Holiday

If my boss tells me we're all good, on something he is supposed to do, I take it in good faith that he actually had a "go ahead" by staff. What are you on about? You need to be more involved on these forms. Smh, everyone else who had 10x more involvement than me already got appealed. #MandateStaffToReadWithTheirEyes

Totally understandable. However, you just admitted I was acting under the impression that the Popov Head Enforcer notified the proper channels. I shouldn't be penalized for his mistake! You are 100% speculating my intentions, how can I be in a gunfight and on the phone with my girlfriend, those two are mutually exclusive!!! #GuiltyByAssociation

Okay, this is just blatantly disregarding my responses at this point. The dude had an Irish pin above his head, and I was following instructions given to me. Simple, point blank.

Once again, we're viewing it not from face-value, but from speculation. I would have no way of knowing this information about the situation other than Vladislav Popov (Popov HC) got disrespected by an Irish person in front of Russian Apartments. Even at that, simply asking for an item doesn't fully escalate until they hand it over. "Attempted, Conspiracy, In Association With, to commit FailEscalation" ahh reply.

The rules mention "prop abusing" twice, both in relation to vehicles.

Your Character or Steam Name: The Holiday Inn Your SteamID (Click to retrieve): STEAM_1:0:138039649 Your Discord ID#: kyngholiday Reason for ban: Fail Escalation Length of ban: 2 Days Reason for appeal (dispute/apology): Dispute Why should you be unbanned?: Bullets refused to understand my perspective, and failed to offer due diligence by getting another staff member's opinion. I know we're not entitled to this, however it would've reinforced confidence that I actually broke a rule. I got flagged up by Popov to march on the Irish for disrespecting a High Command member in front of the Russian Apartments, I had no context, no clue what was going on. I was simply following orders given. I know that the first level of conflict escalation is Disrespect. It states under this level of conflict that we are allowed to collect "either a tax or apology demanded depending on the severity of the disrespect". I immediately went in and told one of the Irish dudes to take off his $500 rolex watch. This was symbolic, purposeful, and followed the proper engagement and alleged escalation. The only other thing I can think of is when I air punched a dude cause he kept talking shit. Im going to be honest, if you watch my clip, I was talking to my girlfriend, I wasn't even really paying attention when I did it, I more so was just fucking around cause nobody was really saying anything and I was listening to my girlfriend rant about work. Additional Information (images, videos, etc): https://medal.tv/games/garrys-mod/clips/mqOpOhZy9bvAlpXgs?invite=cr-MSxleE0sMzIzMzAzMzQ&v=172

I understand the concern about creating a loophole (“I was running so I’m no longer a threat”), but I don’t believe that applies here in the way it’s being framed. This was not a case of briefly turning away during an active gunfight. This was a full disengagement followed by flight, with no re-engagement afterward. There is a clear distinction between momentary repositioning during a confrontation and ending that confrontation entirely to attempt escape, which is reflected in the clip from my perspective. In the case of Howie Hoang, the PK was overturned by Senior Administration specifically because TroubledGhost was determined to be “no longer an active threat” at the time lethal force was used. Even though there had been a prior violent interaction involving a firearm, the deciding factor was that the threat had ended before the kill occurred. I believe that distinction is directly relevant here. I also want to address what appears to be reliance on speculation in evaluating this situation. Portions of the justification seem to be based on what I might have done, could have done, or intended to do, rather than what was actually occurring at the moment I was killed. Even from your argument about LogicNova being unable to pursue, I crashed my car and ran, instead of organizing units and prioritizing an attempted murder of an LEO over a vehicle pursuit, he shot me to PK me, effectively executing me when he could've organized units as a Sergeant to arrange my arrest. I believe this should be assessed strictly on observable actions and facts. Arguments based on potential future actions, such as the possibility that I could have re-engaged, or the officer's had to recourse are inherently speculative and go beyond evaluating an immediate, active threat. I would respectfully ask that the decision be grounded in what demonstrably occurred, rather than hypothetical scenarios. Lastly, I want to clarify that I am not trying to create a loophole or avoid consequences for my actions. I fully accept that I initiated the situation and the risks that came with that. My point is that PK validity should be determined by whether a threat is still active at the time lethal force is used, not solely by the fact that a threat existed earlier. If applied too broadly, the current interpretation could create issues in the opposite direction, where officers default to lethal force to end situations rather than pursuing arrest, effectively removing the need to justify use of force. Even if my initial actions were improper, that would not automatically justify a PK if the situation had already de-escalated, it raises the question of whether this becomes retaliation rather than a response to an active threat. Ultimately, this comes down to how the situation is viewed: (a) a continuous, ~20-38 second, active, ongoing violent confrontation, or (b) a concluded confrontation followed by a pursuit where I got shot after the violent confrontation ended. AND if police are allowed to execute criminals instead of attempting to apprehend them. I believe the latter more accurately reflects what occurred.

