking at the other side of things, you stating that you couldn't drop the gun without lowering your hands could have also been seen as a sign of resistance. I still personally believe that it is common sense to follow the most up to date order.

In conclusion, I completely sympathize with both you and your captor. Both you and the captor have valid stances on the subject. I can see why he killed you, but I can also see reasons that he shouldn't have killed you, which is why I was not confident in issuing a punishment.

Once again, thank you for the manner of professionalism in which you made this report and I look forward to discussing it further with you.

 

[PMX]

Hello,

This is under review. Thank you for submitting such a professional staff report.

Who was the person that killed you?

 

[Jordan Vercetti]

I told you put your hands up when we came in. After looking around i then told you to drop your gun and you kept arguing that you have to put your hands down to drop it to which i kept counting down. it would be common sense that to drop your gun you would need to put your hands down wouldn’t it. i then killed you after you just kept talking instead of complying with my demands. If i killed you after you put your hands down to drop the gun then i would understand you reporting me but you blatantly just started stalling when all you had to do was drop the gun.

 

[SpacedSloth]

Spoiler

EDIT: Got forums to cooperate. This reply contains my full response.

Hello @SpacedSloth ! Before I go any further here I would like to thank you personally for making this staff report in a respectful and organized format. This format is something that quite a few staff reports lack and it shows us that you care deeply about the matter at hand. So, thank you!

In regards to my response to the report, I will be going through it piece by piece and will be leaving a TLDR at the bottom. Here we go:


This is something that I do not recall being mentioned in the sit. Had this been mentioned, the outcome of the sit may have changed to some regard.


I do not believe that you were trying to nitpick catch him at all. I was simply trying to gain a better understanding over exactly what it was that happened. If it seemed as I assumed you were trying to nitpick, this was not my intention, and I completely apologize for that.


For the most part, I still agree with this player. In an IRL situation with a gun at your head, you typically would do whatever the person is asking you to do at that moment.


I try to see both sides of every story, which is something that I should have made a little bit more clear in the sit. This sit truly could have gone either way. From the other players perspective, you not complying with commands could also have been seen as a minge tatic to attempt and stall the situation. This is something that I will address in a little more detail towards the end of my reply.


I agree with you. If your captors demands were complex, verifying them would be a proper thing to do. If captors are giving complex commands that are likely going to need clarification, they should allow you to ask for verification, waving the "Do not speak" command they issued you earlier. I truly do not believe that this is the reason the player killed you though. If it was, they would have killed you once you began to speak. I personally believe that the claim they made in the sit was made in haste as an attempt to try and defend themselves.


I do not believe that the player was breaking rule 1.13. I do not think he was attempting to troll or harass you in any way shape or form. They took your statement and you not dropping the gun as non compliance and killed you for that non compliance.


I still do believe that it is common sense to follow the most recent order. However, my ruling may have been different based on the situation. In the event that a player did rapidly give multiple confusing and contradicting orders and killed you when you didn't follow them to the t, it would be an entirely different situation and the player would be violating rule 2.2.4 which states:


In that type of situation, it would not be expected of you to follow their orders with 100% precision, and killing you for misunderstanding would be RDM. However, the situation at hand is different.


I completely understand your side of things here, but I also understand the other players side of things as well. The most reasonable thing that the other player could have done was to simply say "lower your hands and drop it". It would have remedied the whole situation. However, they did not. While looking at the other side of things, you stating that you couldn't drop the gun without lowering your hands could have also been seen as a sign of resistance. I still personally believe that it is common sense to follow the most up to date order.

In conclusion, I completely sympathize with both you and your captor. Both you and the captor have valid stances on the subject. I can see why he killed you, but I can also see reasons that he shouldn't have killed you, which is why I was not confident in issuing a punishment.

Once again, thank you for the manner of professionalism in which you made this report and I look forward to discussing it further with you.

Appreciate the quick replies! Again to clarify this isn't so much a report against you/as it is an interpretation of the rules. That's like reporting a cashier at Burger King because they didn't have a Big Mac. It's not your fault.

Anyway, let me start by clearing up some miscommunication on my part/confusion, then getting into some responses to responses, there'll be a few edits so excuse that.

Spoiler: Spoiler 1

This is something that I do not recall being mentioned in the sit. Had this been mentioned, the outcome of the sit may have changed to some regard. -heyitskev

I felt it wasn't worth mentioning in the sit/reporting as I had no video proof and I know you can't do anything about that. All he has to say is "no I didn't" it's a he said/he said. Nothing was to be gained by mentioning it imo.

