Olivator requests to ban Doom Slayer

[Oliver G. Civ-30 3]

Your name in-game: Matt Romsney (Olivator)

Your SteamID: STEAM_1:1:64483763

Person's you report name: Doom Slayer (Steam name: Dim0n :|)

Person's you report SteamID: STEAM_0:0:457706317

Why do you want him banned?: RDM, Mingy behavior in the staff sit, Disrespectful behavior

Here is a couple of things to note from the initial incident: I was wearing civilian clothes, I had no communications on me, I had never used any of my foundation keys nor any of my Clearance Cards, I was unarmed throughout this whole incident.

The reasonable thing would've been for them to cuff me and investigate me, however, that didn't really go the way I thought it would.

During the staff sit, Dim0n refused to look at the evidence provided, automatically claiming that they were right during the entire scandal and the Staff Sit was literally going in circles, I knew for a fact that he was getting really heated so I decided to end the staff sit as it just went nowhere. That's the main reason I'm "taking it to the forums". As his behavior during the staff sit literally caused him to brake a couple more server rules. Originally I just wanted them to get off with a verbal warning with no additional harm done, just wanted for my NLR to be revoked as I had some good intel but their behavior was completely unacceptable.

Evidence(It's a must. If not provided, request is denied.):

Sadly my capture software didn't capture my microphone, but @Livid Castle was a witness for the entire staff sit and is able to vouch for me as well when it comes to all the actions committed by Dim0n.

Initial RDM incident: https://drive.google.com/file/d/18bON03Fq5eEK-6OL-vLyDKcXhkLmvh2c/view?usp=sharing
Staff Sit (Disrespectful and Mingy behavior): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Pdh0OUxDLT2OGc1hzIiJNutqajYe0Jja/view?usp=sharing (may still be processing)

[Darkusto 41]

Dear God, a scandal. Report this to The Sun.

 

[Bobby Hand 16]

Just now, Darkusto said:

Dear God, a scandal. Report this to The Sun.

 

The Sun? Jesus they will tear him apart

[Noe 36]

-1 seems over dramatized.

[Nathan Kennedy 442]

[The Riddler 65]

Hello,

I would like to state my opinion on the Initial RDM incident. As I wasn't sure if the act was justified, I also refreshed myself on the rules. 

Now, justification of the act can be possibly made with this rule:

"(3.2.)While raiding the foundation you may not kill any unarmed personnel without any of the following reasons:"

This rule states that it is valid for "unarmed personnel", however, in this case I believe some exceptions can be made. 

• You were interfering with the raid and acting suspicious as realistically no civilian would even get that close. 
• You witnessed them lockpicking and hacking. 
• They shot you in the site. (you came from the surface but this doesn't necessarily mean you don't have to be a foundation personnel)
• Realistically speaking, If someone was literally going into an unknown facility, passing weird men and a juggernaut, I would be extremely suspicious of you too. I don't find Wallcroft's actions totally right/necessary but you deserved some kind of detainment/interrogation due to your suspicious actions. 

-1 RIP POP SMOKE btw idc really, i just wanted to type something and you were acting like a stoopid goon

Edited June 21, 2020 by Hannibal Lectuce

[Dim0n :| 225]

Edit: Using a staff sit against someone is against the geneve convention. Also a big yikes.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Dim0n :|

[Nathan Kennedy 442]

Wallcroft and noe rock after ban request 

[Jason Ray 82]

lol

[Oliver G. Civ-30 3]

1 minute ago, Hannibal Lectuce said:

Hello,

I would like to state my opinion on the Initial RDM incident. As I wasn't sure if the act was justified, I also refreshed myself on the rules. 

Now, justification of the act can be possibly made with this rule:

"(3.2.)While raiding the foundation you may not kill any unarmed personnel without any of the following reasons:"

This rule states that it is valid for "unarmed personnel", however, in this case I believe some exceptions can be made. 

• You were interfering with the raid and acting suspicious as realistically no civilian would even get that close. 
• You witnessed them lockpicking and hacking. 
• They shot you in the site. (you came from the surface but this doesn't necessarily mean you don't have to be a foundation personnel)
• Realistically speaking, If someone was literally going into an unknown facility, passing weird men and a juggernaut, I would be extremely suspicious of you too. I don't find Wallcroft's actions totally right/necessary but you deserved some kind of detainment/interrogation due to your suspicious actions. 

