Ban Request - chocbar98

[§upra]

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.

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.

[/quote]
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.
[/quote]

So you don't think that stealing is an aggressive act?[b/] You don't think that stealing is going to trigger any problems? You're mighty wrong, and need to sort out your moral justification for stealing in the first place. The bottom line is, you stole from us, who at the time had ties with the [b]Bermuda Mafia. Whether or not you were aware of this was a different scenario -in that case, it was simply lack of understanding on your part.

Again, I will restate - I did not RANDOM death match. My actions were intentional; you TRIGGERED an aggressive roleplay. Triggered. Triggered death match, not random.

In response to your crude statement -

Most of this harassment claim seems to be some excuse to whine about us.

I believe it is you who are whining, due to the fact you are complaining that you got killed, due to your own actions and are upset as the roleplay did not fall in your favor. [b]Tough. Additionally, you two filed the ban request - it is you who are whining, not us.

Charlie and I are merely fighting our case, due to the fact that your reasoning behind this ban request is unjust and lacks sufficient evidence to imply that this was a case of random deathmatch.

Regarding the harassment, I can say that you were certainly punchwhoring the door, and have been harassing Charlie for a duration of time on CityRP.

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 am certain that you had visited our store prior to the event, and were punching the door. I highly doubt that I am mistaken. Additionally, your ludicrous statement,

you're straight up lying.

is far from correct. With all due respect, if anyone is lying here, it is you and ilmon3y, due to the fact that you are covering up the point that you completely disregarded to presence of the Bermuda Mafia by using petty excuses such as:

Pay attention to detail, my time spent on the server had increased in this snippet compared to the video, meaning that this was well after the incident had occurred.

Despite the fact the Bermuda Mafia had formed long before the incident regarding the note occured. The only way to back up this point, is by reviewing the server log, and seeing if lewisb98 (FL:RP Sauce) changed his job to Bermuda Mafia member before I killed you.


Summary:
1) Dr Tosspot and Dave entered the store (being welcomed) , firstly being warned for stealing the note.
2) Dave returns after being warned (and is not welcomed by ANYONE) at gunpoint and by warning burst (Violation of FearRP) in order to obtain evidence (also metagaming)
3) Chocbar98 engages Dave, due to an important document (note) being stolen from behind the desk, affiliated with the Bermuda Mafia.
4) A ban request is filed for Random Death Match despite the engagement from Chocbar98 being triggered.

Overall
From both mine and Charlie's perspective, I can say with confidence that this event was triggered, in either an attempt to provoke or aggravate to gather evidence. This is an act of metagaming, as well as violating FearRP as part of the roleplay.

I, Chocbar98 used two magazines of rifle ammo in this roleplay, first magazine being the warning burst towards the truck, second being the magazine that killed Dave.

Therefore, I can state with absolute confidence that I am not guilty of any act of Random Death Match, and therefore can conclude that this ban request does not hold sufficient evidence for a ban request prosecution.

I will continue to deny any act of random death match as part of this scenario. I have fully conveyed the events which occured during the event to the best of my knowledge, with support both from ilmon3y's evidence and two eye-witnesses, Charlie4kwl (Scotch Mc Greg) and lewisb98.

If needed, I can confirm that the roleplay was already based aggressively as the SRU kept hostage was called 'SP1CY BUR1TT0' and I am more than willing to contact him as an eye-witness.

[5p carrier bag]

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

You pulled the trigger.

So you don't think that stealing is an aggressive act?[b/] You don't think that stealing is going to trigger any problems? You're mighty wrong, and need to sort out your moral justification for stealing in the first place. The bottom line is, you stole from us, who at the time had ties with the [b]Bermuda Mafia. Whether or not you were aware of this was a different scenario -in that case, it was simply lack of understanding on your part.

Again, I will restate - I did not RANDOM death match. My actions were intentional; you TRIGGERED an aggressive roleplay. Triggered. Triggered death match, not random.

Stealing almost insignificant items(such as notes, fish, props, knifes etc) would not be deemed aggressive enough to provoke the response you gave(immediately opening fire without warning). Here, you need an appropriate reason to kill someone, even if you are "triggered", it still needs to be appropriate. For example, you cannot shoot a cop dead because he is arresting your friend, and you cannot kill someone because they punched you once.
Our feeling is that your killing(and attempted killing) did not have a valid reason, due to A:the fact we stole a note B:the fact we were unarmed C:there was no IC indication of your ties to the mafia(and a vague hint of your ties through OOC information such as the scoreboard), and you feel your characters background meant that this type of response was appropriate. Whether or not it is deemed RDM is down to the admins to decide.

I believe it is you who are whining, due to the fact you are complaining that you got killed, due to your own actions and are upset as the roleplay did not fall in your favor. [b]Tough. Additionally, you two filed the ban request - it is you who are whining, not us.

Charlie and I are merely fighting our case, due to the fact that your reasoning behind this ban request is unjust and lacks sufficient evidence to imply that this was a case of random deathmatch.

Regarding the harassment, I can say that you were certainly punchwhoring the door, and have been harassing Charlie for a duration of time on CityRP.

