Jump to content

Dqniel

Moderator
  • Content Count

    952
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Dqniel last won the day on May 16

Dqniel had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

219 Excellent

About Dqniel

  • Rank
    Esteemed Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,879 profile views
  1. Hello, and thank you for making this punishment appeal! @Virjis I appreciate the fact that you are sincere and apologetic about your actions, and recognized what you did wrong during the previous situation which resulted in your ban, although i wish some more effort would be put into the actual appeal where you could have described what you have done to better and improve yourself as a player and whether or not you have fully read up on the newest edition of our rulebook. With that being said, there is not much to say on my side as the reasoning along with any additional information surrounding this players punishment can be found in the first linked appeal above. I will leave the final decision surrounding this appeal in the hands of the reviewing senior administrator or above. Thank you for remaining patient and waiting for an answer! This appeal will be pending review from a senior administrator or above.
  2. Dqniel

    FRP ID 206

    Hello, and thank you for remaining patient waiting for an answer. As player Jeff_Gilbertson has not responded with his side of the story and explained the reasoning for his actions which can be seen in the provided evidence above, i have decided to conclude this report based on the evidence provided to me by the reporting party. Player Jeff_Gilbertson will receive a Non-Roleplay punishment for breaching Fear Roleplay | Offense #1. To start off, i would like to address the Non-Roleplay punishment and the reasoning behind it. In the provided evidence of this report, it can be seen that the reporting party has a weapon equipped and is holding you under direct gunpoint at close range while simultaneously making demands for you to follow. In turn, you approach the reporting party and disregard the roleplaying demands being made upon you before ultimately attacking him with your bare fists. The issue that arises with this situation is that the conscious actions of player Jeff_Gilbertson is not in accordance with our Fear Roleplay rules. If you are held under direct gunpoint at close range which essentially means that you are in a vulnerable and life threatening situation, you are expected to display an adequate and realistic amount of fear for the life of your character and follow every demand given to you as one instinctively would do in real life. Your first instinct while under direct threat should not be to attack the reporting party with your bare fists but rather comply with the demands being made upon you as you were completely unarmed and defenseless at the time. Please remember for future reference to show adequate and realistic fear for the life of your character in a vulnerable and life threatening position similar to this one, and to follow every demand given to you as one instinctively would do in real life. Thank you for making this report! @DaSneakyAsian Report is accepted and archived. Kind regards, Dqniel.
  3. Dqniel

    ID 157 (DM)

    Hello, and thank you for remaining patient waiting for an answer. As player Tony_Delphino has not responded with his side of the story, and explained the reasoning for his actions which can be seen in the provided evidence above, i have decided to conclude this report based on the evidence provided to me by the reporting party. Player Tony_Delphino will receive a Deathmatch punishment | Offense #1. First and foremost, i would like to address the Deathmatch punishment. In the provided evidence of this report, it can be seen that as the reporting party comes to a complete stop with his vehicle, player Tony_Delphino approaches him before ultimately equipping his weapon and firing at the property of the reporting party, all for seemingly no valid reason. The issue that arises with this situation is that the conscious actions of player Tony_Delphino is not in compliance with the Deathmatch rules. There was no valid or legitimate roleplay reason to fire and damage the property of the reporting party, as well as the fact that no proper roleplay engagement had been established prior to even allow you to damage and fire at the property of the reporting party in the first place. As there was no roleplay reasoning or proper roleplay engagement having been established prior to firing and damaging the property of the reporting party, your actions are in violation of our Deathmatch rules. Please keep in mind that this is not in the spirit of how we intend for players to roleplay with one another, and i urge you to remember for future reference that valid initiation and reason must be established prior to attacking, injuring or killing another player or their property. Thank you for making this report! @nukkie Report is accepted and archived. Kind regards, Dqniel
  4. Dqniel

    id [79]

