Accepted T Co-leader Raff Report

[Maliciouspotatoes]

Member: Raff
Member's SteamID: STEAM_0:1:166979807
Date of Incident: 21/4/24
Information about the incident. Please include as much detail as possible:

At approximately 14:00 on the 21/4/24, Raff instructed his organisation to assist him in raiding an RPU checkpoint. This resulted in 8 deaths, 3 of which were T. Raff himself killed 2 police officers during the raid. I am representing the RPU as well as all RPU members who died in the raid, as we believe the raid was invalid due to B20 (No monetary gain) and B2 (You cannot kill the owner of a car while carjacking unless provoked).

Raff has argued that the checkpoint raid is a base. This is not disputed, as checkpoints have fading doors. We argue that the raid is false due to B20 as there was no monetary gain. Raff argued that the monetary gain is from one parked car in the checkpoint and the money dropped from players without safe pockets. We argue that stealing the parked car counts as a carjack and therefore there is no reason to kill anyone due to B2, (No T members adverted carjack during the raid, indicating that the raid motive was not in fact any cars.) and we argue that killing people for the money that they drop is equivalent to mugging which is a separate advert not made. That is a summary of what was said during a post-incident admin sit, in which an admin on duty agreed that this case should go to the forums.

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.


Evidence on the incident:
Console showing the advert and following deaths:

Footage of the incident.

 

[Raff]

During the staff sit which lewis sayed was in attending for:

You agreed that the checkpoint was a base

You also were restated the basing rule which I will again:

C2

Base

You may only have one base at a time, you are allowed to own a business elsewhere. For an organisation, this is limited to one other property per 3 active members.

More than 3 members, also put down fading doors, keypads, and vehicles were locked in props resulting in it being a base regardless. When we talk about monetary gain the PD vehicles were brought up as items to steal. We never were able to as an Undercover NCA killed us during combat. Also stealing a parked car is a carjack, however to get access to it we raided the "base" as you have agreed with. All base raids are KOS regardless of your design or "checkpoint" layout you put. Monetary gain is valid as the vehicles were visible to steal. Also we never adverted carjack to begin with as the cars parked in the "base" are not accessible so we raided the base as you have agreed with. Dont know why its a player report either since your not accusing me of anything but rather suggesting a new rule be put in place?

 

[Gatesway]

Although I can appreciate the attempt at justification, there are a couple of reasons why it should be fairly obvious:

It is commonly known RPU are allowed to set up checkpoints. Looking at the rules you can also see that they don't seem to abide by any of the most standard basing rules, like:



Thus, it can be generally concluded that we wouldn't identify a checkpoint as an actual 'base'.

You referenced the basing-business rule where people are permitted to own more than one property, given they set up a business. To call a checkpoint a business seems kind of a big stretch. The three active members addition is specifically for organisations like LM & T, which should be obvious as well, knowing government are not allowed to base elsewhere according to the rules.

Moving on to the shooting: no, to collect the money dropped on death is not a valid reason to initiate a crime. Neither is a car theft a valid reason to murder someone, let alone five.

Finally, the last rule I'd like to refer to: apply common sense where applicable. You're bending the rules, this time unsuccessfully.