Spoiler: Spoiler 2

I do not believe that you were trying to nitpick catch him at all. I was simply trying to gain a better understanding over exactly what it was that happened. If it seemed as I assumed you were trying to nitpick, this was not my intention, and I completely apologize for that. -heyitskev

Some confusion here, my bad for not wording it better. Not you, the player I reported, as soon as he had a chance to speak he immediately went to defending that he gave me enough time to respond. Assuming he's pulled into sits quite a lot for that since he immediately jumped to defending that aspect of his raid/mugging before I even spoke about what happened.

Spoiler: Spoiler 3

For the most part, I still agree with this player. In an IRL situation with a gun at your head, you typically would do whatever the person is asking you to do at that moment. -heyitskev

I try to see both sides of every story, which is something that I should have made a little bit more clear in the sit. This sit truly could have gone either way. From the other players perspective, you not complying with commands could also have been seen as a minge tatic to attempt and stall the situation. This is something that I will address in a little more detail towards the end of my reply. -heyitskev



Yes, I completely agree with complying with what they said in the moment but with the context that the player in the sit even admitted too, that's exactly what I was trying to do, comply. I was stating I cannot do that while my hands are up, again a command they just issued me to do, instead of simply telling me to put my hands down he used my ignorance of the mechanics of the inventory system to kill me. I was operating under the idea that there was a way to drop it with my hands raised, maybe a key combo or an F row key. It's clearly in bad faith when instead of simply saying "put your hands down then" he just starts counting down from 6 ignoring me attempting to comply, plus you add the (at the time unknown to you) statements the second after I'm dying on the ground of "should've put your hands down then retard", which they could've said in those 6 previous seconds. When I was completely operating in good terms, I had no backup, no metagame garbage, no secret allies I radioed in, just a completely empty house with a single turkey chef who they just made raise hands and has complied with everything they said until I truly didn't know how to follow their orders, oh yeah and there's 3+ of them with guns trained on me. The issue is that they're allowed to assume I'm rule breaking rather than assume I'm listening and truly don't know how to drop it with my hands raised/know that they're permitting me to lower them without them confirming that. Allowing players to operate like that causes issues for enforcing a rules system, it's inherently against it. It's telling players to assume for player rule break rather than expect that rule to be followed, it may be enforced after the fact but to imply the player base won't even listen is a bad look for new players on the server.

Spoiler: Spoiler 4

I agree with you. If your captors demands were complex, verifying them would be a proper thing to do. If captors are giving complex commands that are likely going to need clarification, they should allow you to ask for verification, waving the "Do not speak" command they issued you earlier. I truly do not believe that this is the reason the player killed you though. If it was, they would have killed you once you began to speak. I personally believe that the claim they made in the sit was made in haste as an attempt to try and defend themselves. -heyitskev

I do not believe that the player was breaking rule 1.13. I do not think he was attempting to troll or harass you in any way shape or form. They took your statement and you not dropping the gun as non compliance and killed you for that non compliance. -heyitskev


Just to retouch on this, "I personally believe that the claim they made in the sit was made in haste as an attempt to try and defend themselves." that's part of the issue. I mentioned before "Assuming he's pulled into sits quite a lot for that since he immediately jumped to defending that aspect of his raid/mugging before I even spoke about what happened." Before I said what my issue was he was already defending the amount of time he gave me so it's clearly not the first time his mugging/killings have been an issue, then he's grasping at straws just to defend himself, he knew it's a bad faith kill, he probably thought you would too in the moment so used that garbage excuse as a backup, looking for a way out of a potential punishment even if it's by technicality. "I truly do not believe that this is the reason the player killed you though." Based on everything they've said and done, it's not at all unreasonable to conclude that the reason they killed me was simply just that they could and anything else is them making an excuse to get away with it. Not because I was a threat to the 3+ robbers, not because I wasn't willing to comply with them, not because I insulted them or was rude, they waited the exact rule allotted, in their head, 'reasonable time' before they felt they could get away with killing me if brought in a sit. Then that's exactly what happened. If they were operating in good faith not trying to kill for any excuse they would've just told me to put my hands down, rather than just counting, it completely takes away the potential for the "While looking at the other side of things, you stating that you couldn't drop the gun without lowering your hands could have also been seen as a sign of resistance." argument. If I was resisting why didn't I pull the gun out, radio in for help to my non-existent org members, call the police, do anything other than listen and say "I can't do that with my hands up". It's just poor RP on the players part and it's being supported/reinforced by permitting it.

