Ban Dispute (Pug)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Points
145
Punishment Type: Ban
Appeal Type: Dispute[Evidence]
Which staff member issued the punishment?: Pug
How long were you banned/blacklisted for?: 1 Week

Your Steam Name: Shad0wings16 #RustyPot
Your Roleplay Name: Kabir Dattachaudhuri
Your SteamID: STEAM_0:1:199526798

Why were you banned/blacklisted?: 1.6, 2.5 - User shot 2 people standing on his property. User then decided to try and lie in the report about them "Raiding" and having "Guns in their hands"

Why should this appeal be considered?: I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to appeal a ban that was issued against my account. I believe that the ban was unjustly issued due to a misunderstanding or mistake, as there was a lack of thorough investigation as the staff member didn't want to look into my provided evidence and only looked at the clip of the person that reported me.

I was issued a ban after receiving 1 earlier warning from a staff members regarding an incident that allegedly violated the game's rules as I shot someones tires while there was no clear evidence provided as to what exactly happened. Instead the ticket was closed. I didn't feel the need to dispute this warning because neither did I have any evidence.

I take the game's rules seriously and have always aimed to contribute positively to the community. I have gathered evidence that contradicts the claims made against my ban and provides a more accurate representation of the situation. I would like to request a proper review of this evidence and the incident as a whole, in the hopes of rectifying the misunderstanding.

While I was at the in-game store around the block, I received a call from my friend who had witnessed two armed individuals standing on my property. They were seen carrying guns in their hands, rather than holstered on their backs. This alarming situation raised the presumption that my house was being targeted for a break-in. According to the definition of "raiding" as stated in the game rules, it involves trespassing on an occupied property with the intention of stealing from it or the players inside.

My friend informed me of the armed individuals climbing onto our house, and the urgent nature of the situation prompted me to rush to the scene. Upon my arrival, I observed one person on the balcony, seemingly attempting to gain access to the house, while the other was positioned in the back. In an effort to protect myself and my property, I took measures to neutralize the perceived threat. I shot both the individual on the balcony which I assumed was breaking in, and the person in the back who was overlooking because it was obvious he would try to fight back.

I value fair play and respectful conduct within the game community. I understand the importance of maintaining the integrity of the game and adhere to its rules.

Thank you for your understanding and consideration of my appeal. I trust that a thorough examination will reveal the true nature of the events that transpired.

Additional Information: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1132729042630607029/1146913343253270579/Screenshot_20.png
 




In order for this dispute to be considered please provide the following demo:

perpheads_demo_2023-8-31 22-25-30

A guide that can help you with demos.
A website you can upload the demo to and provide the link here.

Provide this in the next 48 hours.

Thank you for your quick response.

File upload:
The file perpheads_demo_2023-8-31 22-25-30.dem has been uploaded. Demo file stored at https://demo.tfu.wtf/demos/perpheads_demo_2023-8-31 22-25-30.dem

Best regards,
Kabir
 




How were you guys communicating with each other?

You claimed to be receiving a phone call however, logs show that you didn't receive any.
 
Hello 3izu,

I appreciate your prompt response.

As a new player, I was still learning the ropes, and I didn't have a full grasp of the rules before I got banned. However, after my ban, I took the time to thoroughly read the game rules. I realized I made a mistake, particularly in what's referred to as '3.2' It wasn't clear to me at first, but now I see why it's important to follow these rules. I apologize for any lack of clarity.

I'm genuinely committed to ensuring a fair and enjoyable gaming experience for all players, so I'm ready to adhere to the rules moving forward.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards.
 




After reviewing your demos and examining all the evidence provided, we strongly disagree with your actions and have uncovered multiple unseen rule violations.

The killing of those players cannot be justified. While they may have had weapons on their backs, they did not exhibit any clear intent to break into your property at that moment. You should have waited until their intentions were unmistakable, which could have been determined if they attempted to crowbar, pointed a gun, or verbally expressed their intentions.

Your admission to metagaming through third-party software will also be included in your ban reason.

3.2 Third Party Communication Applications​

Any and all forms of communication about any topic which affects In-Character decisions must be conducted through In-Character methods; for example, through the use of in-game voice chat. The use of communication applications outside of this game is strictly forbidden; for example, the use of Steam chat, TeamSpeak, Discord, Skype, telephones, etc.

Furthermore, upon reviewing the entire demo, we discovered that after killing both players, you immediately stored weapons without ensuring the area was safe to do so, this constitutes another rule violation of 3.18.

3.18 Storages and trunks​

While their life and/or freedom is in imminent danger a player must not use their storage boxes/trunks to avoid losing valuable items that the player is currently holding on their person. This also includes detaching weapon attachments with the intention of avoiding their loss.

Additionally, when an officer attempted to apprehend you and your friend at gunpoint, your refusal to cooperate was a clear breach of Rule 3.4.

3.4 Putting your Life at Risk

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;



A few common examples of unreasonable risks includes, but is not limited to:


  • Running on the highway without a justifiable reason
  • Loitering around the vicinity of a shootout you are not a part of or being within the line of fire from both intentional and accidental fire. Users must flee the scene of a shootout and wait for police to clear the scene and reopen the area to the public. This applies regardless of you being restrained or not.
  • Murdering a police officer(s) to avoid yourself or others receiving a minor punishment, such as a small ticket or a minor jail sentence
  • Loitering around the scene of a crime you committed with the intention of engaging in more combat
  • To not comply with reasonable orders given under the direct threat of a lethal weapon pointed at you, such as a mugging.
  • Committing a violent or serious crime, such as murder, theft, arson, etc. whilst knowing that police are in direct eyeshot of the scene you wish to commit the crime at.
  • After committing a crime, relevant precautions should be taken to avoid arrest or police attention, such as avoiding public places.


Some valid reasons to kill police officers include:

  • Risk of a long prison sentence
  • Preventing the imminent detection of drug production.
  • Committing a violent crime police would reasonably use lethal force to apprehend you for.

Considering your history of dishonesty, multiple rule violations observed in the demo, and a lack of effort in addressing this dispute — especially by using an AI to write your response, your ban will be extended to a month.
NOTE: USING AN AI TO GENERATE/HELP GENERATE YOUR APPEAL WILL RESULT IN INSTANT DENIAL AND POSSIBLE BAN EXTENSION

Reviewed with @Ellie
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top