    Hello, and thank you for making this player report! @taipo As stated above, please make sure you use the correct and necessary format which can be found in the below thread. Evidence of the rule breach is very much needed in situations like these, as to get a sufficient overview of the situation to assess. Report will be locked and archived. Feel free to submit another report using the correct format, thank you!
  5. Hello, and thank you for making this player report! @Sauer Stein First and foremost, i would be ID 61 who is currently involved in this report and being accused of metagaming. To start off, i was conducting an interview at the time before you and your friend entered the office and placed both of us under gunpoint. At the time of the robbery, i had no idea that the zetas would arrive after ID 115 and ID 131 entered the office, and i was only told afterwards that you guys were contacted to come by the DCC Headquarters where the zetas had been set up and waiting patiently for the two of you to arrive, as stated by the above comments. (This can be confirmed by viewing the chat logs after the robbery). I can only speak for myself when i say that no attempt was made through out-of-character means to contact the zetas in order for them to help me. There was no metagaming in any way, shape or form being done by me during this situation. I have no affiliation with their gang, and i feel as if an extensive review of the chat logs would clear up any metagaming accusation made towards me. Secondly, in regards to the claim by @Sauer Stein that ID 34 could be metagaming when the two of you entered the room. I can not speak for ID 34, but only provide a logical explanation as to why he suddenly decided to stop typing as you guys entered the office from my point of view. As stated above by @scotchfishy we were in the middle of an interview when the both of you decided to enter the office. ID 34 had been typing for quite some time as he was in the process of answering one of my questions. When you guys decided to place us under gunpoint and make the demands, i assume that prompted ID 34 to cancel out what he was writing and instead follow the demands being made upon him. This could easily be checked through chat logs as well. I'll be happy to answer any further questions if need be, thank you! Kind regards, Dqniel
  6. Dqniel

    FRP ID 206

    Hello, and thank you for making this player report! @DaSneakyAsian Player Jeff_Gilbertson will receive 24 hours to respond with his side of the story, and explain the reasoning for his actions which can be seen in the provided evidence above. Why did you attack and hit the reporting party while completely unarmed and defenseless, all while he held you under direct gunpoint at close range? As the reported party does not have a forum account, he will be notified of this report in-game. Kind regards, Dqniel
  7. Dqniel

    ID 157 (DM)

    Hello, and thank you for making this player report! @nukkie Player Tony_Delphino will receive 24 hours to respond with his side of the story, and explain the reasoning for his actions which can be seen in the provided evidence above. Why did you shoot and damage the property of the reporting party all for seemingly no valid reason? As the reported party does not have a forum account, he will be notified of this report in-game. Kind regards, Dqniel
  8. Dqniel

