Indexcicive Ban Appeal

[Pearce]

Your Character or Steam Name: Indexcicive

Your SteamID (Click to retrieve): (STEAM_0:0:117683863)

Your Discord ID#: Indexcicive

Reason for ban: RDM Po x9

Length of ban: 2 Weeks.

Reason for appeal (dispute/apology): There was no rule broken. Dispute: 

1. If someone is loitering/following/harassing you you may give them warnings to leave you be, if they ignore several warnings and continue you may attack/kill them. (One warning will not suffice, multiple warnings in a very short time span will also not suffice, you have to give them time to react.)

The context behind the situation: While driving around, I was approached by an individual with multiple firearms on their back. They placed their weapon on safety but hit my vehicle. Per the rules of the server, I issued several warnings for the individual to leave my vehicle alone, or to leave me alone, with my firearm also set on safety. The individual chose to stay near my vehicle, and ignored my repeated warnings. In line of the server rules. I determined that the player became a physical threat because he hit my vehicle with a firearm; this to me constituted a valid escalation to demand him to leave me alone, or leave my car alone. After three warnings, with no intent to leave, the individual was then gunned down.

 

The reason for the ban was that it was RDM because I didn't give sufficient warns, and that the warnings were not "clear enough". The warnings were done by asking the said person with the firearm to leave, and is confronted with my firearm on safety. They placed their gun away, but they didn't leave, continuing to stay next to my car. Being given enough clear warnings to leave, and they didn't, they were gunned down. They reported it as RDM. 

Some of my previous warnings included the very specific situations like active/idle threats. When that was even utilized, as in one person becomes an active threat, and I acted in response to that active threat, I get warned. The rules are somehow not in my favor. It seems based on favoritism, dependent on who takes the sit. 

My previous PO's, I believe, are PO's that are extremely nuanced but still gave me RDM warns because of whatever reasons. In the beginning of my playtime, I definitely made mistakes. But by establishing my name in the server, I realized the stupid mistakes and worked past them. Any conflict or situation that has arisen were from *extremely* minute details like this one that gave me a warn, and a ban. I acknowledge that my mistakes were earlier phases of my time on this server. But these were since I started; these previous warnings have put my account in bad standing because of my misunderstanding of the rules in the beginning of the time I started playing. These previous POs paint a picture of carelessness-- however, I want to make clear that in more recent situations dealing with my warns, such as this exact one, these scenarios are far more nuanced than just intentional rule-breaking which I didn't intend to do in any way. Rather I followed the rules, and was banned for doing such. 

The warnings were given with the request to leave. There was more than adequate time given in these warnings. I get hit, and chose to ask them to leave with three clear warnings. They chose not to leave and died. 
 

Why should you be unbanned?: I firmly believe I didn't break any rule. I believe that if this rule was broken, even though I followed the rules, than this was an intentional mistake. This ban should be for people who are just low-quality players in general, but I didn't intend to break any rules in the first place. That's not in my nature to do so. This situation stemmed off of a more RP-based scene, and even after warnings were given, which were constituted under the basis that said persons became physical by hitting my vehicle (intent to harm), I stood my ground, and demanded them to leave. I aimed to contribute positively to the server by trying to be a high-quality roleplayer. (You can quite literally see the last few /me's I did were literally things like drinking coffee or roleplaying genuinely.) This situation was escalated because the individual ignored clear warnings and became a threat by hitting my vehicle with his gun. 

"Motions to leave is not sufficient enough to warn people." - Plixily

Nothing in the rules restricts anyone from using motions to leave.

The directive is: You are using an action to tell someone to leave, whereas such person understands your request, but chooses to ignore your request, *UNDERSTANDING* the consequences. 

The overall argument from the admin is the warning wasn't sufficient. What defines a warning insufficient is if it is unclear, or it was done in an extremely haste manner. These were timed warnings and warnings indicating clearly to other persons to leave. The rules don't specify how warnings should be given, like through text or through voice. That shouldn't be the problem at all, but apparently it is the problem in this sit.

