heyitskev staff report

[Jordan Vercetti]

Your Steam Name: Lan cool guy
Your Steam ID: 76561198307598779
Your Character Name (If Applicable): Jordan Vercetti

Admin being reported: @heyitskev

Reason for Report: Not knowing the rules, Handing a sit the wrong way.

Me, Weedle, Berry smith all went up to firehouse to exchange guns. After walking up Bestfriend (Gertrude) walks up behind us. Weedle turns around asking Gertrude to leave over 10+ times. After standing there Gertrude does not move after several warnings. Weedle then shoots Gertrude. We go up to a sit and we explain the situation and Kev makes it very clear that he doesn't know how to handle the sit. He sends this rule in the chat after I ask what rule was broken.

This rule had nothing to do with the situation as he was shot because despite multiple warnings to leave he didn't even move. After I mentioned how that rule makes 0 sense he then linked another rule.

Obviously our first resort wasn't shooting him. He was asked to leave over 10+ times and still sat there making clear he wasn't going anywhere. Then our only resort was killing him since we all have guns on us and we weren't going to risk calling police. (Which Kev said we should've done).

After this situation Kev returned both me and Weedle while I was asking how the situation was not valid. He didn't give me a response instead he ignored my pms and issued the refund I'm guessing.

Staff shouldn't be expected to enforce the rules when they clearly don't know the rules themselves.

Time of Occurrence: 8:15 PM Est
Evidence to support your claim:

Additional members involved/witnessing: @The Autistic Weedle
Read, understood and followed staff report rules?: Yes

 

[Weedle]

ya boss I was being reported so I Brought up Jordan since he wanted to be there and was involved in the situation. I felt I warned him well over enough to be able to shoot him and I shot him. Kev didn't know the rule we broke specially but started quoting rules that didn't even involve what we were doing all being countered by Jordan, but Kev didn't feel like dragging it on to bring someone more reliable and able to give a good and solid answer. I get it he's a trial mod not knowing how to handle everything meaning instead of finishing it up really quick and ignoring us he should have brought on a more experienced staff who was available at the time

 

[heyitskev]

Your Steam Name: Lan cool guy
Your Steam ID: 76561198307598779
Your Character Name (If Applicable): Jordan Vercetti

Admin being reported: @heyitskev

Reason for Report: Not knowing the rules, Handing a sit the wrong way.

Me, Weedle, Berry smith all went up to firehouse to exchange guns. After walking up Bestfriend (Gertrude) walks up behind us. Weedle turns around asking Gertrude to leave over 10+ times. After standing there Gertrude does not move after several warnings. Weedle then shoots Gertrude. We go up to a sit and we explain the situation and Kev makes it very clear that he doesn't know how to handle the sit. He sends this rule in the chat after I ask what rule was broken.
View attachment 13576
This rule had nothing to do with the situation as he was shot because despite multiple warnings to leave he didn't even move. After I mentioned how that rule makes 0 sense he then linked another rule.
View attachment 13577
Obviously our first resort wasn't shooting him. He was asked to leave over 10+ times and still sat there making clear he wasn't going anywhere. Then our only resort was killing him since we all have guns on us and we weren't going to risk calling police. (Which Kev said we should've done).

After this situation Kev returned both me and Weedle while I was asking how the situation was not valid. He didn't give me a response instead he ignored my pms and issued the refund I'm guessing.

Staff shouldn't be expected to enforce the rules when they clearly don't know the rules themselves.

Time of Occurrence: 8:15 PM Est
Evidence to support your claim:

Additional members involved/witnessing: @The Autistic Weedle
Read, understood and followed staff report rules?: Yes

This sit was handled to the best of my ability. Let's break it down step by step. @Laceupblackflag made a report because he believed that he was unjustly killed by @The Autistic Weedle . As you said, Bestfriend (Gertrude) refused to leave the firehouse after he was asked to. He was never threatened. However, this is besides the point. The issue here is that the killing was not carried out sensibly. There were many other ways to deal with this situation. Was Gertrude being somewhat annoying? Yes. Could Weedle have resolved the situation in a million different ways besides killing him? Yes.

