Ban Request - chocbar98

[§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]

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.

Firstly, I did not re-word anything that you have mentioned. I corrected it.
You stated that:

the note was on the desk

which was evidently false. Both times, the note had been on the floor. Moreover, that fact that I stated

he ran in, saw it and stole it within a VERY SHORT space of time

is to emphasize the fact that it was not a simple glance. From the video, you can see Dave clearly crouching to get behind the desk, which happened twice. No-one else did it, only you and Dave who were working as members of a single body.

In digression from the topic, with all due respect, I don't know who you think you are, or what authority you have. Moreover, don't tell me to "shush", as I have a right to speak on charges which have been pressed against me. I don't appreciate your arrogance in this thread, as seen through your patronising and sarcastic comments which does not aid the situation in any manner. It is childish and provocative.

(don't just reword exactly what I have said and then accuse us of straight up lying)

(HE DID NOT GLANCE AT IT AND TAKE IT HE IS LYING HE LOOKED AT IT AND TOOK IT)

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.

Earlier on, you accused me of

dragging this off topic

despite the fact that the Molotov incident is a separate ban request, which was genuine, with no relevance to this current ban.

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.

Primarily, I would like state I have repeated myself several times over, due to the misunderstanding on your behalf. I have made the story from my point of view clear, with backup from witnesses such as Charlie4kwl and lewisb98.

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).

A few minor details? Overall, you're stating that the story is correct and yet still persist to press charges against me. However, the story clearly shows that I have no committed any random deathmatch and several times over, I have stated and declared:

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

Thus, you should now understand these facts:

1) The ban is now nul and void. There is nothing to press against me.
2) You triggered the scenario by stealing the note, despite your intentions.
3) I shot you twice, once as a warning, secondly as a 'shoot-to-kill'.
4) You violated rules, including FearRP (by running towards armed person, by which you were vilified), FailRP (failure to follow your job description, by mingegrabbing and entering our roleplay with no intention or purpose, no relevance to the Mafia ties and primarily, no relation to the 'Al Kebab' roleplay. ) and metagaming (Knowing the response you would get once we were aggravated, to record for no other purposes, bar a ban request.)
5) The story has been fully conveyed by both sides of the scenario and the chain of events is fully understood.

Therefore, you cannot blindly ask:

Otherwise stop vaguely accusing us of violating rules you clearly don't understand at all

I'm not stupid.

Also, again with your sarcastic "repetition" it is clear you have just contradicted yourself yet again.

(including how we were welcomed in both times)

This is a false statement, since we know from the video that there was no communication between us on the second entry, plus Dave stated that:

Never interacted with us IC

In that case, how could we have "welcomed you in both times"?

[Dex]

If an admin sees this comment could you please note that all the arguing is done and we await a verdict.

[Fultz]

After reading all of this and with the evidence provided I am going to deny this ban request.

The user warned you prior to the killing of you and with you coming in and stealing something behind the desk makes the kill valid.