"Your actions requesting someone to leave weren't clear enough." Is their argument. **How?** My video shows me demanding said person to leave. 

Whereas; said persons stayed in place and loitered after being asked to leave with clear intent and instructions to leave. They were killed because they didn't leave after being asked multiple times to leave. 

Additional Information (images, videos, etc): 
https://medal.tv/games/garrys-mod/clips/jcUDbsJmWMBrTEdV5?invite=cr-MSxidnosNTMwMzE5NDQs

https://medal.tv/games/garrys-mod/clips/jcUO7iPyBmFufpI4i?invite=cr-MSw1UWIsNTMwMzE5NDQs

https://medal.tv/games/garrys-mod/clips/jcUQ73WGBEF6LnXSt?invite=cr-MSxmU0YsNTMwMzE5NDQs 

[WaffleDevs]

16 seconds from your first hand wave, to shooting me as an unarmed black guy. 

[Plixily]

Hi banning staff member here, The reason I banned you for this is I felt as though your "Motions to leave" thing you said was not sufficient enough to be considered a proper warning nor enough time for the victim to react. It is an extremely vague way to go about warning someone. From the start to the finish of the "Warnings" like Waffle devs stated is only 16 seconds, Far shorter than needed for a valid kill. Also, I would like to state the entire time I have been on this server I have never seen that method used to warn someone off. Every time I have seen someone killed by a valid warning was by giving them 3 very clear warnings to leave, Which your "Warnings" Seemed not acceptable in my eyes. Also, I even brought a second staff member to give his opinion which happened to be Jmoorsey, In which he also agreed that this was RDM.

The rule that I was going off of:

If someone is loitering/following/harassing you you may give them warnings to leave you be, if they ignore several warnings and continue you may attack/kill them. (One warning will not suffice, multiple warnings in a very short time span will also not suffice, you have to give them time to react.)

Also, your Extensive Previous Offences were the real indicator that you are no stranger to RDMS. All of which happened in 2024. Now I believe in people being reformed and whatnot but dude 9 Pos is wild IMO. And I feel like if I had the record you did I would be super cautious with my killing.

If that motion to leave thing is valid then you are fine however I have never seen that used before until now.

[Canadian-bacon]

 

The '/me motions to leave' as a warning is fine, the motions without an accompanying /me are not considered warnings.
First warning -> 10 seconds -> Second Warning -> 5 seconds -> Third warning -> 2 seconds -> Kill

Total time elapsed ~17 seconds

Lack of video context for the start of the interaction

If you are claiming that at 0:00 - 0:001 is when the black guy is hitting your vehicle with the gun melee attack, that is simply incorrect. He walks into the car which produces the collision but that is not equated to him hitting/smacking your vehicle



He seems to be in the weapon C context menu as the player's hitbox collides with the vehicle.


Maybe at worst it should have been a statement or proper '/me motions for you to leave me alone' to make it clear. From the provided evidence  the black man was given adequate warnings to leave him be, he started the confrontation and believe that him putting his weapon away would immunize him from the rule, especially when a man armed with a weapon motioning you to fuck off, the intention is clear.

 

Quote

1. Generally you shouldn't invite conflict then try to hide behind the rules when you're killed. This can also be considered baiting as described under killing rule 6. Intentionally instigating someone or goad them into breaking a rule.

It is my recommendation, that in the future @Pearce to better protect yourself you should take the following steps.
 

• Make more clear and concise warnings. Verbalization helps.
• Make an attempt to move away or leave the situation,

If you had backed off several paces and the man made active movements towards you while ignoring your requests it would be even more clear that you acted within the rules, especially when stood outside a property you don't own. If it had been your faction's building it would be more logical for you to stand your ground. (More of a loitering issue at that point).

[Canadian-bacon]

Your ban appeal has been reviewed and accepted.

The ban will be lifted from your account shortly. If it was deemed an invalid ban, it will also be removed from your record.