Firstly, I’m not disputing that I became PK-active after shooting an officer. I’ve already acknowledged that and accepted responsibility for initiating the situation. The issue isn’t whether I was PK-active, it’s how the situation was handled afterward, and whether the use of lethal force still met the server’s PK standards at that point. The PK guidelines state that situations must occur “during” an active confrontation, not after it has clearly transitioned. Even by your own timeline of ~38 seconds, there was a clear separation between the initial shooting and the moment I was killed. During that time, I fled the scene, put distance between myself and you and other officers, and did not re-engage. That’s the key issue, this was no longer an active shootout, it had become a pursuit. Secondly, regarding your claim of witnesses. You being across the street doesn’t change the fact that from my perspective I believed I wasn’t being actively engaged by multiple officers at that moment. That statement wasn’t meant to mislead, it was explaining my reasoning in the moment, even if it was incorrect. It served to elaborate on my perspective of the situation, which is in the clip presented. Thirdly, on the distance/time point, whether it was “multiple blocks” or “down the street,” the important part is that there was a break in immediate engagement. I was no longer actively firing or presenting a weapon. The situation had shifted into me fleeing, which under both the PK guidelines and general RP standards, should be handled as a pursuit unless there is still an immediate threat. Fourthly, regarding SOP, you’re correct that SOP alone doesn’t override PK rules. However, it is still relevant because the PK guidelines themselves state that officers may not execute suspects and should attempt arrest when possible. SOP helps define what is considered reasonable force in that context. At the time I was shot, I was unarmed, fleeing, and not actively engaging, which raises the question of whether lethal force was still justified versus continuing the pursuit. Lastly, I’m not trying to “lie” or misrepresent anything to get my character back. I’m laying out how the situation looked from my perspective and why I believe it no longer met the criteria of an active, immediate threat at the time lethal force was used. At the end of the day, this comes down to whether staff view this as a continuous active confrontation?- or a situation where there was a clear disengagement?- followed by lethal force after the fact.

+1 Can confirm, this guy is not only active but efficient. A well-loved member of the community deserving of Moderator.