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 am certain that you had visited our store prior to the event, and were punching the door. I highly doubt that I am mistaken.

We feel what you did was in violation of the rules, and had the evidence to back up what happened. There is no lack of evidence to prove our version of events, the only lack of evidence is of your accusation of our harassment, especially any accusation of harassment that would have backed up your reason to kill us.
We have made our case, that you were willing to use lethal force without warning over a note, and you have argued your case that you had sufficient reason to do so based off your characters background. There's very little else to say.
The only disagreement over what happened is that you say that we provoked you and were harassing you, and this appears to have gotten more and more specific as the thread has gone on, without any evidence whatsoever.

Additionally, your ludicrous statement,

you're straight up lying.

is far from correct. With all due respect, if anyone is lying here, it is you and ilmon3y, due to the fact that you are covering up the point that you completely disregarded to presence of the Bermuda Mafia by using petty excuses such as:

Pay attention to detail, my time spent on the server had increased in this snippet compared to the video, meaning that this was well after the incident had occurred.

Despite the fact the Bermuda Mafia had formed long before the incident regarding the note occured. The only way to back up this point, is by reviewing the server log, and seeing if lewisb98 (FL:RP Sauce) changed his job to Bermuda Mafia member before I killed you.

I said you were either mistaken, or straight up lying. It is up to you to prove that we were there punch whoring your door(we weren't there at all prior, and our only return was happening to drive by quietly through the slums, assuming you were still there at that point).

We're using petty excuses to say we were not aware of their existance? We don't spend our entire time scrolling down through the scoreboard to see whatever generic unofficial faction someone has created today. You said he must have been aware since he had a screenshot of them, and he merely stated that this was taken afterwards(as evidence of your job title "'fish monger'"). Even if we were lying about having seen their name on the scoreboard, it's a rather vague name(when I saw the note, I thought it was a fact file on the Bermuda islands), and there was no reason for our characters to know about them(as seeing them in the scoreboard would be metagaming). Hence their mere existence should not have been a warning.

1) Dr Tosspot and Dave entered the store (being welcomed) , firstly being warned for stealing the note.
2) Dave returns after being warned (and is not welcomed by ANYONE) at gunpoint and by warning burst (Violation of FearRP) in order to obtain evidence (also metagaming)
3) Chocbar98 engages Dave, due to an important document (note) being stolen from behind the desk, affiliated with the Bermuda Mafia.
4) A ban request is filed for Random Death Match despite the engagement from Chocbar98 being triggered.

We were not warned, you immediately opened fire with a full magazine at us. Calling this a warning is like calling shooting someone in the face a warning.
Dave was welcomed back into the store, as shown in the video. Also collecting evidence of prior events is metagaming? You seem to think that us submitting a ban request with evidence is not allowed.

Here is my summary of events, feel free to state what you feel is wrong.
1)We arrive in our vehicle, and I enter the shop that is fully open and welcoming people in, I see the note on the desk(your only argument to this so far has been that you think it should have been away, but you are unsure).
2)I am shot at with full intent to kill as I leave in my vehicle(You have stated that you fired a full magazine into my vehicle, this is not a warning, this is an attempt to kill the driver).
3)Dave decides to start recording and return, repeating my exact actions, and is welcomed into the store(as clearly shown in the video). He picks up the note(this time, behind the desk, but still within a public store), and is shot down without warning.

We believe that the only "bias" and "insufficient evidence" is lack of proof the note was on the desk, and the fact it shows you immediately gunning Dave down, rather than taking the time till we were at the end of the street to open fire(which is most likely down to response time, and you being on edge the second time, rather than any roleplay reason)

Our feeling is that, in our combined time of playing on the servers, and the punishments we've seen handed out by administrators regarding what is defined as RDM on the server, taking a note is not an appropriate "trigger" to kill someone, especially an unarmed civilian, and there was no in character warning(and only a slight OOC warning) of any ties to the mob.

You and Scotch feel that your ties to the mob at the time made it appropriate to act so aggressively over the note. Whether or not this is an acceptable reason to kill someone is the point of this thread, and is down to the administrators to decide.

[§upra]

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

You pulled the trigger.

So you don't think that stealing is an aggressive act?[b/] You don't think that stealing is going to trigger any problems? You're mighty wrong, and need to sort out your moral justification for stealing in the first place. The bottom line is, you stole from us, who at the time had ties with the Bermuda Mafia. Whether or not you were aware of this was a different scenario -in that case, it was simply lack of understanding on your part.

Again, I will restate - I did not RANDOM death match. My actions were intentional; you TRIGGERED an aggressive roleplay. Triggered. Triggered death match, not random.

Stealing almost insignificant items(such as notes, fish, props, knifes etc) would not be deemed aggressive enough to provoke the response you gave(immediately opening fire without warning). Here, you need an appropriate reason to kill someone, even if you are "triggered", it still needs to be appropriate. For example, you cannot shoot a cop dead because he is arresting your friend, and you cannot kill someone because they punched you once.
Our feeling is that your killing(and attempted killing) did not have a valid reason, due to A:the fact we stole a note B:the fact we were unarmed C:there was no IC indication of your ties to the mafia(and a vague hint of your ties through OOC information such as the scoreboard), and you feel your characters background meant that this type of response was appropriate. Whether or not it is deemed RDM is down to the admins to decide.

