Ban Request - chocbar98

[Dex]

I wasn't bypassing any rules or RP to obtain the evidence collected. When I entered the store, the same storekeeper that was there the first time politely welcomed me in. He never exclaimed that I was blatantly breaking Fear RP, nor were you for that matter. Or that I 'minge-grabbed' the note after "being warned twice". The instance I picked up the note was what triggered your aggressive reaction, which was simply without merit.

Also, the note was clearly sitting on top on the desk when DrTosspot went inside the first time. I watched through the doorway from outside then entered the truck as we were leaving.

Like you said before. "You are wrong, we're not leaving anything out, the full story is explained in the summary." Implying that the first part of the video wasn't important and if it was left out. Where's your proof of that? Where's the evidence? Like I said before. This is only half of the story

[5p carrier bag]

I wasn't bypassing any rules or RP to obtain the evidence collected. When I entered the store, the same storekeeper that was there the first time politely welcomed me in. He never exclaimed that I was blatantly breaking Fear RP, nor were you for that matter. Or that I 'minge-grabbed' the note after "being warned twice". The instance I picked up the note was what triggered your aggressive reaction, which was simply without merit.

Also, the note was clearly sitting on top on the desk when DrTosspot went inside the first time. I watched through the doorway from outside then entered the truck as we were leaving.

Like you said before. "You are wrong, we're not leaving anything out, the full story is explained in the summary." Implying that the first part of the video wasn't important and if it was left out. Where's your proof of that? Where's the evidence? Like I said before. This is only half of the story

What's your version of the first time we came around? Are you trying to say that never happened? Are you saying we're lying? You keep saying we don't have proof, and that our version of the story is wrong, but you're not pointing out what we're apparently wrong about.

[Dex]

I wasn't bypassing any rules or RP to obtain the evidence collected. When I entered the store, the same storekeeper that was there the first time politely welcomed me in. He never exclaimed that I was blatantly breaking Fear RP, nor were you for that matter. Or that I 'minge-grabbed' the note after "being warned twice". The instance I picked up the note was what triggered your aggressive reaction, which was simply without merit.

Also, the note was clearly sitting on top on the desk when DrTosspot went inside the first time. I watched through the doorway from outside then entered the truck as we were leaving.

Like you said before. "You are wrong, we're not leaving anything out, the full story is explained in the summary." Implying that the first part of the video wasn't important and if it was left out. Where's your proof of that? Where's the evidence? Like I said before. This is only half of the story

What's your version of the first time we came around? Are you trying to say that never happened? Are you saying we're lying? You keep saying we don't have proof, and that our version of the story is wrong, but you're not pointing out what we're apparently wrong about.

I'm trying to make the point that the story is incomplete without the first part of what happened. I'm not saying you're lying but i'm not saying I can remember seeing it on the desk at first as well but the Fearless Administrators only have your word that it was on the desk. I was dealing with other matters at the time as we were dealing with a customer so we're un-aware of where the note was at the first point. So therefore I conclude without evidence what's there to prove that the note was on the desk other than the proof of yours and Dave's word?
Me and Chocbar could just say you came in and took it from the bottom and it would have just as much value to the Administrators than you guys saying it's on the desk. Hell it may have been on the bottom, as I said, Me and Chocbar are un-aware of where it was but believe it was behind the desk upon the first entry you made as well. If you've got any evidence to prove otherwise that it was in plain view. Feel free to post it.

[§upra]

I would like to indicate your flaws between your claims, VanillaTeaCake and your evidence.

Using this screenshot from your video, I can prove that your statements against us are flawed:

If your roleplay is genuinely ruined by someone picking up an obscure note left on a table

[Image: mba4ygA.jpg]

"They yelled to stop as we got into our truck and left, as we were leaving the slums, we were greeted with automatic gunfire from a black market dealer with the job "'Fish merchant'".

-Well, in which case, why didn't you stop when asked if you were passively roleplaying and most importantly, why didn't you disembark from the truck when the shots (which was the equivalent of a full magazine) were fired in the first place? That is a clear circumvention of FearRP.


In response to ilmon3y's claim:

It's considered RDM.

False. It was not Random Deathmatch. Far from random. Infact, if it were a term, it would be intentional, aggravated killing. (Due to the fact that you stole from a backstreet store, with ties to the Bermuda mafia, currently hostaging an SRU unit, due to the government's disrespect for the mafia.)

[5p carrier bag]

I would like to indicate your flaws between your claims, VanillaTeaCake and your evidence.

Using this screenshot from your video, I can prove that your statements against us are flawed:

If your roleplay is genuinely ruined by someone picking up an obscure note left on a table

[Image: mba4ygA.jpg]

It was left on the table the first time I entered the store. So far the only argument to this seems to be Scotch insisting that "it might not have been but we genuinely don't know"

"They yelled to stop as we got into our truck and left, as we were leaving the slums, we were greeted with automatic gunfire from a black market dealer with the job "'Fish merchant'".

