TheOGZeus Staff Report

[heater]

Your Steam Name: heater
Your Steam ID: STEAM_0:1:123736760
Your Character Name (If Applicable): Alex Herrera

Admin being reported( Tag by writing @ before their forum name) @OGZeus2010

Reason for Report: Voided a situation which I believe is valid and shouldn't have been voided but decided instead of getting a second opinion insisted I made the staff report over the forums which I believe was ego derived but anyways.. The situation happened at sater bay my territory was being taken by @FluffyGamer taking territories so I equip my firearm and exchanged shots so from this point on I believe that both sides are in immediate danger. My friend tried to help me because he KNEW I was being fired upon in attempt to run him over he kills @Nub and tries to kill me but fails (tried handling it in RP) then proceeded to cry about it to a staff member. The staff member taking the report was @TheOGZeus and voided it because he considered it as VDM. Made me drop his gun and told me to report it to the forums without getting a second opinion or letting me speak about it.

• VDM - Vehicle Deathmatch - The process of killing people without valid In-Character reasons - just with a vehicle.
• Vehicle Deathmatch is not allowed without a proper reason. You may use your vehicle as a weapon if you or a befriended life is in immediate danger.

Time of Occurrence: Around @ 4:30 EST on 9/2/23
Evidence to support your claim:
KOS -

"attempted VDM" -

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

 

[ThéOGZeus]

1. "ego derived" is a low blow. Had nothing to do with that at all. I just trust in myself to know what to do. As soon as it didn't go your way, you said "I'm gonna get a second opinion on this" and went afk, while I was still explaining my reasons for my decision.

2. I for sure did let u speak tho. I let you explain why you thought differently. I have clips if you need them. I got both sides, and you argued with me for a long time, so I don't see how you didn't have any time to speak?

3. My point still stands. I still consider it VDM. The reason for this is:
U did shoot at each other correct. But you had a good minute behind safe walls inside your house/Garden walls.
Therfore I do not believe "immediate danger" holds any value in this case.

I have no problem in being corrected, if I indeed am in the wrong.

Hope you have a blessed day.

~ThèOGZeus~

 

[heater]

im·me·di·ate
/iˈmēdēət/
occurring or done at once; instant.

dan·ger
/ˈdānjər/
the possibility of suffering harm or injury.

Immediate danger; The threat must be immediate or imminent. This means that you must believe that death or serious physical harm could occur within a short time

I was in combat, there is a combat timer in the video. I was in Immediate danger

I'm failing to see how you believe that that two people with class 3's shooting each other within the same vicinity isn't considered danger and the time frame of it happening to not be immediate.
but to add you see he kills the person who attempted to "VDM" almost kills me but still gets to keep his weapons and it gets voided though he handled it in RP.

 

[ThéOGZeus]

My point is this:
You where shooting at each other correct. But for me "immediate or imminent" is not valid in my eyes. You where behind safe walls, in your own house/garden. This is why I believe that "immediate or imminent" doesn't apply anymore. If u would just stay indoors, with you're doors locked, you would have been safe.

I see your point for sure, but I still think this part nullifies the other.


Both sides have been told now. Let's wait for a second pair of eyes.
Have a good day.

~ThéOGZeus~

 

[Marwan]

Under review.

 

[Dobarion]

Dear @heater,

Apologies for the delayed response to your report.

In summary of the incident, a user was attempting to secure a gang zone. You appear to have the intention to counter this action. The user opens fire upon you. You enter the back garden of the nearby property, thus taking cover (defensive positioning). Over the radio, you seemingly have called for assistance, asking if they got it. You further mention they are not surrendering. A vehicle driven by an assumed ally rams into the person attempting to capture the zone, this seems to be as they were positioned behind their car (defensive positioning). Your ally was shot and killed following their vehicle action. You exit the garden and shoot them down. This transpired over an apparent 2 minutes or so.

• As per Server Rules, 'VDM' is defined as "The process of killing people without valid In-Character reasons - just with a vehicle." 2.2.3 (Vehicle Deathmatch): Vehicle Deathmatch is not allowed without a proper reason. You may use your vehicle as a weapon if you or a befriended life is in immediate danger.
• 'Immediate danger' is not defined per Server Rules, although this can be defined generally as "an imminent and direct threat that requires quick action to prevent harm or damage."
• 'Immediate' is not defined per Server Rules, although this can be defined as "happening or done without delay"
• 'Danger' is not defined per Server Rules, although this can be defined as "the possibility of something happening that will injure, harm or kill somebody, or damage or destroy something"
• As of August 21st 2023, Server Rule 2.2.4 (Sensible Killing) was updated to include mention of gang zones: Attacking to kill should be carried out sensibly under any circumstances, including in gang zones, and not as a first resort unless you have a good reason for immediate lethal action.

To conclude with consideration of the responses within the thread, 2.2.3 (vehicle death match) has been not violated in this instance. The user attempting to capture the gang zone is a threat which poses a significant danger. Their vehicle is positioned and used as a defensive object. Within 2-3 minutes this incident continues to which either party can be (and is) harmed/killed and as such still considered an immediate danger. Interpretation of definitions is not straightforward and per the dictionary, I would not say there is a delay of significance to void 'immediate danger', if for instance, either users involved left and returned or the counter user went into the building to wait then this could then be applied that immediate danger is not valid.

I do not believe @ThéOGZeus has violated internal staff rules or guidelines and used their best judgment under the circumstances. In reference to rule 2.2.3, a revision of the wording 'immediate danger' will be reviewed to ensure more clarity and further definitions can be added.

Report Concluded,
Thread Locked & Moved.