I believe it is you who are whining, due to the fact you are complaining that you got killed, due to your own actions and are upset as the roleplay did not fall in your favor. [b]Tough. Additionally, you two filed the ban request - it is you who are whining, not us.

Charlie and I are merely fighting our case, due to the fact that your reasoning behind this ban request is unjust and lacks sufficient evidence to imply that this was a case of random deathmatch.

Regarding the harassment, I can say that you were certainly punchwhoring the door, and have been harassing Charlie for a duration of time on CityRP.

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 am certain that you had visited our store prior to the event, and were punching the door. I highly doubt that I am mistaken.

We feel what you did was in violation of the rules, and had the evidence to back up what happened. There is no lack of evidence to prove our version of events, the only lack of evidence is of your accusation of our harassment, especially any accusation of harassment that would have backed up your reason to kill us.
We have made our case, that you were willing to use lethal force without warning over a note, and you have argued your case that you had sufficient reason to do so based off your characters background. There's very little else to say.
The only disagreement over what happened is that you say that we provoked you and were harassing you, and this appears to have gotten more and more specific as the thread has gone on, without any evidence whatsoever.

Additionally, your ludicrous statement,

you're straight up lying.

is far from correct. With all due respect, if anyone is lying here, it is you and ilmon3y, due to the fact that you are covering up the point that you completely disregarded to presence of the Bermuda Mafia by using petty excuses such as:

Pay attention to detail, my time spent on the server had increased in this snippet compared to the video, meaning that this was well after the incident had occurred.

Despite the fact the Bermuda Mafia had formed long before the incident regarding the note occured. The only way to back up this point, is by reviewing the server log, and seeing if lewisb98 (FL:RP Sauce) changed his job to Bermuda Mafia member before I killed you.

I said you were either mistaken, or straight up lying. It is up to you to prove that we were there punch whoring your door(we weren't there at all prior, and our only return was happening to drive by quietly through the slums, assuming you were still there at that point).

We're using petty excuses to say we were not aware of their existance? We don't spend our entire time scrolling down through the scoreboard to see whatever generic unofficial faction someone has created today. You said he must have been aware since he had a screenshot of them, and he merely stated that this was taken afterwards(as evidence of your job title "'fish monger'"). Even if we were lying about having seen their name on the scoreboard, it's a rather vague name(when I saw the note, I thought it was a fact file on the Bermuda islands), and there was no reason for our characters to know about them(as seeing them in the scoreboard would be metagaming). Hence their mere existence should not have been a warning.

1) Dr Tosspot and Dave entered the store (being welcomed) , firstly being warned for stealing the note.
2) Dave returns after being warned (and is not welcomed by ANYONE) at gunpoint and by warning burst (Violation of FearRP) in order to obtain evidence (also metagaming)
3) Chocbar98 engages Dave, due to an important document (note) being stolen from behind the desk, affiliated with the Bermuda Mafia.
4) A ban request is filed for Random Death Match despite the engagement from Chocbar98 being triggered.

We were not warned, you immediately opened fire with a full magazine at us. Calling this a warning is like calling shooting someone in the face a warning.
Dave was welcomed back into the store, as shown in the video. Also collecting evidence of prior events is metagaming? You seem to think that us submitting a ban request with evidence is not allowed.

Here is my summary of events, feel free to state what you feel is wrong.
1)We arrive in our vehicle, and I enter the shop that is fully open and welcoming people in, I see the note on the desk(your only argument to this so far has been that you think it should have been away, but you are unsure).
2)I am shot at with full intent to kill as I leave in my vehicle(You have stated that you fired a full magazine into my vehicle, this is not a warning, this is an attempt to kill the driver).
3)Dave decides to start recording and return, repeating my exact actions, and is welcomed into the store(as clearly shown in the video). He picks up the note(this time, behind the desk, but still within a public store), and is shot down without warning.

We believe that the only "bias" and "insufficient evidence" is lack of proof the note was on the desk, and the fact it shows you immediately gunning Dave down, rather than taking the time till we were at the end of the street to open fire(which is most likely down to response time, and you being on edge the second time, rather than any roleplay reason)

Our feeling is that, in our combined time of playing on the servers, and the punishments we've seen handed out by administrators regarding what is defined as RDM on the server, taking a note is not an appropriate "trigger" to kill someone, especially an unarmed civilian, and there was no in character warning(and only a slight OOC warning) of any ties to the mob.

You and Scotch feel that your ties to the mob at the time made it appropriate to act so aggressively over the note. Whether or not this is an acceptable reason to kill someone is the point of this thread, and is down to the administrators to decide.

I would just like to highlight the problems behind this statement:

We don't spend our entire time scrolling down through the scoreboard to see whatever generic unofficial faction someone has created today.