    Los Calaveras

    Hello, and thank you for your time on the server! The thread will be locked and archived as per the request of the thread creator.
  9. Hello, and thank you for making this punishment appeal! @XTRAsalty As per our punishment guidelines, player Leon_Salt was given a sixty (60) minute admin jail for his first punishment of Deathmatch. To provide some insight into the situation and explain my reasoning for this players punishment to the reviewing senior administrator above (as well as the appealing party), i will go ahead and include the original report in which the appealing party got punished for. First and foremost, in the provided evidence of the report linked above, it can be seen that Leon_Salt had hit the reporting party a total of two times on two seperate occasions during this on-going situation. While the first hit between him and the reporting party could have been an accident, as they can both be seen driving in towards a direction that conflicted with eachother, i strongly believe the second hit from Leon_Salt in which the reporting party is standing and tending to his crops before ultimately being run over by Leon_Salt was done in a purposeful and malicious way. In the aforementioned hit, it can be seen that you swerve in-towards the direction of where the reporting party is standing, before ultimately swerving out once you hit him and adjusting your direction of driving. As the both of you had no roleplay interaction with one another at all prior to this happening, and there was no roleplay reasoning for even running him over in what i believe was a purposeful and malicious way, i decided to issue the deathmatch punishment. You were notified of this report on 29/APR/2019 and it was concluded three days later on 02/MAY/2019, which explains the delay in the received punishment. I decided to give you some additional time extending beyond the initial 24 hours i gave you in hopes that you would respond with your side of the story, and explain the reasoning for your actions but as three days had passed i had no choice but to conclude the report in the reporting parties favor based on the evidence provided to me. I would love to hear your opinion on this, and perhaps provide a description of what happened from your perspective, @XTRAsalty. In the meantime, this report will be pending a review from a senior administrator or above.
  10. Hello, and thank you for making this punishment appeal! @ronyd2k As per our punishment guidelines, player Dominic_Santacruz was permanently banned for his third offense of Deathmatch. To provide some insight into the situation and explain my reasoning for this players punishment to the reviewing senior administrator or above, i will go ahead and include the original report in which the appealing party got punished for. First and foremost, like i stated in the initial report i feel as if a greater effort could have been made by you to ensure that your "demands" were actually acknowledged by the reporting party. Not only were the demand(s) misspelled which arguably confused the reporting party up to a point where he did not understand what you were attempting to say, it was done wil you were situated several feet away, all while the reporting party had multiple people in-front of him that attempted to talk to him. You could have easily been confused for talking to someone else. Even if the supposed "demands" had been acknowledged by the reporting party, it is of my belief that failure to comply as a reason to attack should only be used in the case in which a player is genuinely misbehaving and or not following meaningful demands. Ultimately, this seems to be a case of you being to quick on the trigger rather than attacking the reporting party for misbehaving and or not following meaningful demands. The reporting party did nothing whatsoever that would warrant him being attacked in the way that he was, as he was simply speaking at the time and not doing anything else. Shooting at him twice simply for being "Irritating" and "Loud" is not a valid reason to attack him in my opinion. As mentioned repeatedly by multiple senior administrators, all players should strive to provide the best roleplay they can when encoutnering other players, and attacking him as quickly as you did eliminates any good roleplay that could have come out of this situation. Looking at your appeal, i don't feel as if you have quite yet understood what you did wrong in this situation. While you are right on the fact that you could have contacted him through out-of-character means in regards to him being loud, what you should have done differently is not attack him at all. While i would like to give all players the benefit of the doubt, i strongly disagree that this situation could have been an accident on your end. No attempt whatsoever was made to reach out and contact the reporting party and explain that you firing at him was an accident, and even then, who you shoot and for what reason (valid or not) ultimately falls on your responsibility. Thank you for remaining patient waiting for a response. For future reference, do not private message staff (including myself) in regards to your appeal and as stated above, remain patient waiting for a response from the staff member who issued your punishment. Some appeals may take longer than others, for various different reasons. The reaction i did to the person who tagged me was to ensure that both him and others see that i acknowledged and have seen this appeal. Should this appeal be rejected, i suggest that Dominic_Santacruz may not appeal this punishment in no less than one (1) month from the rejection date. Pending review from a senior administrator or above.
  11. Hello, and thank you for remaining patient! As players Patrick_Brick and Leon_Salt has not responded with their side of the story, and explained the reasoning for their actions which can be seen in the provided evidence above, myself and @Randyrandul have decided to conclude this report based on the evidence provided to me by the reporting party. Player Patrick_Brick will receive a Deathmatch punishment | Offense #1. Player Leon_Salt will receive a Deathmatch punishment | Offense #1. First and foremost, i would like to address the punishment of player Patrick_Brick and the reasoning behind it. In the provided evidence of this report, it can be seen that he attacks the reporting party multiple times by ramming his tractor with yours, in a way that is purposeful and malicious all for seemingly no valid roleplay reason. As there is no valid roleplay reason behind doing so as well as the fact that no proper initiation or interaction had been established leading up to the moment in which you decided to attack the reporting party with your tractor, your conscious actions fall under Deathmatch. Please remember for future reference that this is not in the spirit of how we intend for players to roleplay with one another, and to not attack a player unless there is a serious and legitimate roleplay reason behind it which is in accordance with our Deathmatch rules. Please tread carefully from now and onwards, as to ensure that this situation is an isolated incident. Secondly, i would like to address the punishment of player Leon_Salt and the reasoning behind it. In the provided evidence of this report, it can be seen that you approach the reporting party by purposefully swerving into his direction while he is tending to his crops before ultimately running him over, all for seemingly no valid reason. As there is no valid roleplay reason behind doing so as well as the fact that no proper initiation or interaction had been established leading up to the moment in which you decided to attack the reporting party with your tractor, your conscious actions fall under Deathmatch. Please remember for future reference that this is not in the spirit of how we intend for players to roleplay with one another, and to not attack a player unless there is a serious and legitimate roleplay reason behind it which is in accordance with our Deathmatch rules. Please tread carefully from now and onwards, as to ensure that this situation is an isolated incident. Thank you for making this report! @Vradarch Report is accepted and archived. Kind regards, Dqniel & Randul.
  12. Dqniel

    ID 71 (DM)

