Jump to content

DM ID508, 382, 205

Recommended Posts

Player(s) being reported: ID 508, 382, 205
Date of interaction reported: 2020/06/23
Unix time stamp from HUD: 1592860177

Your characters name: Jimmy_Tonik

Other player(s) involved: -

Specific rule(s) broken:

14. Deathmatch (DM)

  • Deathmatching is the act of attacking a player without a proper roleplay reason and interaction.

  • Examples of valid reasons to attack another player:

• If they attempt to arrest or hurt you, an ally, or damage your property.

• If they report you to the police for a serious crime.

• If they are not in compliance with plausible demands, attempt to escape, or call backup.

  • A player cannot kill their victim if the victim is in compliance with the demands.

  • A player must allow their victim enough time to comply with the demands.

  • If a player informs you that your VOIP isn’t working, you must either fix your VOIP using appropriate commands or use text to deliver your demand(s).

  • Vehicles cannot be used to attack a player on foot more than once, including a failed attempt.

  • Vehicles cannot be used as a weapon in an active shootout unless it's unavoidable when fleeing an active shootout.

  • Killing a player that has obeyed all orders and demands during a roleplay situation is allowed, with roleplay, only within 3 hours of:

    1.  Severe hostile or criminal action is taken against you, e.g. someone is robbing you at gunpoint. (Excluding police aiming a gun at you.)

    2.   Someone is attempting to take your life.

    3.   Someone is attempting to take the life of your close friend or ally, or if you have witnessed it happen.

  • You must explain your reason to kill to the player IC and have OOC evidence proving your reason.

How did the player break the rule(s)?

While I was trying to run away from an active shootout, people in the gray car drove to me and started giving me demands from vehicle, which are not valid, even with the /me commands

Evidence of rule breach:


  • Like 1
  • NAY 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

called for back up to braddocks, you guys all fled from us with guns in your hands; we got into a shoot out with someone dressed exactly like you. you clearly had no intention of complying with us after pulling a gun and fleeing from the drug lab. could have easily just have spoken to us instead of all pulling your guns and scrambling in different directions.

If they are not in compliance with plausible demands, attempt to escape, or call backup.

  • Like 3
  • NAY 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, could any other admins than krooks365 and shimo take the report? I feel like these people are not being neutral in reports since they are in union IC'ly and this could affect the final decision on this report.

Sorry for the inconvenience.



Edited by Tonik
  • Like 2
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

At the request of the reporting party, I will be handling this report. 

Although we feel all of our staff are more than capable of ruling without bias, we also want reporting players to feel comfortable reporting.
As such, I will handle the report from here on out.

Please be patient as I review the evidence and statements, and inquire further if needed.

Thank you, 

Moderator Jasmine

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites



After reviewing this report and evidence attached to it, we have come to a conclusion:

  • No punishment will be issued in this report. - Plausible demands were given to the reporting player on foot from close range. Furthermore, the reporting players allies were involved in a shootout with the reported parties, this is a clear and obvious reason to approach and attempt to give demands. Reporting player chose to flee, after being given plausible demands, as such reported party chose to attack.

Below I will outline the current rules and discuss the rule clarification as it pertains to plausible demands, Fear RP, and the deathmatching rule.

First under Fear RP rules:

  • Examples (but not limited to), where your character’s life is considered to be in direct danger:
    • When you are on foot or bike and a weapon is aimed at you at close range.
  • As a victim, whose life is in direct danger:
    • You must display reasonable value for your life and comply with the demands of your attacker.

Having a car full of known rivals who were just attacked by your allies, issuing demands and yelling that you would be killed if you run, clearly falls under this definition. 
The rule clarification did not change this at all. In fact, the rule clarification was trying to prevent these sort of ruleplay behaviors:

  • Sitting in a vehicle: Being in a vehicle with its engine on does not make you invulnerable. If for example, you have a gun aimed at you while you're in your car, you have the chance to escape (if possible) or surrender. If you escape, you might get shot at. If all means of escaping have been blocked off, you should never just sit in your car and taunt other players. This is a clear issue where ruleplay is valued over roleplay, and we will be cracking down on this.

Since this was a similar situation, but the reporting player wasn't even in a car but was on foot, even more vulnerable than a vehicle with the engine on, refusing to acknowledge fear is clearly not acceptable. Player chose to flee in close proximity and direct danger from 4 rivals in a car pointing guns, giving DM rights under several conditions:

  • Examples of valid reasons to attack another player:
    • If they are not in compliance with plausible demands, attempt to escape, or call backup.

As the rule clarification states, player chose to run after plausible demands were given, and therefore risked being shot. The fact that he chose to run because he thought the reported party was not allowed to shoot, is blatant ruleplay, and also a violation of Fear RP. This, on top of the fact that the rule clarification referred to giving demands from vehicle to vehicle over VOIP, not to players on foot:

  • We still see it as Non-Roleplay and a non-plausible demand to give a moving car demands through VOIP. ...
  • You have to find a way to give a realistic demand whilst also not acting as if the highway is the wild west, perhaps stake the person out and wait until they're stopped?

Keep in mind, that this clarification was not meant to rule out every single situation of vehicle to vehicle demands. As is clear by the last sentence "wait until they're stopped". There are some instances where demands given from vehicle to vehicle when cars are slowed/stopped, prior RP and interaction make the intent of the pursuers apparent, and the speed, location, and method of delivering demands is reasonable and plausible.

All that being said...you were NOT in a vehicle. You were on foot and clearly understood demands were being issues, and a clear threat was present. You chose to flee and ignore the demands, and as such were attacked.

If you have received a punishment that you disagree with, feel free to file a punishment appeal following the punishment appeal guidelines and format. If the reporting party suffered a loss greater than $25,000 in value, feel free to file a refund request following the refund request guidelines and format.

This report is denied and archived.

Kind regards,
Moderator Jasmine

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.