 

[SpacedSloth]

I told you put your hands up when we came in. After looking around i then told you to drop your gun and you kept arguing that you have to put your hands down to drop it to which i kept counting down. it would be common sense that to drop your gun you would need to put your hands down wouldn’t it. i then killed you after you just kept talking instead of complying with my demands. If i killed you after you put your hands down to drop the gun then i would understand you reporting me but you blatantly just started stalling when all you had to do was drop the gun.

It would be common sense for the regular Monolith player that knows all the ins and outs and has played regularly. It would not be for a returning player who is still relearning the nuances of the system, as per my previous reply, "I was operating under the idea that there was a way to drop it with my hands raised, maybe a key combo or an F row key." I assumed there was still a way to do it with my hands up. You assumed I was stalling/rule breaking and killed me for it, rather than just telling me to lower my hands to drop it, so instead of simply answering me which would erase your ability to say I was stalling, because I would then comply. You didn't allow me that option and continued counting. It's not really fair/right to anyone that you would be allowed to do that.

 

[Jordan Vercetti]

It would be common sense for the regular Monolith player that knows all the ins and outs and has played regularly. It would not be for a returning player who is still relearning the nuances of the system, as per my previous reply, "I was operating under the idea that there was a way to drop it with my hands raised, maybe a key combo or an F row key." I assumed there was still a way to do it with my hands up. You assumed I was stalling/rule breaking and killed me for it, rather than just telling me to lower my hands to drop it, so instead of simply answering me which would erase your ability to say I was stalling, because I would then comply. You didn't allow me that option and continued counting. It's not really fair/right to anyone that you would be allowed to do that.

I’m not required to jog your memory and make sure you have common sense. New player or not if i’m not breaking the rules then it’s not on me. You were asked to do something with a gun pointed at you then I would do it. If i kept counting after you said you needed to put your hands down to do something then if i were you i would put your hands down and comply with my demand.

 

[SpacedSloth]

"New player or not if i’m not breaking the rules then it’s not on me."

Case and point to my previous statements, You do it because it's technically allowed to the letter of rules, not because it's fair or reasonable RP, you don't care about the overall experience on the server, just your own. This is how you drive away people from a community, usually people who behave like this are the same ones who wonder why the server has low pop excluding weekends and fresh updates. This is why this needs reform and why I made this report.

 

[Melody]

Thank you for your report. I'm going to start this by reiterating something that was said multiple times throughout the staff report: On the part of @heyitskev, there is no misuse of administrative powers. Rather, a different interpretation of a grey area within the rules between a player and staff that needs clarification.

Unfortunately we don't have video of exactly how the situation played out, so it's difficult to get a definitive answer on whether or not any rules were broken - we're going entirely off of memory and personal detail of what happened. Under most circumstances, a staff report without valid evidence would be denied due to this. However I think it's important to give some input based off of what was described here. I do want to clarify that @Jordan Vercetti will not be punished for his part post sit, regardless of the conclusion.

From what I've read this is an edge case where the rule could easily go either way, depening on the situation. From the beginning of the interaction @SpacedSloth was complying with demands while under fearRP. He was then given a conflicting demand, raised an issue he had with following it, resulting in him being shot.

"Oh well then, I didn't kill you for that, I killed you because you spoke when I told you not too"

This would not be a valid reason to kill someone based on rule 2.2.7:

During a PvP situation, such as muggings and raids etc., you may not kill surrendered parties simply for speaking a few words, unless they are actively yelling for help, trying to attract attention, insulting or threatening you (refer to rules 2.2.2 and 2.2.4).

So disregarding that reasoning, we're left only with not complying with demands. By all accounts given, demands were being complied with. Killing someone for clarifying what you want them to do whilst under duress isn't realistic. In this situation Spaced was not stalling RP, but attempting to comply to the fullest extent of it. A few other examples of this might be: "I need to put my hands down, is that alright?" or "I'm not reaching for a weapon, I am complying." or as Spaced said "I can't do that with my hands up." You can imagine how further clairifcation would be fine and good within roleplay. Due to this, killing him with no futher instruction or chance was unreasonable.

CM is going to discuss updating the ruleset so no situation like this will happen in the future. Thank you again for your detailed report, it's much appreciated!

Concluded.