-1 RIP POP SMOKE btw idc really, i just wanted to type something

Hey, thanks for the opinion.

The main issue with the entire incident in the first place is that if what you say is true (as far as the exceptions being made) then there is a double standard. A buddy of mine got a warning for nearly the exact same reason. That's why I reported it and brought it up in the first place. What I'm simply saying is that if the rule is unclear then the rule is unclear, it should be adjusted and changed, but currently, as it's written, black on white, he clearly had broken a rule, cause he couldn't have known that I am a foundation personnel let alone that there were actual Field Agents in the first place.

Besides, he saw me enter at the same time and he saw me leave at the same time.

I do, although, appreciate the opinion.

[Jason Ray 82]

Wallcroft you cock i know youre reading this, lmao

[Dim0n :| 225]

Let me just clarify I didn't see you in the corner lol.

[Jason Ray 82]

this meme had to be posted

Edited June 21, 2020 by Jason Ray

[The Riddler 65]

20 minutes ago, Oliver G. Civ-30 said:

Hey, thanks for the opinion.

The main issue with the entire incident in the first place is that if what you say is true (as far as the exceptions being made) then there is a double standard. A buddy of mine got a warning for nearly the exact same reason. That's why I reported it and brought it up in the first place. What I'm simply saying is that if the rule is unclear then the rule is unclear, it should be adjusted and changed, but currently, as it's written, black on white, he clearly had broken a rule, cause he couldn't have known that I am a foundation personnel let alone that there were actual Field Agents in the first place.

Besides, he saw me enter at the same time and he saw me leave at the same time.

I do, although, appreciate the opinion.

This is a very delicate situation, there are no standard answers for this and it is totally up to staff member to decide. 

First of all, your buddy might have done something different (every action matters in this case) or couldn't defend himself well; there are many try-hard prosecutors in the server (like me) and they can leave you speechless/stunned with humiliation in a staff sit.(some of them are better than any staff member)

Secondly, he doesn't have to be warned, you are totally disregarding the existence of COMMON SENSE. It's rare but common sense can sometimes overrule a written rule. Rule might be clear or not but it doesn't have to be adjusted because there is common sense to cease this confusion. 

Thirdly, Chaos Insurgents consist of former foundation personnels (Red Right Hand) etc. and realistically and logically, there is no reason for them to not assume you were a foundation personnel as you were acting extremely paranoid and irrational. It isn't really unusual for foundation personnel to leave the side. 

Finally, Wallcroft says he didn't see you which is possible as your first interaction was in one of the most darkest places in the site AND WITH HIS LAME ASS RESOLUTION AND GRAPHICS NO WAY LMFAOOO. 

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/533044205933559854/724339406798061629/unknown.png?width=909&height=677

Edited June 21, 2020 by Hannibal Lectuce

[Nathan Kennedy 442]

14 minutes ago, Oliver G. Civ-30 said:

Hey, thanks for the opinion.

The main issue with the entire incident in the first place is that if what you say is true (as far as the exceptions being made) then there is a double standard. A buddy of mine got a warning for nearly the exact same reason. That's why I reported it and brought it up in the first place. What I'm simply saying is that if the rule is unclear then the rule is unclear, it should be adjusted and changed, but currently, as it's written, black on white, he clearly had broken a rule, cause he couldn't have known that I am a foundation personnel let alone that there were actual Field Agents in the first place.

Besides, he saw me enter at the same time and he saw me leave at the same time.

I do, although, appreciate the opinion.

ok ill stop shit posting and actually say what i think:

i don't see how its relevant what your friend did it almost certainly had different context and unless you have proof i have no reason not to decline your point.

well now to your point about him braking a rule, he had good reason to kill you as there are many things to consider while raiding one of the being watching you flank and having a random civi come up behind you would cause alarm justifying shooting at them. 

[Xunt 565]

Accepted

I simply cannot believe that Wallcroft did not see you as you as he practically walked into you and looked directly at you at the top of the elevator area whilst you both had flashlights on (At around 1:20) and would have thus known that you entered inside the facility with him. Of course, he could suspect that you were a disguised Field Agent but he had 0 solid proof that you were one. As the rules clearly state:

(6.3.) You may NOT shoot someone if:
-You suspect them for WHATEVER reason.

He may have questioned you and even cuffed you based on this suspicion, but shooting merely based off suspicion is not allowed.