Firstly, it wasn't a faction. It was a roleplay group.
Secondly, it is therefore your fault for not paying attention to the scoreboard. You cannot blame someone else for your own ignorance.

Thus, the statement below is very incorrect.

Quote:
The fact that you got yourself killed is cannot be blamed on mine nor Charlie's shoulders;
You pulled the trigger.

[b]You STOLE the document (note). You triggered it.

Moreover,

Stealing almost insignificant items(such as notes, fish, props, knifes etc) would not be deemed aggressive enough to provoke the response you gave

taking a note is not an appropriate "trigger" to kill someone,

The item wasn't insignificant. In terms of roleplay, it was a document, in which we would have killed you for. Contextually, it had all the names and details of the Bermuda Mafia Members, hidden from the government. Therefore my actions were appropriate, as calling the police would get the note in the wrong hands, you were a threat, we had one choice - to kill you.

e feel what you did was in violation of the rules, and had the evidence to back up what happened. There is no lack of evidence to prove our version of events,

Unfortunately, your evidence is incomplete and does not show what occurred beforehand. Additionally, your summary of events does not count as evidence. If it does, then my account of you punchwhoring is solid evidence.

On that matter, your summary of events is yet again biased, and incorrect.[/u]

1)We arrive in our vehicle, and I enter the shop that is fully open and welcoming people in, I see the note on the desk(your only argument to this so far has been that you think it should have been away, but you are unsure).
2)I am shot at with full intent to kill as I leave in my vehicle(You have stated that you fired a full magazine into my vehicle, this is not a warning, this is an attempt to kill the driver).
3)Dave decides to start recording and return, repeating my exact actions, and is welcomed into the store(as clearly shown in the video). He picks up the note(this time, behind the desk, but still within a public store), and is shot down without warning.

Allow me to Pick out faults in your summary.
1) I had placed the note on the floor behind the desk, after using it as an RP item with the hostage SRU.
2) You were shot at as you entered your vehicle. Charlie then obtained the note from the front window of the truck returning it to the shop. A clear lie.
3) Correct. I wonder why you were killed without warning? Perhaps you had already been warned.

Furthermore, the fact that this ban request is biased is seen, due to the fact that you ONLY LATER admit to appearing at the shop before the events occur. This clearly shows that both you an ilmon3y are masking the story in favor of getting me banned.

Therefore, your case against me is nul and void; I am not guilty of Random Deathmatch - you are both guilty of FearRP, FailRP and moreso, Metagaming. You can't press charges without a full story. Dave obtained evidence by harassing a scenario, as stated in:

Dave decides to start recording and return

That's not genuine. That's framing someone. Additionally, what gives you the right to metagame, film, frame and ruin someone's RP. Just because you are an experienced player, with a lot of hours, it does not mean you can step on other people's feet.

Had Dave passively filmed the events, I would not accuse him of attempting to frame me. In a past ban request made by Dave, he passively filmed me throwing a molotov, randomly. However in this case, Dave triggers his own death by stealing from us, after being warned once before, in an attempt to get footage. I wouldn't do it. Charlie wouldn't do it. I don't think anyone with any decency would do it.

Again with the harassment topic, as a member of the Fearless Community, I feel as if you are attempting to aggravate, harrass and intentionally ruin our experience on CityRP. Should this occur again, I will post a ban request and press charges of harrassment against VanillaTeaCakes and ilmon3y. Your actions in game were wrong, in violation of the rules and moreover the Fearless Terms of Service

Under Section 1.12, it is clearly stated that:

You must not use the Services to harm others or the Services. For example, you must not:
� use the Services to harm, threaten, or harass another person, organization, or Fearless;

Through this compilation of comments made between you against us, as seen in the YouTube video and as a screenshot from Charlie, showing a comment made by Dave, I can clearly say that you are harassing us, which violates the Fearless Terms of Service.
[Image: r4dWsxs.png]

[5p carrier bag]

snip

I would just like to highlight the problems behind this statement:

We don't spend our entire time scrolling down through the scoreboard to see whatever generic unofficial faction someone has created today.

Firstly, it wasn't a faction. It was a roleplay group.
Secondly, it is therefore your fault for not paying attention to the scoreboard. You cannot blame someone else for your own ignorance.

A roleplay group, aka a faction.
To involve the scoreboard in our roleplay would be metagaming, as the scoreboard is not an IC feature.

Thus, the statement below is very incorrect.

Quote:
The fact that you got yourself killed is cannot be blamed on mine nor Charlie's shoulders;
You pulled the trigger.

You STOLE the document (note). You triggered it.

Moreover,

Stealing almost insignificant items(such as notes, fish, props, knifes etc) would not be deemed aggressive enough to provoke the response you gave

taking a note is not an appropriate "trigger" to kill someone,

The item wasn't insignificant. In terms of roleplay, it was a document, in which we would have killed you for. Contextually, it had all the names and details of the Bermuda Mafia Members, hidden from the government. Therefore my actions were appropriate, as calling the police would get the note in the wrong hands, you were a threat, we had one choice - to kill you.