-Well, in which case, why didn't you stop when asked if you were passively roleplaying and most importantly, why didn't you disembark from the truck when the shots (which was the equivalent of a full magazine) were fired in the first place? That is a clear circumvention of FearRP.

We did, otherwise I would have died from your "warning shot" of a full magazine. You claimed this firing of a full magazine at our truck was our warning. I don't think you understand the definition of a warning shot if you fire a full magazine at an unarmed individual. It seems almost as if this was an attempt to kill me, only foiled by the reduced damage I took from both being in the vehicle, and my distance from you when you opened fire.

Also fearRP goes out the window when you're opening fire on me, since you're attempting to kill me, at that point it's reasonable to take any measure I can to escape or fight back, since complying is no longer going to save my life.

In response to ilmon3y's claim:

It's considered RDM.

False. It was not Random Deathmatch. Far from random. Infact, if it were a term, it would be intentional, aggravated killing. (Due to the fact that you stole from a backstreet store, with ties to the Bermuda mafia, currently hostaging an SRU unit, due to the government's disrespect for the mafia.)

Again, there was absolutely no hint of any of this. You openly advertised as a fish store, welcoming people in, and there was no reason(other than metagaming, and still only in hindsight can we tell this) of your underground ties, the existence of these underground groups, or your hostaging of the SRU.

Our feeling is that, if it's considered RDM to kill armed police over arresting a friend, kill someone over insulting you, or theft of a minor object(such as a note, or a fish), then this should be considered RDM/overly aggressive roleplay.

Also, I'd like to point out you keep insisting that our video only shows have the story, but it's very clear it's almost identical to the first case we did not record(as you openly admit you fired a full magazine at my vehicle as your "warning"), and you openly welcomed me into your apparently incredibly dangerous underground store. The only difference appears to be that this time, the note was not as obvious, and you were far quicker in responding with the same amount of force(firing off your entire magazine at the person taking the note), which was probably far more down to your response time, rather than as a follow up to any apparent warnings given.

[Dex]

I would like to indicate your flaws between your claims, VanillaTeaCake and your evidence.

Using this screenshot from your video, I can prove that your statements against us are flawed:

If your roleplay is genuinely ruined by someone picking up an obscure note left on a table

[Image: mba4ygA.jpg]

It was left on the table the first time I entered the store. So far the only argument to this seems to be Scotch insisting that "it might not have been but we genuinely don't know"

"They yelled to stop as we got into our truck and left, as we were leaving the slums, we were greeted with automatic gunfire from a black market dealer with the job "'Fish merchant'".

-Well, in which case, why didn't you stop when asked if you were passively roleplaying and most importantly, why didn't you disembark from the truck when the shots (which was the equivalent of a full magazine) were fired in the first place? That is a clear circumvention of FearRP.

We did, otherwise I would have died from your "warning shot" of a full magazine. You claimed this firing of a full magazine at our truck was our warning. I don't think you understand the definition of a warning shot if you fire a full magazine at an unarmed individual. It seems almost as if this was an attempt to kill me, only foiled by the reduced damage I took from both being in the vehicle, and my distance from you when you opened fire.

Also fearRP goes out the window when you're opening fire on me, since you're attempting to kill me, at that point it's reasonable to take any measure I can to escape or fight back, since complying is no longer going to save my life.

In response to ilmon3y's claim:

It's considered RDM.

False. It was not Random Deathmatch. Far from random. Infact, if it were a term, it would be intentional, aggravated killing. (Due to the fact that you stole from a backstreet store, with ties to the Bermuda mafia, currently hostaging an SRU unit, due to the government's disrespect for the mafia.)

Again, there was absolutely no hint of any of this. You openly advertised as a fish store, welcoming people in, and there was no reason(other than metagaming, and still only in hindsight can we tell this) of your underground ties, the existence of these underground groups, or your hostaging of the SRU.

Our feeling is that, if it's considered RDM to kill armed police over arresting a friend, kill someone over insulting you, or theft of a minor object(such as a note, or a fish), then this should be considered RDM/overly aggressive roleplay.

Also, I'd like to point out you keep insisting that our video only shows have the story, but it's very clear it's almost identical to the first case we did not record(as you openly admit you fired a full magazine at my vehicle as your "warning"), and you openly welcomed me into your apparently incredibly dangerous underground store. The only difference appears to be that this time, the note was not as obvious, and you were far quicker in responding with the same amount of force(firing off your entire magazine at the person taking the note), which was probably far more down to your response time, rather than as a follow up to any apparent warnings given.

