Ban Dispute (Bean can)

[Alexjuicee]

Punishment Type: Ban
Punishment Subtype: Server Ban
Appeal Type: Dispute[Evidence]
Which staff member issued the punishment?: @Bean Can
How long were you banned/blacklisted for?: 3 Days

Your Steam Name: Count Dookie
Your Roleplay Name: Peter Billnickle
Your SteamID: 76561198132070028

Why were you punished?: "2.6, 3.4, 3.21

Why should this appeal be considered?: after the encounter with bean can, i reported him by using the f6 tab. and the person answering my report was the person i was reporting. He fail rp´d, which he admitted to in the conversation i sent in "evidence". him fail rping caused me to say "bro this is not how rp works, you cant just be dead silent, not rping and then pull out a gun. this is not a real scenario here. then he told me to put my arms up, which i ofcourse didnt do since this rp scenario wasnt actually happening, since he didnt use any form of communication during the whole build up, no voice, no text, no "luring me out to the location". i just walked with him and talked with him but he didnt answer. so he somehow forced my character to put his hands up (thought maybe he was using cheats). then i said okay sure i´ll comply, i dropped everything i had (which was 10$ and a donut). but he still preassuring me to drop more even though i didnt have any more, he said something in the lines of "you´re getting deported, you have to give me everything".

 

[Vollgas]

You have not set the provided evidence as public, meaning we cannot access it.

 

[Alexjuicee]

here is the evidence as an image instead.

https://imgur.com/a/V3DGcbE

 

[Matthew]

You have not provided much evidence other than a report log. Based on what you've provided and your reasoning behind the dispute, we deem this to be a valid ban.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with what you described other than your own actions.

him fail rping caused me to say "bro this is not how rp works, you cant just be dead silent, not rping and then pull out a gun. this is not a real scenario here.

2.6 states, "you should continue roleplaying while following the rules until a staff member intervenes". In this scenario, you saying this has broken rule 2.6. This is why 2.6 is valid here, as you should have continued roleplaying instead of accusing the player of roleplaying incorrectly.

This also validates rule 3.21. As part of 3.21, you are expected to stay in-character at all times, mentioning roleplay and how it is "not a real scenario" is breaking character and not something a person involved in a situation like this in real life would say, see this quote from 3.21 below.

Examples of not being IC include:

• Discussing server rules during roleplay

then he told me to put my arms up, which i ofcourse didnt do since this rp scenario wasnt actually happening

Based on this part of your statement, this is a rule break of 3.4, which validates that part of the punishment. If you are told to surrender under gunpoint with no way to resist, you must comply with the commands; there is not a requirement for there to be any sort of communication or buildup before the demand to surrender. The RP scenario was definitely happening, as he had just told you to surrender in an active roleplay scenario. Whether there was a "buildup" beforehand or not is irrelevant.

It seems you are concerned with Bean Can's conduct in the report, and you feel he should not have been involved in the report. If this is the case, I advise you to create a staff complaint against him, which will be reviewed by Administrators and above. To clarify, Bean Can has had no involvement in this denial.

Reviewed by myself, @teby, @Lucius Husky, @jams and @DemonZ