That is your defence, you've made that clear, please stop bringing it up as some way to argue what happened. You've made it clear. Whether or not your characters background justifies killing over the note is down to the admins to decide. That is the whole point of this thread.

e feel what you did was in violation of the rules, and had the evidence to back up what happened. There is no lack of evidence to prove our version of events,

Unfortunately, your evidence is incomplete and does not show what occurred beforehand. Additionally, your summary of events does not count as evidence. If it does, then my account of you punchwhoring is solid evidence.

On that matter, your summary of events is yet again biased, and incorrect.[/u]

1)We arrive in our vehicle, and I enter the shop that is fully open and welcoming people in, I see the note on the desk(your only argument to this so far has been that you think it should have been away, but you are unsure).
2)I am shot at with full intent to kill as I leave in my vehicle(You have stated that you fired a full magazine into my vehicle, this is not a warning, this is an attempt to kill the driver).
3)Dave decides to start recording and return, repeating my exact actions, and is welcomed into the store(as clearly shown in the video). He picks up the note(this time, behind the desk, but still within a public store), and is shot down without warning.

Allow me to Pick out faults in your summary.
1) I had placed the note on the floor behind the desk, after using it as an RP item with the hostage SRU.
2) You were shot at as you entered your vehicle. Charlie then obtained the note from the front window of the truck returning it to the shop. A clear lie.
3) Correct. I wonder why you were killed without warning? Perhaps you had already been warned.

Furthermore, the fact that this ban request is biased is seen, due to the fact that you ONLY LATER admit to appearing at the shop before the events occur. This clearly shows that both you an ilmon3y are masking the story in favor of getting me banned.

It's been stated from the start we went twice.

We were roleplaying as pikeys hunting around for junk laying around the map when we entered their shop, it was slightly chaotic at the time when we entered their(fully open) store. We saw a clipboard named "Bermuda fact file"(A fairly innocent name with no obvious labelling such as top secret), and walked out with it. 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'".

2)I am shot at with full intent to kill as I leave in my vehicle(You have stated that you fired a full magazine into my vehicle, this is not a warning, this is an attempt to kill the driver).

How is there a "clear lie"?
There is no bias, it clearly shows what happened the second time we went, and from your statements, it clearly reflects the first time we were there, as you make no denial of firing a full magazine at me as your "warning", and there is no disagreement over the chain of events(other than you rewording what I said and then saying my wording is a clear lie). I do not need evidence to back up something which we both agree on. You have thrown an accusation of punchwhoring which you "are fairly sure it was us", but you don't know, and we deny it, that is where evidence is needed.
When person A and person B both describe the same chain of events, there is no need for either party to provide evidence.

Therefore, your case against me is nul and void; I am not guilty of Random Deathmatch - you are both guilty of FearRP, FailRP and moreso, Metagaming. You can't press charges without a full story. Dave obtained evidence by harassing a scenario, as stated in:

Dave decides to start recording and return

That's not genuine. That's framing someone. Additionally, what gives you the right to metagame, film, frame and ruin someone's RP. Just because you are an experienced player, with a lot of hours, it does not mean you can step on other people's feet.

Had Dave passively filmed the events, I would not accuse him of attempting to frame me. In a past ban request made by Dave, he passively filmed me throwing a molotov, randomly. However in this case, Dave triggers his own death by stealing from us, after being warned once before, in an attempt to get footage. I wouldn't do it. Charlie wouldn't do it. I don't think anyone with any decency would do it.

You mean, repeating exactly what we did before, and getting almost the exact same response(as you have said, your warning was firing a full magazine at me, this is not a warning, this is an attempt to kill me) is trying to frame you? You keep saying we have only half the story, and that we're lacking evidence, but you do not deny our version of events at all. The only difference between these events is, as I have said multiple times before, you failed to kill me in what was very likely an attack which would have proven fatal to me had I not gotten out the vehicle, and that we say the note was on the desk(which cannot be proven, which if anything, is something in your favour).

Again with the harassment topic, as a member of the Fearless Community, I feel as if you are attempting to aggravate, harrass and intentionally ruin our experience on CityRP. Should this occur again, I will post a ban request and press charges of harrassment against VanillaTeaCakes and ilmon3y. Your actions in game were wrong, in violation of the rules and moreover the Fearless Terms of Service

Under Section 1.12, it is clearly stated that:

You must not use the Services to harm others or the Services. For example, you must not:
� use the Services to harm, threaten, or harass another person, organization, or Fearless;

Through this compilation of comments made between you against us, as seen in the YouTube video and as a screenshot from Charlie, showing a comment made by Dave, I can clearly say that you are harassing us, which violates the Fearless Terms of Service.
[Image: r4dWsxs.png]

Feel free to submit your evidence in a seperate ban request.