Name of Character: Eugene "The Law" Le'Cassier Character ID: 50773 SteamID: STEAM_1:0:138039649 Your Discord ID#: kyngholiday Date of PK: 03/31/26 Reason for PK: At the time of the incident, I believed I was being repeatedly targeted and followed by certain police officers, which led me to act irrationally. During a traffic stop for reckless driving, I was removed from my vehicle, which I interpreted as escalation toward arrest. In a lapse of judgment, I discharged my weapon at the officer, believing there were no additional witnesses or officers nearby. This assumption was incorrect, as there were people in the distance and present in the area. Why should you be unPK'd?: Yes, I did initiate a violent confrontation initially, so I understand being PK-active in that moment. However, the rules specifically emphasize that this applies “during” the confrontation, not after the situation has clearly ended. After the initial incident, I disengaged. I put my weapon away, fled multiple blocks in a vehicle, crashed, and then continued running on foot. At no point after that did I re-engage officers or present an immediate threat. At that stage, this was no longer an active shootout. It had turned into a pursuit. The PK guidelines themselves clarify that situations are only valid while they are ongoing, and not after the encounter has ended and transitioned into something else. Additionally, under NYPD SOP: Firearms are a last-resort option, only to be used when there is a reasonable belief of imminent danger Excessive force is defined as force used when it is no longer necessary or when the need for force has passed Officers are expected to use the minimum force necessary to control a situation At the time lethal force was used, I was: No longer actively engaging officers No longer holding or using a weapon Actively fleeing, not posing an immediate threat to life Because of that, the use of deadly force doesn’t seem to meet the SOP standard of an immediate threat, and instead falls closer to force being used after the necessity had already passed. Also, the noticeable time gap (20+ seconds) between the initial confrontation and the kill further shows this was not a split-second self-defense decision, but force applied after the situation had already de-escalated. As far as the PK guidelines, they repeatedly emphasize that actions must occur “during” an active situation. Once a suspect disengages and creates distance, that situation is no longer the same active confrontation. In my case, there was a clear break: (1) I fled multiple blocks, (2) crashed, and then chose to (3) continued on foot. This created a new scenario -> a pursuit. not a continuation of the original shootout. I also believe the way the situation was handled leans into powergaming rather than roleplay. After a clear break in the initial confrontation where I had already fled multiple blocks, Mason Peralta continued to use lethal force roughly 20+ seconds later instead of transitioning into a pursuit and arrest scenario. They had 3 police cars in the area, 2 officers actively on scene, and multiple additional units in the city, so there were clearly other alternatives available to handle the situation without resorting to lethal force. At that point, the situation realistically should have been played out through continued RP (chase, detainment, or surrender), rather than forcing a kill to secure a PK outcome. Using lethal force after the threat has ended, especially when other RP avenues are available, bypasses the intent of the rules and removes meaningful interaction in favor of a guaranteed result. Lastly, the PK rules explicitly state that officers may not execute suspects and should attempt arrest when possible. Given that I was fleeing and no longer engaging, this should have remained an arrest/pursuit situation rather than escalating to a PK. Overall, I understand the risk I took by initiating the situation, but based on how the events unfolded afterward, I don’t believe I met the criteria of an active, immediate threat at the time lethal force was used. If possible please provide video evidence or photo evidence if PK does not follow the guidelines: https://medal.tv/games/garrys-mod/clips/mpeMafHHmQ2WTkLNZ?invite=cr-MSxVcEosMzIzMzAzMzQ&v=108 https://medal.tv/games/garrys-mod/clips/mpCv5BJVptEcoJh4j?invite=cr-MSwybUQsMzIzMzAzMzQ&v=62 https://medal.tv/games/garrys-mod/clips/mpBizCuHMPe_cqqqc?invite=cr-MSw5dEksMzIzMzAzMzQ&v=29 https://medal.tv/games/garrys-mod/clips/mpCn8Q6fHdLKe2Gt-?invite=cr-MSw1RjEsMzIzMzAzMzQ&v=241 I have the "Clip #4" in a google drive pending inquiry.

Let's be honest. What do we all want in a staff member, and does Andy possess these traits?; Is he active? Is he well-known Is he emotionally aware of others? Is he impartial? Does he speak fluent English? Is he submissive Does he have a deep understanding of the rules? WILL HE TAKE OUR TICKETS? I am indifferent about this, seeing that I highly weigh both activity and impartial staffing, do with the above information as you please.

I think he means the religious studies building.

This would force more player to player interaction. Even if automatic tables were there, it'd be something like Lucky Lady. And places like Lucky Lady would get more business

What in the parody post is this

Replace [Insert Dead Property] with office spaces. Lets agree to that.