KingJewMonaclu

idea #420: blackjack tournament. every faction can put up to 1 mil to gamble, select gamblers, and highest take home wins

yeah thats a whole lot of yap on the basis of semantics, but i'd look at the greater point of how you semantically got shot in the face for stealing someones business idea

Hello, you very outwardly stole a guys idea after he pitched it to you, you being a lawyer he wanted to use. While the initial confrontation started through DMs, it was DMs that you obviously entertained and discussed things with him, and subsequently stole his idea, so we allowed for it to be used, considering you then took that information IC to steal the business idea out from underneath him. Furthermore, you failed to stop attempting to operate this business after an IC threat was made on your life, albeit after you char abused first because you're a coward. After your ban was up, you continued to attempt to operate, which was documented by the parties that had threatened you, and the evidence was given to us, which allowed for your pk to be greenlit. This was a decision based on an RP conscious conclusion of what would happen if a civilian stole a business from a mafia, which would obviously cause monetary harm, as they were losing out on the profits from said business. A normal, regular civilian wouldn't dare to steal a business from a mafioso in mafia town. But you did, so you got threatened, and subsequently PKed when you continued.

Despite whether or not you paid your dues, despite whether or not you've only potentially missed once, unfortunately the order was given. If the reason for the order was a misunderstanding, an "Oopsies", it does not change the validity of the order. Unfortunately, due to the factions choices you have died.

Tasers are not "Bodily Harm", this is not you "Defending yourself." In regards to your "I thought he was fucking with me", that is your fault for assuming that things happening in RP werent real RP. Even if you think its "Fucking around" you cant shoot cops and not risk a pk. In this case, this cop obviously was not fucking around, and your trying to kill him got you killed. There is no "OOC situation" "in IC"

Dear Slim, I wrote you but you still aint callin'-

Bro is this fucking real

WE GOT GAY BIKERS BOYS

you bitches wine enough as it is

i was drinking out of a sippy cup and watching teletubbies

based

The year is 1989. Nothing has happened to America's beloved towers. I've noticed that the statue of Liberty is present in the skybox, very visible, it only stands to reason that we add the Twin Towers to the skybox. This is for the sake of realism, and to add to the immersion of the community. It's important for the environment to reflect real life. Now, if this server lasts another 12 years, we may have problems, but we'll figure that out then.

Go crazy guys

Ew arab

Anyway, the main issue with this pk is 1 thing. There *might* be some disagreements about the timing of the fear RP and the timing of him pulling a gun; which came first, but frankly he had guns on him and they were obviously there to mug him and he knew that and he took the risk. Maybe there's a discussion to be had about it, but it's irrelevant. The only thing that is an issue here is one of the muggers is a minge character. The only RP he actually partakes in is baiting cops and shooting them. This appeal is accepted.

I'm so not reading all of that, cookie baker

A guy threatened you to stop conducting your business so you continued conducting your business on another character, thus avoiding the threats. not allowed. When you get back, you'll stand on 10 toes and conduct the business on the character that was threatened, and risk the retaliation.

This falls under quite a niche spot in the rules, as a result many staff members were confused given the validity of the PK. You were pk'ed following this rule: ■ Breaking Fear RP while being detained by Police. If the police are detaining you for a crime and you break FEAR rp by pulling a weapon on them the NYPD are still within their right to react in self defense. This can and will be considered initiating a violent confrontation with police EVEN if you never managed to fire the weapon. Which can have possibly caused some misconnections or confusions. We know in this situation you did not initiate violence on the officer (You never attempted to shoot), you were not under fear RP nor were you being detained, as well as having put the gun away. While the cop is not faulted for having shot you, it should not have been a PK. We apologize for the inconvenience, that being said you need to be mindful when pulling a weapon out.

The rules surrounding a cop initiating the gun fight invalidating the pk only apply to the person to which the officer shoots, as long as they have not broken fear RP or initiated a shootout with the officer first. An example would be: A man is running away from police. Police officer opens fire on him. He is now free to retaliate against that officer without the risk of PK. However; in this case the officer had a valid reason to shoot your friend, and you are to begin with not your friend. This protection does not apply to you. You saw your friend get shot by a cop, and you shot at the cop and lost. This is a valid PK, you should not shoot at cops who have not shot at you. The PK rule in question: Your appeal has been reviewed and denied. We have determined this PK to be reasonable and/or justified. You may not re-appeal this PK.

Free curtis (No seriously, he's clawing)

Bro said rdm ain't good enough, he wants to rdm they wallet too

bro got clowned on and is salty

Hello all, Let me break this down for you, because this was discussed in depth between the Senior Administration team and the UA team, and we've come to a ruling regarding this. The problem at the base of this pk, despite all the dribble that's been talked about, is the orders that were given. The orders that were given, were invalid. Being a "Burden" is not a pk order. Leaving the family is invalid because he never left the family. So, this is a cleanup. You guys are trying to find a valid reason after the fact, and we've decided to make a decision regarding this kind of conduct. If you give dons orders on someone, and the reason is invalid, but you totally have a good reason to do it, and you neglected to actually give that as the reason, the dons orders will be overturned. As is in this case. Obviously there was some schizo posting about this guy wanting to leave and steal some funds, or something of the like, and that wasn't mentioned in the orders at all. Obviously there was some talk about the potential of him retiring, whether or not it was a rumour, which could have been used as a reason, but it wasn't actually mentioned. The orders given to the staff indicated that he had left the faction; he didn't. He was kicked out of the discord. The orders given to the staff indicated that he was a "Burden", with no further explanation, and it's not even really explained here in the post cleanup. At the end of the day, the staff member accepting this PK, should have NOT have accepted this PK. As a result of the failures of the don/HC that gave the orders, and the failure of the staff member to properly verify the information regarding the leaving the faction, and the invalidity of "being a burden", this PK will be overturned. With that, there are some strict parameters to be played by on part of both parties in this situation. Firstly, all knowledge of the Gambino Crime Family that Luca has is hereby completely voided. Likewise, the knowledge the family has about Luca is completely voided. Any attempts to regain anything from Luca, i.e. money or items, without NEW proper cause (post date this pk, if he actually wrongs the faction and the faction wishes to retaliate, which will require documentation). will be met with staff disciplinary action. If Luca attempts to snitch, or beef without NEW (post date this pk, if the faction actually wrongs him and he wishes to retaliate, which will require documentation) and proper cause with the faction, it will be met with the same staff disciplinary action. Let it be known for future orders that this rule will always apply, if you give invalid orders the pk will be overturned. No matter how good of a reason you figure out before or after. It is YOUR responsibility to give proper orders. It is YOUR responsibility as a don to ensure that your people are giving proper orders. They should be specific and concise. Leave no room for ambiguity. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Accidentally running over a cop and immediately stopping and saying you didnt see him is not a PK. He was no longer an active threat at the time that he tried to drive away again. This is far too loose.