My main issue here has to deal with when Weedle pulled his gun out. He warned Gertrude to go away multiple times, but when he had finally had enough, he just pulled his gun out and started blasting. Weedle could have pulled out his gun and asked Gertrude to leave or shot him in the leg instead of pulling his whole mag into him. In addition, based on the clip (i'll be it a very small clip) that Gertrude provided, whenever you asked him to move out of the way, he did move out of the way for you and whenever Weedle pulled out his gun he made an attempt to start to run away. The killing here was not carried out sensibly.

ya boss I was being reported so I Brought up Jordan since he wanted to be there and was involved in the situation. I felt I warned him well over enough to be able to shoot him and I shot him. Kev didn't know the rule we broke specially but started quoting rules that didn't even involve what we were doing all being countered by Jordan, but Kev didn't feel like dragging it on to bring someone more reliable and able to give a good and solid answer. I get it he's a trial mod not knowing how to handle everything meaning instead of finishing it up really quick and ignoring us he should have brought on a more experienced staff who was available at the time

To address this claim I would like to elaborate on how I made my decision here. I believed that the killing was not carried out sensibly, but because I wanted a 2nd opinion on my interpretation of things I asked @Arroyo who agreed that the killing was not carried out sensibly. I am not a trial mod, but I will be the first one to admit that there are some situations that I am not 10000% confident in handling, which is why I asked for Arroyo's 2nd opinion, which is something that you and Jordan both conveniently left out of this post.

 

[Weedle]

I

This sit was handled to the best of my ability. Let's break it down step by step. @Laceupblackflag made a report because he believed that he was unjustly killed by @The Autistic Weedle . As you said, Bestfriend (Gertrude) refused to leave the firehouse after he was asked to. He was never threatened. However, this is besides the point. The issue here is that the killing was not carried out sensibly. There were many other ways to deal with this situation. Was Gertrude being somewhat annoying? Yes. Could Weedle have resolved the situation in a million different ways besides killing him? Yes.

My main issue here has to deal with when Weedle pulled his gun out. He warned Gertrude to go away multiple times, but when he had finally had enough, he just pulled his gun out and started blasting. Weedle could have pulled out his gun and asked Gertrude to leave or shot him in the leg instead of pulling his whole mag into him. In addition, based on the clip (i'll be it a very small clip) that Gertrude provided, whenever you asked him to move out of the way, he did move out of the way for you and whenever Weedle pulled out his gun he made an attempt to start to run away. The killing here was not carried out sensibly.


To address this claim I would like to elaborate on how I made my decision here. I believed that the killing was not carried out sensibly, but because I wanted a 2nd opinion on my interpretation of things I asked @Arroyo who agreed that the killing was not carried out sensibly. I am not a trial mod, but I will be the first one to admit that there are some situations that I am not 10000% confident in handling, which is why I asked for Arroyo's 2nd opinion, which is something that you and Jordan both conveniently left out of this post.

Kev you really don't understand how many times we asked him. This video is 7 seconds long and we were telling him to leave for 30+ seconds gun or no gun that's still gives me a reason to kill him I want the full video or Gertrude's sit will be actual bs he made up

https://imgur.com/a/tJNE18f

This is the time he showed up

https://imgur.com/a/7JVpeNA

and this is the time he died
A whole minute we were standing there multiple people telling him to leave he keep declining to leave and I ended up killing him and I feel making this kill valid and should not be refunded or voided, and you went off of a 7 second clip that does not show A FULL MINUTE of us telling him to leave over and over and over.

 

[Jordan Vercetti]

This sit was handled to the best of my ability. Let's break it down step by step. @Laceupblackflag made a report because he believed that he was unjustly killed by @The Autistic Weedle . As you said, Bestfriend (Gertrude) refused to leave the firehouse after he was asked to. He was never threatened. However, this is besides the point. The issue here is that the killing was not carried out sensibly. There were many other ways to deal with this situation. Was Gertrude being somewhat annoying? Yes. Could Weedle have resolved the situation in a million different ways besides killing him? Yes.