We were a fish shop and we were selling fish. He was a "fish seller" and I was in "Al Kebab". It wasn't an overly aggressive RP. You were the only ones that had ever made us pull a gun in this RP and it's because in RP terms our lifes were at risk had you got that classified document and you keep referring to it as a "note". It evidently wasn't just a note otherwise we wouldn't have open fired. We've got over 350 hours between us. We're not stupid.

[§upra]

I would like to indicate your flaws between your claims, VanillaTeaCake and your evidence.

Using this screenshot from your video, I can prove that your statements against us are flawed:

If your roleplay is genuinely ruined by someone picking up an obscure note left on a table

[Image: mba4ygA.jpg]

It was left on the table the first time I entered the store. So far the only argument to this seems to be Scotch insisting that "it might not have been but we genuinely don't know"

"They yelled to stop as we got into our truck and left, as we were leaving the slums, we were greeted with automatic gunfire from a black market dealer with the job "'Fish merchant'".

-Well, in which case, why didn't you stop when asked if you were passively roleplaying and most importantly, why didn't you disembark from the truck when the shots (which was the equivalent of a full magazine) were fired in the first place? That is a clear circumvention of FearRP.

We did, otherwise I would have died from your "warning shot" of a full magazine. You claimed this firing of a full magazine at our truck was our warning. I don't think you understand the definition of a warning shot if you fire a full magazine at an unarmed individual. It seems almost as if this was an attempt to kill me, only foiled by the reduced damage I took from both being in the vehicle, and my distance from you when you opened fire.

Also fearRP goes out the window when you're opening fire on me, since you're attempting to kill me, at that point it's reasonable to take any measure I can to escape or fight back, since complying is no longer going to save my life.

In response to ilmon3y's claim:

It's considered RDM.

False. It was not Random Deathmatch. Far from random. Infact, if it were a term, it would be intentional, aggravated killing. (Due to the fact that you stole from a backstreet store, with ties to the Bermuda mafia, currently hostaging an SRU unit, due to the government's disrespect for the mafia.)

Again, there was absolutely no hint of any of this. You openly advertised as a fish store, welcoming people in, and there was no reason(other than metagaming, and still only in hindsight can we tell this) of your underground ties, the existence of these underground groups, or your hostaging of the SRU.

Our feeling is that, if it's considered RDM to kill armed police over arresting a friend, kill someone over insulting you, or theft of a minor object(such as a note, or a fish), then this should be considered RDM/overly aggressive roleplay.

Also, I'd like to point out you keep insisting that our video only shows have the story, but it's very clear it's almost identical to the first case we did not record(as you openly admit you fired a full magazine at my vehicle as your "warning"), and you openly welcomed me into your apparently incredibly dangerous underground store. The only difference appears to be that this time, the note was not as obvious, and you were far quicker in responding with the same amount of force(firing off your entire magazine at the person taking the note), which was probably far more down to your response time, rather than as a follow up to any apparent warnings given.

We were a fish shop and we were selling fish. He was a "fish seller" and I was in "Al Kebab". It wasn't an overly aggressive RP. You were the only ones that had ever made us pull a gun in this RP and it's because in RP terms our lifes were at risk had you got that classified document and you keep referring to it as a "note". It evidently wasn't just a note otherwise we wouldn't have open fired. We've got over 350 hours between us. We're not stupid.

In conjunction with Charlie's post, I would like to reinforce the fact that you were the only people to trigger any use of firearms within our roleplay.

To quote earlier, I clearly stated that:

During the roleplay, many customers had walked in, with the note tucked behind the desk, without having to mingegrab it, leaving the store with the impression of a suspicious (or 'fishy') fish store. It was only this one 'coincidental' occurrence, in which the note was stolen. You clearly aggravated the situation and resulted in your own death.

To the best of my knowledge and regarding your actions, you weren't there to roleplay. You weren't there to buy fish or black market goods. You were there to cause trouble and only trouble.

On that matter, earlier on in the roleplay, you were punchwhoring the door, and continued to do so after being told to leave. I have no evidence to support this, however this is clearly defined through Charlie's claim of "harassment" in which I can support as both an eye witness and a victim. I would most certainly define your actions as annoyance, if not harassment. Thus the theft of the note was conducted under similar intentions - to "troll" and harass.

The fact that you got yourself killed is cannot be blamed on mine nor Charlie's shoulders;

You clearly aggravated the situation and resulted in your own death.

[ilmon3y]

(It would be far better if you stopped it with the harassment aspect now, since it's beginning to clog up this thread, making it more and more off-topic. Make a separate thread)

why didn't you disembark from the truck when the shots (which was the equivalent of a full magazine) were fired in the first place?

We did. How would I have even returned the second time if I hadn't exited the truck while you burned a full clip into it? A warning shot doesn't consist of a full magazine, and it's very in-adequate of you to accuse me of lying, when what you said is contradicting to the events that followed.

Because: 1) We -did- exit the truck. 2) You openly admitted trying to kill us the first time by using a full magazine in your UMP.