[§upra]

[quote='VallyTeacake' pid='339809' dateline='1392949055']
[quote]We feel what you did was in violation of the rules, and had the evidence to back up what happened. There is no lack of evidence to prove our version of events, the only lack of evidence is of your accusation of our harassment, [/quote]
Lack of evidence on harrassment, I don't think so;
[Image: r4dWsxs.png]

[quote]We were not warned, you immediately opened fire with a full magazine at us. Calling this a warning is like calling shooting someone in the face a warning.
[/quote]

Firstly, yes we did warn you. The first time you stole the note, we ran after you shouting "STOP, NOW!" and yet you did not yield.
[quote]They yelled to stop as we got into our truck and left,[/quote]

Therefore I fired a full magazine of ammunition at the vehicle in an attempt to scare the driver, preventing you from driving off. I knew at the range in which I was shooting, a full magazine would not have been fatal. I think well enough, that shooting 30 rounds at someone's vehicle, after being shouted at is enough of a warning. We didn't physically have to put up a massive sign saying "These are secret documents, don't steal these".

You were well aware of what you were doing and what the consequences would be, using them as an excuse to file a ban, since you got yourselves killed.

[quote]You mean, repeating exactly what we did before, and getting almost the exact same response(as you have said, your warning was firing a full magazine at me, this is not a warning, this is an attempt to kill me) is trying to frame you? [/quote]

Alongside us shouting at you to stop, I emptied a full magazine into the vehicle to scare the driver, as I had stated.

[quote]repeating exactly what we did before[/quote]
Shows that you violated FearRP due to the fact that you were Pikeys, and would have driven off and not returned. This therefore is FailRP as you are not playing your roles properly. You were Pikeys. Not Police, Not Government, Not SRU and not anyone to be in a position to steal the note.

Additionally, the fact that you think it is acceptable to return to film someone by provoking a response, is clearly metagaming - due to the fact that you think you can suddenly exclude yourself from the roleplay scenario and turn into a floating camera. This behavior could easily be categorized as harassment, as I have made clear throughout the ban request and should not need to reiterate.

[ilmon3y]

We've disputed against these exact accusations more than twice now.

We came back twice.

Seperately.

The first time, Tosspot entered the store while I was watching outside. From what I saw, there were plenty of customers, and when Tosspot began to glance at the note, neither you nor Scotch bothered to tell him that it was sensitive information, or that it wasn't for our eyes or whatever. You can't complain about us directly receiving these apparent, subtle warnings if you:

1) Never interacted with us IC
2) Assumed that the scoreboard alone was enough for us to somehow have knowledge (IC) of your criminal ties
3) Haven't provided one bit of your own evidence throughout the thread relating to the main topic in debate

Because I was in the truck, and exited from the other side from where the shots were coming from, I didn't exactly expect a fish monger to be the culprit.

[§upra]

We've disputed against these exact accusations more than twice now.

We came back twice.

Seperately.

The first time, Tosspot entered the store while I was watching outside. From what I saw, there were plenty of customers, and when Tosspot began to glance at the note, neither you nor Scotch bothered to tell him that it was sensitive information, or that it wasn't for our eyes or whatever. You can't complain about us directly receiving these apparent, subtle warnings if you:

1) Never interacted with us IC
2) Assumed that the scoreboard alone was enough for us to somehow have knowledge (IC) of your criminal ties
3) Haven't provided one bit of your own evidence throughout the thread relating to the main topic in debate

Because I was in the truck, and exited from the other side from where the shots were coming from, I didn't exactly expect a fish monger to be the culprit.

Firstly, the fact that you state:

We came back twice.

Seperately.

Does not matter. You were both in the same truck, and saw what happened, twice. Evident from the video, you were also in communication with each other. You were both working as members of one body, in order to steal the note, regardless your overall intentions. Therefore, you were both aware that we would not tolerate a second offence and thus you faced our consequences.
[Image: r4dWsxs.png]

I didn't exactly expect a fish monger to be the culprit.

Again, I have already made this explicitly clear.

if you paid any attention whatsoever to my job title, character appearance and behavior, you would realize that being a "Fish Merchant" (in punctuation marks) was merely a cover story for mine and Scotch Mc Greg's (Charlie4kwl) real actions.

1) Never interacted with us IC

From personal experience, I have never seen a roleplay that hoists a flag and says 'Danger, we will kill you'. The majority of the time, most aggressive RP scenarios overlap with passive roleplays. In reality, you entered our building; you entered our roleplay. We did not unlawfully kill you. We warned you and then killed you for stealing. We were not intending to kill any of our customers. We would, however kill theives. Unfortunately, you were primarily percieved as customers, before sneaking behind the desk and stealing the note, twice.

Furthemore, you have also clearly contradicted yourself. You say we "Never interacted with us IC" however, earlier on you state that:

When I entered the store, the same storekeeper that was there the first time politely welcomed me in.

This shows that you are clearly manipulating the story and not citing the truth. Charlie was the storekeeper by-whom you were greeted as an ordinary customer. You then stole the note, resulting in a quick change of scenario. You became thieves.

Additionally, I would like to completely disregard your false statement.