My main issue here has to deal with when Weedle pulled his gun out. He warned Gertrude to go away multiple times, but when he had finally had enough, he just pulled his gun out and started blasting. Weedle could have pulled out his gun and asked Gertrude to leave or shot him in the leg instead of pulling his whole mag into him. In addition, based on the clip (i'll be it a very small clip) that Gertrude provided, whenever you asked him to move out of the way, he did move out of the way for you and whenever Weedle pulled out his gun he made an attempt to start to run away. The killing here was not carried out sensibly.


To address this claim I would like to elaborate on how I made my decision here. I believed that the killing was not carried out sensibly, but because I wanted a 2nd opinion on my interpretation of things I asked @Arroyo who agreed that the killing was not carried out sensibly. I am not a trial mod, but I will be the first one to admit that there are some situations that I am not 10000% confident in handling, which is why I asked for Arroyo's 2nd opinion, which is something that you and Jordan both conveniently left out of this post.

Lol lets discuss the word you keep saying. "COULDVE". Nowhere in the rules does it say he HAS too and that its against the rules. You said in the sit you believed it was RDM but nowhere in the rules does it say or even hint to being RDM.

which is why I asked for Arroyo's 2nd opinion, which is something that you and Jordan both conveniently left out of this post.

The report shows that arroyo himself doesent even know the rules. (Which there are 1000 other instances that show he doesent either). You keep mentioning all these things that the rules does not show and nobody has even enforced before.

that Gertrude provided, whenever you asked him to move out of the way, he did move out of the way for you and whenever Weedle pulled out his gun he made an attempt to start to run away. The killing here was not carried out sensibly.

He had 10+ warnings to leave and he didnt. Him finally seeing the gun and realizing he shouldve left is HIS fault not anyone elses. I dont know about you but we dont pull our guns out unless we HAVE too. And nowhere in the rules does it say we have to pull our gun out in that situation.

 

[Weedle]

Ya i personally want the one minute long video of us telling him to leave over and over and if he pulls some bullshit saying he deleted it it's cause he doesn't want to be wrong so please show the whole video @gertrude

 

[Laceupblackflag]

So in my point of view; they were in fact telling me to leave quite a lot but that doesn't change the fact of the rule stating that you may not straight up kill somebody for insulting, and I understand why you're having frustration with the rule as it isn't DIRECTLY written in that somebody who isn't complying SHOULDN'T be shot but if you read the existing rule that kev cited it explains you cannot kill somebody for insulting you and in this case it's pretty much implied from that rule alone that you should at least threaten them with your weapon and sensibly put fear into the suspect instead of straight up shooting someone because they weren't abiding by your verbal commands inside a fire station and even taking it in a literal sense it's really silly (serious rp) which you'd probably agree as well because roleplay wouldn't be very immersive and serious if this rule wasn't in play hence why Arroyo (Senior Admin) also agreed upon it being a false course of action.

 

[Jordan Vercetti]

how are you "insulting us"? Do you know any english? that rule has nothing to do with this situation lmfao. arroyo also said that you cant make an emergency state because theres a bank raid going on lmfao.

 

[heyitskev]

The fact still stands. I do not believe that the killing here was carried out sensibly at all. Gertrude was never threatened directly with a firearm. Weedle just said that he had enough and pulled it out and shot at him. It would have been more sensible to give a warning shot or pull out the gun and tell him to leave. Gertrude also made a visible attempt to leave once the firearm was pulled. out. Regardless of the fact that you asked him to leave, there were still multiple other ways to get him to leave that you could have done before mowing him down, none of which you did.

 

[Jordan Vercetti]

Doesent mean its against the rules. He had multiple chances to leave and he didnt. Like i said all of us have guns on us and were not gonna just pull them out so he can have a glance and leave and report us to the police. You refunded his stuff because your opinion is that we had more options. We followed all the rules and you cant show me a rule we didnt.

 

[Laceupblackflag]

how are you "insulting us"? Do you know any english? that rule has nothing to do with this situation lmfao. arroyo also said that you cant make an emergency state because theres a bank raid going on lmfao.

