Denied RDM Warn Appeal

[Raff]

Name: Raff
SteamID64: STEAM_0:1:166979807
Date of warning issue: 4/23/24
Member of staff: Jakey/Gatesway?
Warning reason (screenshot): Why should we remove the warning?: The warning in and of itself makes little to no sense based on the way the Player Report was made. Potato explicitily told me and the staff member called at the time, lewis sayed about whether we can raid the checkpoint or not. After lewis couldnt grab another admin Potato said can I bring it to forums for community input and lewis said yes. Potato then made a report not accusing me or saying anything was done incorrectly, but rather restating points during the staff sit and from himself that left lewis to end the staff sit inconclusive and no disciplinary measures being ruled out. At the end of the report Potato says and I quote: "We also believe that there should be no new rule supporting these type of raids: they allow organisations to wreak further havoc to car traffic by gaining another broad way to immobilise checkpoints. Terrorists already have bombings to disrupt checkpoints which we think is a fun and fair tool." So if potato makes a report for further judgement wanting confirmation, and it required the Server Owner to reinstate what his staff member couldnt in a staff sit reinforce as a rule break or not, I shouldnt be warned over something that wasnt made 100% apparent or clear besides being told to use common sense, when there is valid points as to how it could be possible. Its a first time offence for me anyway raiding checkpoints and I havent done since so I truly dont believe this should be a warn for a player restating my points were valid and agreeing with the ones that left the staff sit inconclusive.


Accepted - T Co-leader Raff Report | Riverside Roleplay (riverside-roleplay.com)

 

[Gatesway]

Hello Raff, I've tried to explain this in the best way possible. I mentioned the reasonings as to why you got the warning within the report made on you by RPU Potato but have here further elaborated on the thought processes behind these arguments. Let me also correct you on how you interpreted the report as a whole, you say he's "not accusing me or saying anything was done incorrectly", then why would he be making a report? You quote Potato saying "We also believe that there should be no new rule supporting these type of raids..." I don't see how that works in your favour, if he doesn't want "RPU CP raid" added to the adverts with a corresponding cooldown, what would he be writing a report for instead of asking next up? He reported you in-game for it, no verdict was made. He took it to forums, the verdict was made. Not entirely sure what you're expecting. And okay, I can somewhere see that it isn't 100% apparent due to the specific situation not being mentioned anywhere, but if you would have gathered arguments for both sides as well as you do for your own and put them next to each other, you too should have realised the outcome of the situation. Since you haven't done that even after me mentioning why the report was accepted (otherwise why the appeal?), I thought I'd do it for you.


Basing Rules Misinterpretation:

• Rule C1: "You may only build where there are doors owned by yourself. Only Hobos are permitted to build elsewhere except for on the road."
  
  Checkpoints typically do not have ownable doors, which is a fundamental requirement to qualify a location as a base. Which it doesn't have and so does not meet the criteria established under Rule C1 for being considered a base. This directly contradicts any claims that a checkpoint could be classified as such and raided under rules applicable to bases. Even if Potato first agreed with your reasoning.
  
  Besides any of the other remaining basing rules (it doesn't abide by) being a clear giveaway that a checkpoint shouldn't be considered a base, the following rule definitely should:
  
  
• Rule E5: "All government must refrain from all illegal activities. All government may not own any properties, except for the (Deputy) Prime Minister."
  
  This suggests that government are restricted from setting up bases in the traditional sense, as ownership of a property (doors) is a prerequisite for establishing a base.
  
  As you spend a lot of time building bases, you're someone who frequently interacts with our rules, and we expect a comprehensive understanding not just of the letter of each rule, but also its spirit. The rules are designed not only to maintain order but to ensure a fair, enjoyable, and inclusive environment for all players. Your innovative approach to base building, while impressive, often requires adjustments to align with server rules. We encourage you to consider how your designs affect gameplay and player interactions, ensuring they contribute positively to the community.
  
  Before you think about pulling the SCO card, if you don't want anyone knocking on your door, don't give them a reason to. Potentially even do it somewhere where you have nothing to lose, which is precisely why the 3 active members per business rule was brought to life.

Lack of Monetary Gain:

• Rule B20: "When committing any crime, you must leave the area once there is no more monetary gain."
  
  This rule was written up to ensure that when crimes are committed, people still have a justifiable monetary objective to prevent disruptive behaviour by staying as long as possible to kill as many people.
  
  Dropped money does not constitute a valid monetary gain, you don't know if it's there before initiating the crime (if you do, you should be mugging them instead), and since you can't kill people to simply steal their vehicle, neither does that count. These elements do not represent a direct or significant economic objective, which is necessary to justify a raid under the guidelines.

---

RDM:

• Rule B2: "You shouldn't be taking someone's life unless necessary (for example: when carjacking, you cannot simply shoot the owner without provocation)."
  
  This rule mandates that any act of killing must be preceded by a solid and necessary reason within the roleplay context, such as a provoked attack or a derailed carjacking. The incident in question did not include the required advertisements for such actions, and no clear provocation was provided, violating this rule. This lack of justification for lethal force goes against the server rules designed to ensure responsible and context-appropriate behavior in roleplay scenarios.

---

Violation of Common Sense:

• Rule A9: "Apply common sense where applicable."
  
  This rule calls for players to engage in actions that logically fit within the context of the game and the current scenario. Attacking a checkpoint without substantial roleplay justification does not exhibit the application of common sense. Such actions disrupt the roleplay integrity and can lead to gameplay that is neither fair nor enjoyable for other players.

---

Given these reasons, the warning remains in place to remind you and all other players to adhere to the rules and ensure that all actions within the server are justified, well-communicated, and in line with our community spirit. You should be more than happy with just the strike, thanks.