3) Haven't provided one bit of your own evidence throughout the thread relating to the main topic in debate

We've made evidence of YOUR OWN evidence.
[Image: mba4ygA.jpg]

and when Tosspot began to glance at the note, neither you nor Scotch bothered to tell him that it was sensitive information

With all due respect, you're both terrible liars. Dr. Tosspot DID NOT glance at the note. Matter of fact, he ran in, saw it and stole it within a VERY SHORT space of time, running out of our shop without buying anything. Charlie then shouted "STOP! STOP!", and yet you did not yield. Thus, I opened fire with a full magazine at the vehicle with the intention to make the driver disembark. The note was then recovered, both of you witnessing the warning shots and the stolen note being recovered. You then returned. FailRP.

Stealing falls under the category of aggressive RP. Aggressive RP does not have to involve firearms. Aggressive RP is where the player is behaving aggressively. To define this, stealing is an aggressive crime, as you are aggravating others. Therefore you cannot claim that you were 'PassiveRPing'. It is hard to say whether you were roleplaying at all.

On that note, unlike you, we wish to roleplay. I do acquire any satisfaction from people getting banned; it's just one less person from the Fearless Community, who may have not been aware of his/her own actions. Thus, I do not film my gameplay using FRAPS, as there is no need to ban people, without giving them critical advice first. Personally, I'd rather let newbies learn from their mistakes and adapt their roleplaying skills, instead of shunning them from the community. Hence the lack of primary evidence on our part, despite one neutral witness.

On top of that, FRAPS ruins my Framerate, as I do not wish to film 1080p at 60FPS.

Due to the fact that you state that I "haven't provided one bit of your own evidence throughout the thread relating to the main topic in debate" shows that you completely disregard both screenshots taken from your videos. I can acknowledge the fact that one of our screenshots was to prove your harrassment, however the other is to prove that the note was underneath the desk throughout the integrity of the roleplay.

Not all evidence is screenshots and videos. Eyewitnesses are also sufficient, despite being not as reliable.

To conclude, I am imperative on the fact that my actions in-game were intentional and I did not violate any rules during the roleplay. To clarify, I did not violate RDM, however the accusers have violated FearRP, FailRP and I accuse them of metagaming.

[5p carrier bag]

We've disputed against these exact accusations more than twice now.

We came back twice.

Seperately.

The first time, Tosspot entered the store while I was watching outside. From what I saw, there were plenty of customers, and when Tosspot began to glance at the note, neither you nor Scotch bothered to tell him that it was sensitive information, or that it wasn't for our eyes or whatever. You can't complain about us directly receiving these apparent, subtle warnings if you:

1) Never interacted with us IC
2) Assumed that the scoreboard alone was enough for us to somehow have knowledge (IC) of your criminal ties
3) Haven't provided one bit of your own evidence throughout the thread relating to the main topic in debate

Because I was in the truck, and exited from the other side from where the shots were coming from, I didn't exactly expect a fish monger to be the culprit.

Firstly, the fact that you state:

We came back twice.

Seperately.

Does not matter. You were both in the same truck, and saw what happened, twice. Evident from the video, you were also in communication with each other. You were both working as members of one body, in order to steal the note, regardless your overall intentions. Therefore, you were both aware that we would not tolerate a second offence and thus you faced our consequences.
[Image: r4dWsxs.png]

Please stop posting that image, and overall repeating yourself, 5 times is enough.
A quote from Dave saying he has plenty of reason to post a ban request on Scotch while being randomly arrested last year, and me PMing Dave in private(on purpose in order to prove how little it takes for Scotch to insist we harass him) is irrelevant.
By the way, it's a demo.

I didn't exactly expect a fish monger to be the culprit.

Again, I have already made this explicitly clear.

if you paid any attention whatsoever to my job title, character appearance and behavior, you would realize that being a "Fish Merchant" (in punctuation marks) was merely a cover story for mine and Scotch Mc Greg's (Charlie4kwl) real actions.

Part of our point, we feel that someone roleplaying so aggressively should at least have a hint of it in their name. This is down to the admins to decide, and the entire point of this ban request.

1) Never interacted with us IC

From personal experience, I have never seen a roleplay that hoists a flag and says 'Danger, we will kill you'. The majority of the time, most aggressive RP scenarios overlap with passive roleplays. In reality, you entered our building; you entered our roleplay. We did not unlawfully kill you. We warned you and then killed you for stealing. We were not intending to kill any of our customers. We would, however kill theives. Unfortunately, you were primarily percieved as customers, before sneaking behind the desk and stealing the note, twice.

We feel someone that goes chasing people down with assault rifles over a note should give more indication, or at least a warning, such as yelling "stop or we will fire upon you". This is also the point of this ban request.

Furthemore, you have also clearly contradicted yourself. You say we "Never interacted with us IC" however, earlier on you state that:

When I entered the store, the same storekeeper that was there the first time politely welcomed me in.

Referring to the second time Dave entered, as clearly stated in the original post and which we have mentioned multiple times.

This shows that you are clearly manipulating the story and not citing the truth. Charlie was the storekeeper by-whom you were greeted as an ordinary customer. You then stole the note, resulting in a quick change of scenario. You became thieves.

No it doesn't, it goes along with exactly what was stated in the original post, we entered twice. Please actually read the thread.

Additionally, I would like to completely disregard your false statement.