Read the rest of what I said. The main point is that every single unique scenario won't be in the rules hence why the staff based it on common sense and used a VERY SIMILAR RULE that basically implied what happened depending on your view, and because it this way you weren't punished; I don't see why you're so frustrated...

 

[Jordan Vercetti]

not very simular at all. You were asked to leave 20 times and you didnt. Simple as that. Nowhere does it say we have to point a gun at you or shoot a warning shot. If you wanted to avoid the situation you could've just walked away.

 

[Weedle]

ya and you knew you had a gun on your and you guessed we had guns on us too, so why didn't you just leave when we told you to simple request you didn't follow I said ok you don't want to listen than I shot you 3 times. Let say a cop walks up to you tells you to leave but you don't see in the "rules" you need a gun. you can still be arrested for not listening to him I feel the same applies to whatever rule Kev was trying to point out, still never giving us something specific. So I feel you should have asked someone higher to give there opinion on this, and to see the whole video which he still hasn't supplied please supply it @Laceupblackflag I really want the full context and not some clipped down video to make it seem I'm in the wrong. Please send it I'm deadass this sit is almost invalid since you only had a 7 second clip which is 10x smaller than the whole encounter you are missing out on a lot of key parts that happened as in my many many times of me and others telling you to either "leave" or "fuck off". So before we continue @Laceupblackflag supply the whole video so we know fully what happened please I want at least a minute if not more of us throwing your body around and deleting your gun.

 

[heyitskev]

...So I feel you should have asked someone higher to give there opinion on this, and to see the whole video which he still hasn't supplied please supply it @Laceupblackflag I really want the full context and not some clipped down video to make it seem I'm in the wrong. Please send it I'm deadass this sit is almost invalid since you only had a 7 second clip which is 10x smaller than the whole encounter you are missing out on a lot of key parts that happened as in my many many times of me and others telling you to either "leave" or "fuck off"...

I did ask a higher up for a 2nd opinion.I don't really see how the whole video is necessary here. Typically whenever Gertrude provides a video it is extremely short and lacks context, making it almost useless as evidence. However, my verdict here would be the same regardless if he provided the clip or not as everyone here is in agreement on what happened. Gertrude was screwing with you all, you asked him to leave repeatedly, and then you shot him. We have established this both in the sit and here on this staff report. What everyone is not in agreement here is the interpretation of the rules.

...We followed all the rules and you cant show me a rule we didn't.

I have already showed you the rules I used in my decision, but I will show you again.

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

You guys did not have a good reason for immediate lethal action. You could have easily resolved this by giving him a warning shot, shooting him in the leg, or simply threatening him with the gun.

In regards to

The report shows that arroyo himself doesent even know the rules. (Which there are 1000 other instances that show he doesent either). You keep mentioning all these things that the rules does not show and nobody has even enforced before.

I will always listen to my superiors. There is no argument about this. However, to once again be clear, I was asking Arroyo for a 2nd opinion. In regards to things that the rules do not show, I will once again quote rule 2.2.4

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

It is clearly right there in the rules. If you take a look at the player report thread, you will see this rule being enforced time and time again.

While this rule was not considered in my initial judgement, I still think that it is also worth mentioning.

[2.1.1] "You must act realistically at all times..."

Realistically, if this situation were to occur in real life, what would you do? You wouldn't pull out an assault rifle in a public place and blast their head off.

Would it be unfair if I based my decision off of rules that didn't exist? Yes, it would be. However, I didn't do so. I based my decision off of the server rules and asked for a 2nd opinion from a higher up to ensure that my decision was sensible.

 

[Weedle]

[2.2.4] "Attacking to kill should be carried out sensibly and not as a first resort, unless you have a good reason for immediate lethal action" This rule does not match with our situation we did not first use lethal action we asked him to leave for over a minute as you saw in my screenshots on my first message. and like I said previously "Let say a cop walks up to you tells you to leave but you don't see in the "rules" you need a gun. you can still be arrested for not listening to him" this also applies to the situation we had with Gertrude having us for over a MINUTE STRAIGHT tell him to leave repeatedly and him not complying with our simple demands having me kill him. having it be a valid death, and if you listen to higher ups that's fine but I still want a SPECIFIC rule that states if you do not listen to simple request you can have have lethal on you or arrested.

