Staff not knowing their own rules????

[Steady]

Your Steam Name: steady
Your Steam ID: STEAM_0:0:210061245
Your Character Name (If Applicable):

Admin being reported: @Hatchet Tazz @coziify (wont give me his forum name after requested MULTIPLE times)

Reason for Report: Today on the 8th of August I was in a staff sit that involved @Hatchet Tazz and @coziify (wont give me his forum name after requested MULTIPLE times). The sit overall took well over 40 minutes which alone is outrageous for an RDM sit, but let's go with it anyway. Coziify was the first one to take this sit and then Hatchet proceeded to join it after some time giving his side of the story. The whole ordeal was about one of my buddies was apparently "looking for KOS" by asking the reporter if he wanted to be kidnapped (reporters side video). After that I believe that the same person who did ask him if he wanted to be kidnapped shot at his car. After that whole situation the reporter proceeded to step out of his car with a rifle out without his safety on and proceeded to literally flail his gun towards us in our general direction which you can see in the video. Not only that but the reporters video shows that he actively pointed a weapon at one of our group members which comes to the conclusion, that after being shot at makes any normal person assume that he is acting with ill intent to either merk us all or threaten our lives by pointing said rifle. Now from Hatchet Tazz's opinion he said that kill was not valid as it was not carried out sensibly because he wasn't posing as an active threat (like what???). Coziify proceeded to reinforce his opinion by agreeing with him on this. Now here is the rule that were quoted in this scenario:

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

The point that was being made here is that by whatever dumbfounded reason, the reporter (the man pointing the rifle) was not seen as an active threat to the situation after pointing his rifle AT US after he was engaged by one of my group members with their own rifle. Keep in mind this was when he was inside of his car, any rule break that was commencing was not in my control whatsoever because I cannot control the actions of my group members and also keep in mind that in this very scenario that I was OUT OF RANGE from the scene which makes me unable to hear any exchange whatsoever from the position of myself which was inside the wrangler and the position of the reporter which was the red car. Now any normal-thinking individual would immediately open fire on us if we even dared even breathed with the possession of a rifle on them.

Now please let me quote multiple different rules in this situation that would void anything quoted above.

1. 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).
   
   
2. Surrendered parties (in a Raid, Mugging, Kidnapping and/or Robbery) may not be killed unless they are actively resisting, not valuing their life, threatening to kill or snitch on you, yelling for help or the Law Enforcement, or fail to fulfil requested demands.
   
   

A: The fact that the reporter made a report AFTER the fact that he was killed within the boundaries of these rules is baffling. The reporter didn't make a report after he was wrongfully shot at, but instead proceeded to take matters into his own hands after leaving the property of his vehicle and point said rifle towards us. After confronting this within the staff sit that took well over 40 minutes he did indeed say that he was leaving his vehicle with THE intent to either disarm or kill.



B: Also keep in mind, that the reporter did also say, "I had no reason to kill anyone other than the person who shot at me", after claiming he was trying to figure out who shot at the reporter first. Which then again backs up my point, referring to posing as an active threat to the situation. The argument that was made here was that he did indeed flail his weapon towards us, scoped in + off safety and again, refer to point A, that he was indeed pointing his weapon at us WITH the ILL INTENT to shoot to kill the perpetrator who shot his vehicle.


C: The screenshot above showcases the fact that I was unable to hear/see/smell the intent of my group members intentions because i was simply too far away. Hatchet Tazz proceeded to say that it doesn't matter how far away I am, I am supposed to know all of the intentions that are about to be initiated by my group member. Now keep in mind, I am on my own in this situation, I said not once, not twice but FOUR times in this situation that I, myself and only myself had a completely valid reason to shoot the reporter for the reasons that were listed in point A and B.


D: In this situation Hatchet Tazz tried to elaborate on the definition of threat to me, saying that simply having a weapon out, pointed at you that is also scoped in not in the general direction of my group member, but literally POINTING it at HIM doesn't give me any reason to shoot the reporter. Now I am going to define threat to you: Threat noun a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done. Notice that, within the definition of threat that it does state, a statement of the intention to inflict pain, injury or damage. Which checks off 3 of the 4 things that are listed within the definition. It is a fucking joke that I am unable to shoot at someone unless they shoot at me first.