As both sides have said, the first time was equivalent to the second (shown in the video). One of us walked in, picked up the note, walked back out, and we were almost killed without warning.

The only thing that could be considered provocative would've been just me coming back, being welcomed into the store, and repeating the same actions to receive the same aggressive response. It was purely just to capture evidence of your previous actions, and unless you wish to prove otherwise (with actual evidence instead of "idk what happened exactly the first time but ur still being biased"), no harassment or fear RP was being applied.

[§upra]

(It would be far better if you stopped it with the harassment aspect now, since it's beginning to clog up this thread, making it more and more off-topic. Make a separate thread)

why didn't you disembark from the truck when the shots (which was the equivalent of a full magazine) were fired in the first place?

We did. How would I have even returned the second time if I hadn't exited the truck while you burned a full clip into it? A warming shot doesn't consist of a full magazine, and it's very in-adequate of you to accuse me of lying, when what you said is contradicting to the events that followed.

Because: 1) We -did- exit the truck. 2) You openly admitted trying to kill us the first time by using a full magazine in your UMP.

As both sides have said, the first time was equivalent to the second (shown in the video). One of us walked in, picked up the note, walked back out, and we were almost killed without warning.

The only thing that could be considered provocative would've been just me coming back, being welcomed into the store, and repeating the same actions to receive the same aggressive response. It was purely just to capture evidence of your previous actions, and unless you wish to prove otherwise (with actual evidence instead of "idk what happened exactly the first time but ur still being biased"), no harassment or fear RP was being applied.

To justify, a 'shot' doesn't specifically have to consist of just one round. It can consist of a burst, or in this case a full magazine. I can reinforce the fact that a full magazine was fired, due to the fact that VanillaTeaCakes stated that;

Chocbar almost certainly fired a full magazine at me).

A single shot would not have made you disembark, as your attitudes at the time were not towards roleplay, but towards ruining our experience. You would have simply driven off.

Instead of pointing fingers stating that my evidence is contradictive, please revise your own evidence in future, as your story is incomplete and thus insufficient to press any charges against me. What happened before the video? There's no hardback evidence. I would like to state that my actions were intentional and I did not randomly deathmatch you. I intentionally engaged you on the final exit from the shop, as theivery of a valuable item, when roleplaying as 'Al Kebab', an organisation with ties to the Bermuda Mafia) would not be dealt with by the police. It would be taken into our own hands.

With all due respect, the fact that you are posting a ban request, implies that you either WANT to get us out of banned out of prejudice (hence the statement made by Dave towards Charlie in OOC "We've got a lot of shit against you.") or that you are upset by the events you experienced in CityRP, since you triggered an aggressive roleplay. Too Bad.

In terms of the scenario, I am willing to apologise for any upset or inconvienience my actions may have caused towards you or anyone involved in the roleplay. However, I will not take responsibility for your death and I am not guilty of random deathmatch.

I am willing to drop the harassment charges, so long as we can put the past few events behind us. I feel it's best we let a member of Fearless staff make input on the current scenario - arguing isn't getting us anywhere.

[5p carrier bag]

snip

To the best of my knowledge and regarding your actions, you weren't there to roleplay. You weren't there to buy fish or black market goods. You were there to cause trouble and only trouble.

On that matter, earlier on in the roleplay, you were punchwhoring the door, and continued to do so after being told to leave.
[/quote]
No we weren't. This was the first time we were there, and after the footage we did not return. Either you're mistaking us for someone else, or you're straight up lying.

I have no evidence to support this, however this is clearly defined through Charlie's claim of "harassment" in which I can support as both an eye witness and a victim. I would most certainly define your actions as annoyance, if not harassment. Thus the theft of the note was conducted under similar intentions - to "troll" and harass.

The harassment accusation mostly stems from Scotch insisting that we are bullying him because me and Dave have both submitted ban requests on him showing him clearly ignoring the rules a few months back, and insisting he was framed. Most of this harassment claim seems to be some excuse to whine about us.

The fact that you got yourself killed is cannot be blamed on mine nor Charlie's shoulders;

You clearly aggravated the situation and resulted in your own death.

Your only reason for saying that we aggravated the situation is we returned, however you've already clearly stated the first time we were there was identical to the footage in the video, as you fired a full magazine as we were leaving, which can very easilly be said as a straight up attempt to kill me. So you can't say we were "aggravating you" and "harassing you" as your reason to kill us.

You attempted to kill me over a note, and then proceeded to kill Dave over it. There were no other IC forms of "harassment" or "provoking" other than picking up the note. Whether or not the apparent backstory is an acceptable reason to kill us over picking up a note once(since you fired upon me with intent to kill the first time) is down to the admins, but the vague accusations of (mostly OOC)harassment have nothing to do with this story, and gives you no reason to kill us.