TheJD Staff Report

[Jack Everadon]

Your Steam Name: Cookie
Your Steam ID: STEAM_0:1:118906358
Your Character Name (If Applicable): Jack Everadon


Admin being reported: (Tag by writing @ before their forum name) @John Valcone


Reason for Report: The staff clearly does not know what he is talking about. In no means, do I mean to disrespect. Throughout my blacklist appeal, he keeps switching it up. We do not need to initiate on the people because they already initiated. Initiate is suggested to last for 15-30 minutes. In this case, it only lasted for 6 minutes. We wanted to kill them because they killed one of our friends, and one of us saw it. We had all the valid reason to kill them. Even though we did not need initiation, I still initiated by telling the one that I did not kill as of that time to get out of the car and then @Kevin Brooks and I proceeded to kill him, because they had killed our friend. I asked in help chat, "Which rule states that you can not kill someone if they hurt a friend that is not in your org?" Gregg responded with, "They should be in your party, or frequency, so staff can confirm this." and also "They are in your group constellation, so you may defend your friend." I get it is not a stated rule, but even though I did not RDM at all. They killed our friend that was in our frequency giving us all the valid reason to kill the group of people. @John Valcone denies that and gives myself a one week weapon blacklist and Kevin a verbal warning for RDM. However, we did not RDM as it was a valid reason to kill them and we did not have to initiate because they already initiated by killing Tatsuro.

Time of Occurrence: Made the blacklist appeal today, and was given the punishment 12/23/18
Evidence to support your claim: https://plays.tv/video/5c2010c3704a43cc04/o7?from=user and https://monolithservers.com/forums/threads/false-blacklist.16514/
Additional members involved/witnessing: @Kevin Brooks

 

[The JD]

One what Gregg said by no means is a stated rule. It also states in the rules yes if someone kills a friend you can kill them. Did all three of the men in that car kill your friend? you should have inniated seeing as multiple people where in the vehicle and none of your friends life were in direct danger any longer

 

[Jack Everadon]

One what Gregg said by no means is a stated rule. It also states in the rules yes if someone kills a friend you can kill them. Did all three of the men in that car kill your friend? you should have inniated seeing as multiple people where in the vehicle and none of your friends life were in direct danger any longer

I didn't kill all of the people. I killed one of them. They still killed our friend which gives us valid reason to kill them.

 

[table]

One what Gregg said by no means is a stated rule. It also states in the rules yes if someone kills a friend you can kill them. Did all three of the men in that car kill your friend? you should have inniated seeing as multiple people where in the vehicle and none of your friends life were in direct danger any longer

Hi @John Valcone. I was not in the situation where the shootout happened, but I was in the radio giving callouts before the shooting had occured. The guy who saw my org member getting mugged (Tatsuro was getting mugged and then killed) had giving a description of their car and the direction they went in. As they were going down the highway I saw them at intersection and relayed the message of the car to everyone. The description seemed to match and I said in radio to come towards intersection/townhall. All of these men were involved in the mugging due to the fact all of this happened in a short manner of time. There was no big space in time between in the mugging/killing and the shootout in townhall parking lot. They posed a threat to our criminal organization due to the fact that they had just killed one of our men and drove off. I don't think there was enough time for them to split off or gain more people into the vehicle. This is just from my perspective and what I think happened. Just wanted to put some input and maybe resolve this mess.

 

[The JD]

Ok, so you saw a car that seemed to match no way to confirm seeing as you were not there. Many people have the same car and the car they were in is one of the most popular cars. The man that cookie kills hops out absolutely un armed and is killed. in this situation with multiple people In the car they should have iniated on them and not just rolled up and spray them down. Then he procceds to execute them.

 

[Jack Everadon]

Ok, so you saw a car that seemed to match no way to confirm seeing as you were not there. Many people have the same car and the car they were in is one of the most popular cars. The man that cookie kills hops out absolutely un armed and is killed. in this situation with multiple people In the car they should have iniated on them and not just rolled up and spray them down. Then he procceds to execute them.