Conclusion: My TL;DR: within this thread is simply that Coziify nor Hatchet Tazz have common understanding of what the rules state and base the knowledge of said rules within their own boundaries of their imagination. The sit was handled horribly by both of the staff members extending it to a well over 40 minute sit when it could've been a 5-10 minute one since the video evidence was provided by both parties of the situation. Even then the person who was then outed as the man who did shoot at the vehicle in the first place he didn't proceed to investigate this issue but rather punish me for RDM as I am the one who killed him. I had everysingle goddamn right in gods green earth to shoot the reporter but the staff members still failed to investigate, pursue and/or give a fuck about the situation as a whole. Such a pathetic attempt of staffing on monolith when you have to deal with plenty of other reports that piled up during this that had an extremely simple solution to it considering the statements + evidence that was provided by both players.


Time of Occurrence: 7:50 PM CST - 8:30 PM CST
Evidence to support your claim:
Clip that is provided by me : https://medal.tv/games/garrys-mod/clips/1nSFLNpJzwptlk/d1337ggRe850?invite=cr-MSxRbmQsMTQ1MTA4NjQs
Clip that was provided by reporter :

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

 

[Hatchet Tazz]

Sorry for leaving so abruptly earlier, as I had to pick up my kid from school.
Anyways, as the video shows, the party you were affiliated with was using some questionable tactics in asking others if they wish to be kidnapped.
Someone proceeds to shoot at your group from down the street. After they were put down, one of you proceeds to shoot the red vehicle for no valid reason, starting the whole situation.
I believe the party in the red car was never kidnapped or in the process of being mugged due to the fact he there were no commands issued to assume they were.
So the below rules would not apply since the kidnapping never was initiated. Also, it seems he wasn't calling for help as well in either video.

1. 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).
   
   
2. Surrendered parties (in a Raid, Mugging, Kidnapping and/or Robbery) may not be killed unless they are actively resisting, not valuing their life, threatening to kill or snitch on you, yelling for help or the Law Enforcement, or fail to fulfil requested demands.

So I stick by my word that the kill was RDM, even if you say your communication was not there with your teammates, which is strange by itself, due to the fact everyone seemed to have a radio. It was a false KOS.

That is all I have to say on the matter. Cozify was following my direction as well.

 

[DnChops]

1. 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).
   
   
2. Surrendered parties (in a Raid, Mugging, Kidnapping and/or Robbery) may not be killed unless they are actively resisting, not valuing their life, threatening to kill or snitch on you, yelling for help or the Law Enforcement, or fail to fulfil requested demands.

both of these rules are void. i was not a hostage, being mugged/robbed or surrendered. and either way i had not threatened to kill, snitch, yell for help or call law enforcement.

 

[DnChops]

"WITH the ILL INTENT to shoot to kill the perpetrator who shot his vehicle."
"he did indeed say that he was leaving his vehicle with THE intent to either disarm or kill."

both of these points are also invalid. i need to be an iminent threat so that you are able to defend yourself and kill me. your point is that you only knew i was an iminent threat until the sit had been created. you had not known that i had the intent to kill until i had told you in the report with cozy and hatchet#

Steady. close this report and read the rules please mate. you are a monolith senior and are contradicting yourself like this?
You just called your friend a perpetrator meaning "a person who carries out a harmful, illegal, or immoral act."
You watched him shoot at me with no valid reason/rp reason and proceeded to say it was not rdm when you had just called your friend a perpatrator.
This was one of my points in the report and you just kept ignoring it saying that it wasnt rdm but your just contradicting yourself now.

You cannot clearly see steady watch his friend shoot at me from my pov, but steady also has a clip from the interaction which shows it. Steady looks at his friend shooting so he looks in the direction of the shots, he looks at my car (which im inside, (being shot at by his friend) not a threat) and watches his boy shoot at me without a valid reason.

 

[something]

Hello @Steady , after reviewing the evidence and speaking with both @Cozy and @Hatchet Tazz we've determined that the punishment you've received for this situation was unjust seeing how @DnChops decided to hop out of his car and brandish his weapon towards you just after you got into a shootout, we believe you had every right to assume he is hostile at that point. Still your friends shouldn't have opened fire on @DnChops vehicle without a apparent reason.

The punishment was issued by @Cozy under the advice of @Hatchet Tazz and this will be treated as a report only against Hatchet.
He was talked with and understands why this ruling shouldn't have been issued, furthermore the 2 WP you've received for this will be removed.

Feel free to message me if you think I left out something.

Staff report Concluded.