    Hello, and thank you for remaining patient. As player Dominic_Santacruz has not responded with his side of the story and explained the reasoning for his actions which can be seen in the provided evidence above, myself and @Randyrandul have decided to conclude this report based on the evidence provided to me by the reporting party. Dominic_Santacruz will receive a punishment for Deathmatch | Offense #3. First and foremost, i would like to start off by addressing the punishment of player Dominic_Santacruz and the reasoning behind it. In the provided evidence of this report, it can be seen that the reporting party arrives at the chopshop along with his friends and allies. He jumps on top of his van and begins preparing the speech in which he had intended to give to the multiple players occupying the chopshop at the time. As the reporting party begins speaking to all the players in the chopshop, player Dominic_Santacruz gives him what is presumably a demand for him to be quiet twice while situated several feet away. As the reporting party does not acknowledge this demand and continues speaking unknowingly, he is ultimately shot twice by player Dominic_Santacruz. There are multiple issues with this situation, all of which relate back to a breach of our Deathmatch rules. To start off, i feel as if a greater effort could have been made by you to make sure your demands were actually acknowledged by the reporting party. Not only were the demand(s) misspelled at the time (which arguably confused the reporting party, as can be seen in the provided description of this report) it was done while you were situated several feet away, practically giving them from one car to another, all while the reporting party was faced with multiple players approaching and confronting him. You could have easily been mistaken for talking to someone else given the current circumstances that the reporting party was faced with. Even if the demands had been acknowledged by the reporting party, failure to comply as a reason to attack should only be used in the case that a player is misbehaving and or not following meaningful demands, and seeing as the reporting party was simply speaking and did nothing that would warrant him being shot, your reason is considered highly unrealistic. With that being said, your roleplay reason for firing at him will be considered insufficient and therefore fall under Deathmatch. Ultimately, this seems to be a case of you being too quick to attack another player rather than attacking them for misbehaving and or not following meaningful demands. The reporting party did nothing whatsoever that would warrant him being attacked in the way that he was. He was attacked for a very minor reason, and as stated by multiple staff members across many reports, we should all strive to provide the highest quality of roleplay that we can when encountering other players, and attacking them as quickly as you did eliminates any good roleplay that could have come out of that situation. For future reference, when attacking players make sure it is for a legitimately valid and serious reason that would warrant it. Thank you for making this report! @Cornwallis Report is accepted and archived. Kind regards, Dqniel & Randul.
  13. Dqniel

    ID 21 ( VDM )