3) Haven't provided one bit of your own evidence throughout the thread relating to the main topic in debate

We've made evidence of YOUR OWN evidence.
[Image: mba4ygA.jpg]

You have shown the note was behind the desk the second time, we only stated it was on the desk the first time.
You have yet to prove any evidence that you were "triggered" other than the theft of the clipboard, as you keep trying to imply we were trying to provoke you, and made claims we were punchwhoring your door(even though you've both said that you're not entirely sure on this).

and when Tosspot began to glance at the note, neither you nor Scotch bothered to tell him that it was sensitive information

With all due respect, you're both terrible liars. Dr. Tosspot DID NOT glance at the note. Matter of fact, he ran in, saw it and stole it within a VERY SHORT space of time, running out of our shop without buying anything. Charlie then shouted "STOP! STOP!", and yet you did not yield. Thus, I opened fire with a full magazine at the vehicle with the intention to make the driver disembark. The note was then recovered, both of you witnessing the warning shots and the stolen note being recovered. You then returned. FailRP.

Stealing falls under the category of aggressive RP. Aggressive RP does not have to involve firearms. Aggressive RP is where the player is behaving aggressively. To define this, stealing is an aggressive crime, as you are aggravating others. Therefore you cannot claim that you were 'PassiveRPing'. It is hard to say whether you were roleplaying at all.

You really like the word lying, but you've yet to actually show we're lying. You keep either jumping on our exact wording(HE DID NOT GLANCE AT IT AND TAKE IT HE IS LYING HE LOOKED AT IT AND TOOK IT) or trying to say we're lying and twisting the truth by pointing out revelations in the story of events despite the fact it's been entirely the same throughout.

On that note, unlike you, we wish to roleplay. I do acquire any satisfaction from people getting banned; it's just one less person from the Fearless Community, who may have not been aware of his/her own actions. Thus, I do not film my gameplay using FRAPS, as there is no need to ban people, without giving them critical advice first. Personally, I'd rather let newbies learn from their mistakes and adapt their roleplaying skills, instead of shunning them from the community. Hence the lack of primary evidence on our part, despite one neutral witness.

On top of that, FRAPS ruins my Framerate, as I do not wish to film 1080p at 60FPS.

Due to the fact that you state that I "haven't provided one bit of your own evidence throughout the thread relating to the main topic in debate" shows that you completely disregard both screenshots taken from your videos. I can acknowledge the fact that one of our screenshots was to prove your harrassment, however the other is to prove that the note was underneath the desk throughout the integrity of the roleplay.

Not all evidence is screenshots and videos. Eyewitnesses are also sufficient, despite being not as reliable.

To conclude, I am imperative on the fact that my actions in-game were intentional and I did not violate any rules during the roleplay. To clarify, I did not violate RDM, however the accusers have violated FearRP, FailRP and I accuse them of metagaming.

Our only experience with you is being randomly molotoved by you as a "building inspector", so hence when we start getting shot to death without warning(shooting a full magazine at me isn't a warning, it's attempting to kill me)over a note, we're going to collect evidence and submit a ban request on you.
If you think returning to record what happens is breaking fearRP, failRPing, and metagaming, then feel free to submit a ban request on us, we won't deny it at all. Otherwise stop vaguely accusing us of violating rules you clearly don't understand at all(IE:"you should have known about these people as you could see their name on the scoreboard").

So far there has been no disagreement at all on the chain of events bar a few minor details(the position of the note, whether or not we were provoking you beforehand). Please stop dragging it out pointlessly, you've made your points(and repeated them 5+ times), unless you have anything else relevant to post, stop posting.

It can be summed up as follows
We entered the store, took the note, you shot at us.
Dave decided to return while recording to record your reaction, you killed him without warning there.
We feel there was no warning at all of this, especially IC, and that it was an overly aggressive act(and by FL standards, RDMing), to attempt to kill, and kill two unarmed civilians over a note, given your job roles and the passive appearing nature of the shop(including how we were welcomed in both times), and that shooting a full magazine falls under an attempt to kill someone and not a warning.
You feel your characters background was sufficient to kill people over it. If there is anything here you feel is entirely wrong(don't just reword exactly what I have said and then accuse us of straight up lying), correct it. Otherwise, kindly shush with the repetition.

[Dex]

This is ridiculous. You're only arguing and it sounds like the same thing getting repeated over and over again from both sides. Let's get an admin to review the situation and make a judgement using the actual ban request and the comments by both parties and let them make the decision. Not us. Any further arguing after this post I find to just be deemed immature. Let's just leave it for the admins discretion.

[Dex]

I'm sorry but after having read what you actually put I feel the need to reply to this, had it been somebody else that had gone in there who we'd not got a history with and we shot him fair enough. That would have been RDM it's the first time he'd tried to steal the note. However it was the second time you'd been in there and our efforts to keep you out had escalated. I feel this ban request is very harsh and unfair and although it's down to the admins discretion I don't feel this is worthy of a ban. Also may I add we couldn't exactly call the police could we? The police were after the Mafia at the time so we had to take things into our own hands thus resulting in your death upon entering and minge grabbing the note for the second time. Unless you provoke another comment from me i'm done here.