 

[heyitskev]

[2.2.4] "Attacking to kill should be carried out sensibly and not as a first resort, unless you have a good reason for immediate lethal action" This rule does not match with our situation we did not first use lethal action we asked him to leave for over a minute as you saw in my screenshots on my first message. and like I said previously "Let say a cop walks up to you tells you to leave but you don't see in the "rules" you need a gun. you can still be arrested for not listening to him" this also applies to the situation we had with Gertrude having us for over a MINUTE STRAIGHT tell him to leave repeatedly and him not complying with our simple demands having me kill him. having it be a valid death, and if you listen to higher ups that's fine but I still want a SPECIFIC rule that states if you do not listen to simple request you can have have lethal on you or arrested.

I still believe there is a misunderstanding here. You pulled out the gun and immediately blasted Gertrude right after you pulled it out. The sensible thing to do would have been to pull out the gun and ask him to leave. Then, if he continued not to listen, attack to kill. I find the cop scenario that you mention to be slightly irrelevant as police have a completely separate set of rules to follow and because there were no police involved in this situation. A rule does not need to be specific for it to be enforced.

Essentially what this report boils down to is if you handled the situation sensibly. I believe that you didn't. You believe that you did. At this point we are constantly repeating ourselves and I don't see us coming to an agreement anytime soon, which is why it will be up to a CM/SD to determine if they believe the actions were carried out sensibly.

 

[Jordan Vercetti]

You guys did not have a good reason for immediate lethal action. You could have easily resolved this by giving him a warning shot, shooting him in the leg, or simply threatening him with the gun.

You obviously dont know what the word "Immediate" means. Our first resort was to ask him 10+ times to leave the area which he obviously didnt do. Then we decided to kill him.

which is why it will be up to a CM/SD to determine if they believe the actions were carried out sensibly.

It not being carried out sensibly would be if we pulled out or guns aimed at him and let him leave just so he would be able to come back and kill us or come back with police. Every rule youve posted here was irrelevant or made no sense.

Realistically, if this situation were to occur in real life, what would you do? You wouldn't pull out an assault rifle in a public place and blast their head off.

Realistically, if you walk up to a group of gang members harassing them or started "messing with them" your going to get shot.

 

[heyitskev]

You obviously dont know what the word "Immediate" means. Our first resort was to ask him 10+ times to leave the area which he obviously didnt do. Then we decided to kill him.

The same points are being repeated over and over and over again. I know exactly what immediate means. You asked him to leave over and over again before he was shot, which is something that I am not arguing in any way shape or form. However, from the time that the gun was pulled out and the time that Weedle shot him, it was immediate. Weedle pulled out the gun "said I'm tired of this" and about 1 second later shot Gertrude. Being annoying is not a reason to pull out a gun and shoot someone. As I said before, the sensible thing to do would have been to warn him with the gun before blasting him.

It not being carried out sensibly would be if we pulled out or guns aimed at him and let him leave just so he would be able to come back and kill us or come back with police.

Once again, I respectfully disagree. I still stand that it was not sensible for Weedle to kill Gertrude in the manner that he did.

Every rule youve posted here was irrelevant or made no sense.

Again, disagree. Rules 2.2.4 and 2.2.1 are entirely relevant in this situation. You may disagree, but that is how I see things. If a CM/SD sees differently, so be it

Realistically, if you walk up to a group of gang members harassing them or started "messing with them" your going to get shot.

Realistically, you wouldn't be trading assault rifles in a public place with first responders watching. Realistically, you wouldn't shoot someone with an assault rifle in front of said first responders (NPC's in this case). Realistically, a gang wouldn't be meeting in the middle of an occupied firehouse with firefighters going in and out.

We can argue about this day in and day out, but it doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere. We both disagree about the interpretation. I have given my interpretation, you and weedle have given yours. We can continue to rebut each other, but we are constantly repeating ourselves, which is why I am going to stop here.

 

[PMX]

Locked for review.

 

[PMX]

Closed by request of the OP.