@table was giving callouts as to what car and what direction that were heading. All of the people in the car mugged Tatsuro and then killed him. They were all a threat to us. The guy I killed had 2 deagles and a kev on him. We don't exactly need to initiate because they already initiated by mugging and killing Tatsuro.

 

[Jack Everadon]

I asked @The JD if thats all he had to say and he said yeah. All has been said from both of our sides.

 

[Aaron]

I was one of the staff members consulted on this issue, so I'll go ahead and give my reasons for advising JD to give out punishments. A radio callout without visual confirmation/physical identification is not enough to initiate without further RP. It was bad, sloppy RP that should have been done better. In my opinion, if you would have had your "witness" with you, had him identify them and shoot them at that point, I would have been all for the slaughter. Otherwise, this is just badly played out and either metagaming, or it's borderline RDM.

 

[Jack Everadon]

I was one of the staff members consulted on this issue, so I'll go ahead and give my reasons for advising JD to give out punishments. A radio callout without visual confirmation/physical identification is not enough to initiate without further RP. It was bad, sloppy RP that should have been done better. In my opinion, if you would have had your "witness" with you, had him identify them and shoot them at that point, I would have been all for the slaughter. Otherwise, this is just badly played out and either metagaming, or it's borderline RDM.

Matthew told us what car they were in and was following them. He told us there were 4 people in a green Mitsubishi at intersection. He also told us that they mugged and killed Tatsuro.

 

[Aaron]

And 6 minutes passed, an eternity in RP, and you expected nothing to change and gunned them down. That information was important, and if it had been present at the time Staff chat was consulted, your outcome may have been different.

Regardless of that, you took an uninvolved person's word over radio who simply witnessed something that you could not confirm for yourself, and murdered people over it. If that doesn't seem ridiculous to you then you're treating the server like your own first person shooter.

I'll back out now since I've given all information necessary regarding my involvement. Good luck with getting this resolved, and hopefully regardless of the outcome you can learn something from it.

 

[Gurra]

A few points.

If any "they have to be in your org" thing was said about the friend who was killed, that's not what the rules say. Yes, it would make staff's job a bit easier, but we're not going to restrict RP that far. Valid reasons to kill are broadly defined as is already, so it doesn't make sense to start finding severely narrow definitions for the different types. We'll have to do our best without any forced org-based definition of friends.

Second, there is no need for initiation. There never is in our rules. Other servers, including one I ran in the past have forced initiation before lethal violence in their rules - supposedly to give both parties a sense of predictability that they believe is "fair". In effect, that same robotic and unrealistic predictability replaces interaction of an unpredictable nature that brings immense excitement to the game experience. Our RP isn't about some subjective definition of fairness, but instead about realism - and life isn't always fair. As long as lethal violence is guided by a valid RP reason, it's fine, and the targeted party have to do their best under the circumstances they face. If they didn't act really cautiously and considered the consequences of their recent actions, they are responsible for those circumstances. In some cases, it may even come down to really bad luck, which brings us to the next point:

The possibility someone who is innocent entered the car in the span of 6 minutes is irrelevant to preventing someone with a valid reason to engage in lethal violence. The rules don't seek to prevent anyone innocent from ever getting hurt if they have really bad luck, but to ensure that players act upon valid and realistic RP reasons. The level of mandated risk-averseness to the possibility of accidents which is promoted by the admins in this case can't be used to punish people for or block this type of lethal violence. Doing so would really kill off the flow, freedom and potential of the gameplay, which is invaluable to the game experience.

I considered @Aaron 's points, but after Jack clarified that there was an informant who provided information, I frankly disagree and think Jack acted in an acceptable manner.

This is a staff report, but there's no abusive behaviour by the staff. They acted in good faith and made a judgement based on their interpretation of the rules. However, I do seek to set a clear precedent here regarding my points which I hope staff will consider going forward. Any punishment for Jack and his friends in regard to this case will be lifted.

Concluded.