Ban Dispute (flugs, acerius)

[External Appeals]

Punishment Type: Ban
Appeal Type: Dispute
Which staff member issued the punishment?: flugs, acerius
How long were you banned/blacklisted for?: 2 Days

Your Steam Name: BullyHunter
Your Roleplay Name: Henry Lopez
Your SteamID: STEAM_0:1:60438167

Why were you banned/blacklisted?: 2.5, 5.1, 5.6 - User kidnapped another player in a public area with the intention of forcing them to open the doors to their base so that they could raid this player. Doing so was not "absolutely necessary" and thus was a violation of the rules surrounding kidnapping, not to mention excessively negative.

Why should this appeal be considered?: "This is so evidently against the Rules. You straight up mugged Jamie off his gun in the middle of the road and attempted to make him move from public view against his own will towards Moron's Shipping Co."

Can you let me know how I broke 2.5 and 5.6 though? You stating what happened is absolutely worthless, i'm not a retard, i was there... i know what happened believe it or not.

 

[Acerius]

This ban dispute was already reviewed on its own merits in the thread here and will not be re-reviewed by another set of staff, as per the direction for users within the Appealing a Punishment thread you are only entitled to dispute a ban or warning once. However it is clear that you wanted further elaboration which I have endeavoured to provide below.

If you require any further assistance regarding this matter or continue to disagree, then your next course of action would be to make a Staff Complaint against myself and the other staff members who reviewed the ban dispute originally. You can find those staff members tagged at the bottom of the original thread.

Rule 2.5 Excessive Negativity states:

“Players may not excessively impact the experience of others in a negative manner, unless the actions are a proportionate escalation of negative actions that have been performed against the original player.”

It is clear in our judgement that Jamie did not do anything to you that was sufficient enough to warrant your behaviour towards him in this case. The crucial point which brings this situation into the realm of 2.5 is the fact that you actively broke other Rules, namely 5.1 and 5.6, in-order to facilitate this situation. As Jamie is bound to continue on roleplay as far as practicable, he was unable to do anything in retaliation despite the fact that what you were doing was clearly excessive and not allowed.

Rule 5.1 Mugging states:

“Players may only mug other players in a realistic manner, for example mugging someone in the middle of a street is not realistic. Muggings should only take place in locations which are out of the view of the public.”

By virtue of having Jamie surrender and drop his gun, and you picking it up and using it for your own benefit, was able to make this situation be classified as a mugging. You did this in a public setting where there are sightlines from the windows of apartments, Scrapyard, Moron’s Shipping Co, Veikko Body Shop, the alleyway/stairs up to the gas station, and the Docks. You also did this in-front of the Pub where the NPC must be treated as another player which you did not consider at all during your interaction, and therefore the NPC at any point could have reasonably phoned the police.

Rule 5.6 Kidnapping states:

“Player(s) may only kidnap another player if it is absolutely necessary and benefits the player to such an extent that it outweighs the risks… players should refer to rule 3.4 when deciding whether or not taking a hostage is appropriate and/or beneficial.”

What you did falls into the realm of kidnapping whereby you continually held Jamie at gunpoint and forced him to continue moving to another place of which is considerable distance away against his own will and in a manner in which he was unable to retaliate. This has its own distinctions from solely mugging someone, as it was clear that you had other purposes for Jamie complying with your orders, which was to likely facilitate a key-raid into Moron’s Shipping Co or hold him ransom for money from his organisation members.

In any case, kidnapping someone for this purpose does not sufficiently benefit you enough to justify it. Again, a distinction is made where someone has just exited or is about to enter their property, and on the threshold, you compel them to open the door and grant you access.

Rule 5.6 directs players to look at Rule 3.4, which provides a number of directions as well as a specific example that is relevant to this case:

"Any actions taken by a player that may put their In-Character life, freedom from imprisonment or general well being at risk must be done so in a realistic fashion and for beneficial reasons. This rule is specifically relevant to the violation of any In-Character law, meaning that murders, thefts, etc, are all expected to be conducted realistically.”

“After committing a crime, relevant precautions should be taken to avoid arrest or police attention, such as avoiding public places.”

Whatever your intentions could have reasonably been in the eyes of any objective person, they would not have been sufficient enough to justify your actions and kidnapping Jamie.