Warning Dispute (Goonsberg)

[Judass]

Punishment Type: Warning
Appeal Type: Dispute[Evidence]
Which staff member issued the punishment?: @Goonsberg
How long were you banned/blacklisted for?: Not Applicable

Your Steam Name: Judass
Your Roleplay Name: Joel Finch
Your SteamID: STEAM_0:0:791991802

Why were you punished?: 2.5 User shot someone who was not visibly armed during a raid.

Why should this appeal be considered?: Hi !

Me and my friends were doing a Farm Raid, we held 3 of the defender GP'ed when one of the defender breaks GP and locks himself in farm, we are forced to crowbar our way in, triggering the alarm.

A shootout ensue with the cops responding to this break-in alarm.
Quickly, i'm left alone to fend off the LEO's responding to the scene, as my friends got killed by the TFU responding.
As you can see, i kill the TFU & Pistol cop and i want to peak the outside of Farm, which i know a pistol should be roaming, i peak, shoot again next to the opened door thinking a cop might be waiting there, and suddenly i see somebody, and he's rushing towards Farm, i proceed to gun him down.

Goonsberg opened a report and i quickly answered not thinking much of it, i didn't get the chance to upload a clip and maybe i answered without enough detail during the F6 so he warned me.

So i'll explain more on why i shot this guy.

He could have been a Counteraider/Defender as i've just shot those officer, he was gonna taking advantage of no PD on scene to try and counter, or somebody coming to minge grab a gun, either way this guy had no business rushing the active scene with weapons, where a suspect is still actively shooting cops, that would be considered 3.4 i believe.

It was an active scene, shots were being fired, i even shot again when i peeked that opened door at Farm, yet, despite all the unconscious people moaning on the ground, the shots, police cars parked up with light on Cornfield Road, this guy decide to rush the scene with no weapons out, knowing that after i shot him, i shot an officer 30 seconds after i killed this guy, the scene was active and had officer still on scene/responding to the scene.

As i pushed out i noticed that he had a MP5K laying beside him, so from what i can understand, he was a counteraider/defender, which is odd cause there was probably cops around farm ?

Knowing all this, i'm making this dispute because i feel this warn isn't valid, in this situation, i cannot let a guy roaming the scene where he could be minge grabbing a gun and shooting me, or let this guy rush me if he was trying to counter, i was crippled and not in a position where i could verbally tell him to stop pushing the barn, the scene is clearly active and i've acted within the rules.

Thanks for taking the time to read this
Have a good day.

 

[Goonsberg]

As I issues the dispute I am not involved in handling it.

However, I want to share with you a statement from the 2.5 Handbook which talks about Raids so you can understand more why I decided there was a rule break.

Raids and On-Sight Engagement​

---

In the world of Perpheads, raids are a common and thrilling aspect of gameplay. They can involve anything from heists and break-ins to intense confrontations between organizations. However, understanding the rules and guidelines surrounding raids is essential to ensure fair play and an engaging roleplay experience for all.

The Rules of Engagement​

1. Visibly Armed Players One of the key rules during raids involves how to deal with visibly armed players. If a player is carrying visible weaponry while entering, exiting, or being inside a property that is being raided, they are considered significant threats. In this scenario, they can be killed justifiably without the need for prior verbal commands or interactions. This rule is in place to add an element of realism and tension to raids, as well as to prevent potential ambushes.

2. Non-Visibly Armed Players On the other hand, when dealing with players who are not visibly armed during a raid, the rules change. In such cases, there must be a prior interaction before shooting the player. This interaction can involve verbal commands or negotiations, allowing for a more nuanced approach to roleplay. It encourages players to engage in meaningful dialogue and to consider the context of the situation before resorting to violence therefore ensuring that Rule 2.5 is well respected.

 

[Judass]

As I issues the dispute I am not involved in handling it.

However, I want to share with you a statement from the 2.5 Handbook which talks about Raids so you can understand more why I decided there was a rule break.

Raids and On-Sight Engagement​

---

In the world of Perpheads, raids are a common and thrilling aspect of gameplay. They can involve anything from heists and break-ins to intense confrontations between organizations. However, understanding the rules and guidelines surrounding raids is essential to ensure fair play and an engaging roleplay experience for all.

The Rules of Engagement​

1. Visibly Armed Players One of the key rules during raids involves how to deal with visibly armed players. If a player is carrying visible weaponry while entering, exiting, or being inside a property that is being raided, they are considered significant threats. In this scenario, they can be killed justifiably without the need for prior verbal commands or interactions. This rule is in place to add an element of realism and tension to raids, as well as to prevent potential ambushes.

2. Non-Visibly Armed Players On the other hand, when dealing with players who are not visibly armed during a raid, the rules change. In such cases, there must be a prior interaction before shooting the player. This interaction can involve verbal commands or negotiations, allowing for a more nuanced approach to roleplay. It encourages players to engage in meaningful dialogue and to consider the context of the situation before resorting to violence therefore ensuring that Rule 2.5 is well respected.

Hey, thanks for answering quickly.

In this instance, my actions were severly limited by me being crippled, i wanted out of the building and was shooting my way out, in this case, if the player hadn't realised yet that the scene was active, i've shot again when pushing out, the player intention were clear even if not visibly armed, as he did have a weapon on him, i do think he should've played this differently than him rushing the way he did (After he could only assume that all cops were dead) would constitute a 3.4 infraction.

Let's be honest, after he jumped the barn barrier, he was about to pull out his gun behind the barn wall and dome me, if i had pushed to try and talk to him with my crippled leg, i would have been dead, i needed to make my way out of here asap because of my crippled leg, this situation gave me the only choice of shooting, as the explanation of why he would be pushing Farm this way is because he is involved and/or not considering his own safety by rushing a barricaded suspect without a gun.

I would add, that in the clip, you can see him hidden behind the TFU car waiting, i shoot next to the door and after hearing the shot, he still decide to try and rush.

 

[Ellie]

 

[Ellie]

There was an active shootout between you and the police, and the other player had no valid reason to be there in the first place and put himself in further danger. He should have removed himself from the shoot-out and waited for it to be over instead of jumping the fence when there was clearly an on going shoot-out and unconscious people inside. 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 would fall under rule 3.4.

Additionally, there was a risk that he could have been a counter-raider, so it was reasonable for you to be on guard and prepared for that.

The other player will receive a ban for his actions.

Reviewed with @phoondos @A1L @Scoot