    Hello, and thank you to everyone who responded with their side of the story and remained patient waiting for an answer. After extensively reviewing the provided evidence as well as taking the points stated above into consideration, myself and @Randyrandul have finally come to a conclusion regarding this report. Player Joseph_Aziz will receive a Deathmatch punishment | Offense #1. First and foremost, i would like to address the punishment of player Joseph_Aziz and the reasoning behind it. In the provided evidence of this report, it can be seen that the reporting party is standing next to the car belonging to player Joseph_Aziz and picklocking it in what is presumably an attempt to steal his vehicle. As he is in the process of picklocking the vehicle, Joseph_Aziz appears with his taxi, before driving with full speed into the direction of the reporting party and ultimately running him over all while no engagement in roleplay had been done. The issue that arises with this situation is that the conscious actions of player Joseph_Aziz is in violation of our Deathmatch rules. The act of attacking a player or their property without any proper initiation and or roleplay engagement being established prior to doing so is considered to be Deathmatch, as per our rulebook. Reviewing the provided evidence of this report, the reporting party was not damaging your car but rather attempting to steal it, and what you should have done was engage in some form of roleplay where demands are delivered prior to acting on the fact. Regardless in whether or not you had valid reason to attack is beside the point in this situation, the main issue that arises with this is that you did so with no roleplay engagement being established prior, which is not allowed as per our Deathmatch rules. I would like to give you a kind reminder that this is not in the spirit of how we intend for players to roleplay with one another - each player should strive to provide the highest quality of roleplay that they can when encountering other players and attacking him in the way you did just eliminates any type of roleplay that could have come out of that situation. For future reference, make sure to engage in proper initiation and or roleplay engagement prior to attacking another player, as to ensure that this is an isolated incident that does not repeat itself in the future. Secondly, addressing the supposed claim of the reporting party metagaming. I was provided an entire recording leading up to the situation in which they had discovered your vehicle up to the point in which they decide to attempt to steal it. It is no secret that taxi drivers regularly park their vehicles in the aforementioned parking lot, and the fact that they identified you as a possible owner does not necessarily mean that they are metagaming but rather able to connect two and two together. As no additional evidence of metagaming was provided, i will reject that claim on the basis of insufficient evidence. Thank you for making this report! @domis Report is accepted and archived! Kind regards, Dqniel & Randul
  14. Hello, and thank you for remaining patient! As players James_Munos, Lillian_Pumpernickel and Ben_Angus has not responded with their side of the story, and explained the reasoning for their actions which can be seen in the provided evidence above, myself and @Randyrandul have decided to conclude this report based on the evidence provided to us by the reporting party. Player James_Munos will receive a Non-Roleplay punishment for ramming with an expensive vehicle | Offense #1. Player Lillian_Pumpernickel will receive a Deathmatch punishment | Offense #1. Player Bill_Zachos will receive minor guide and warn surrounding metagaming. First and foremost, i would like to address the punishment of player James_Munos and the reasoning behind it. In the provided evidence of this report, it can be seen that you are actively following and driving after the reporting party in hopes of holding him at gunpoint in an attempt to rob him. As the both of you ultimately come to a stop, you give the reporting party a couple of demands for him to step out the vehicle, before he ultimately drives away and you ram him once as a result of that. I will not mention the ramming that took place prior to this happening, as it looked like a genuine accident due to the reporting party reversing in your direction of driving. As stated in the Non-Roleplay rules, a player must value and treasure their expensive and high end vehicle rather than to purposefully destroy it by ramming, and with that being said your conscious actions are in violation of the rules. Additionally, i would like to address the lack of punishment for James_Munos on his supposed powergaming offense. In the provided evidence of this report, it can be seen that after he takes the wallet of the reporting party, he asks him through /ooc to pay him. While he did not give the reporting party a chance to initially roleplay a response, the reporting party notified him through /ooc that what he is doing is wrong, and that the reporting party must be allowed a chance to roleplay a response. After acknowledging this, player James_Munos apologized and corrected his roleplay and you guys resumed from there. He will not receive a punishment for powergaming and i am more than happy to consider this being an educational experience for both players on how to improve roleplay between one another. Secondly, i would like to address the punishment of player Lillian_Pumpernickel and the reasoning behind it. In the provided evidence of this report, it can be seen that after the lowrider in which you are a passenger of rams the reporting party into a complete stop, you all make your demands for the reporting party and his friend to get out of the vehicle and remain there. While the reporting party does as he is told, and steps out of the vehicle while not doing anything that could pose a threat to others (while his friend does not) he is ultimately shot once by you. The reporting party was fully compliant with the demands being made upon him and did nothing that would warrant him to be shot. The moment you (along with your allies) forced the reporting party out of the vehicle and started making demands which he willingly complied with, your right to hurt, attack and or kill him for not following your demands and driving away the initial time disappeared, and as such you have breached our Deathmatch rules. Please know that this is not in the spirit of how we intend for players to roleplay with one another, and i urge you to revisit the PvP rules we have as to ensure that this situation does not repeat itself in the future. Additionally, i would also like to give you a friendly reminder for future reference not to be so quick on attacking players, as can be seen in the incident in which you shoot the person driving the trophy truck (ID 130) when nothing would have warranted you to do so. Although some miscommunication took place in this situation, who you ultimately attack and for what reason (valid or not) ultimately falls under the responsibility of yourself. Thirdly, i would like to address the punishment of player Bill_Zachos and the reasoning behind it. In the provided evidence of this report, it can be seen that you private message your friend asking in-character questions through out-of-character means. Regardless in whether or not you are using this information to benefit yourself in-character, simply asking question such as these are considered against our rules because you CAN use that information to benefit yourself and you are letting it happen. Please carry this guide and warning alongside with you for future reference, as to ensure that this situation does not repeat itself in the future. Lastly, i would like to address the lack of punishment for player Oti_Maxwell (ID 130). I am willing to give the player the benefit of the doubt that the initial bump between him and the reporting party was a genuine accident. Looking at his point of view, it can be seen that he was traveling at a rather fast speed and did not anticipate rear ending you the way he did in the provided evidence. However, i believe as if an attempt could have been made through out-of-character means to explain the situation briefly before resuming the roleplay situation, and hopefully this is something you can take into consideration when you tread forward into different roleplaying scenarios in the future. Before i fully conclude this report, i would like to personally reach out to the following players. Oti_Maxwell, Lillian_Pumpernickel, Treyvon_Shawn & James Munos. This entire situation is not in the spirit of how we intend for players to roleplay with one another, and the entire premise of it was not good in terms of displaying proper quality roleplay. I sincerely hope that this is an isolated incident which will not repeat itself, and that you take this report with you for future reference as to both improve the roleplay you display for yourself but also for other people in your surroundings. Thank you! Thank you for making this report! @billzachos Report is accepted and archived. Kind regards, Dqniel & Randul.
×
×
  • Create New...