Limelight Forums

The staff-members have received your unban-request, lad.

It will take a while for it to be reviewed.

this is just to get it off my record xd

Not involved, warned.

(May 23, 2018, 02:11 PM)Rogga Wrote: [ -> ]Snip due to removal.

Thanks man!

Aww the +rep unban :C

(May 23, 2018, 05:19 AM)lad Wrote: [ -> ]this is just to get it off my record xd

You broke the rules and got punished for it.

If you just want it off your record, I’m sorry to say that would require the punishment to be under an invalid reason.

At the time of our rules fearp applied if you were ever at a disadvantage in a possible fight (for instamce outgunned and the opposing party already has their weapon out. Or even has a friendly under gunpoint for a hostage situation. This can be argued here as the officers had your employer under gunpoint before your weapons were drawn.

In this situation, not only did the officers (1 at all times) have you and Taco in their sights with their weapkns drawn, but they also had your employer under gunpoint. In this situation, Taco should’ve recognized he was under fearp, along with yourself (and actually you do pull your weapon out before shots are exchanged, so you had no intention to follow fearp yourself).

Can you link the PR?

(May 24, 2018, 11:09 PM)Gungranny Wrote: [ -> ]
(May 23, 2018, 05:19 AM)lad Wrote: [ -> ]this is just to get it off my record xd

You broke the rules and got punished for it.

If you just want it off your record, I’m sorry to say that would require the punishment to be under an invalid reason.
That's why I'm making a request

At the time of our rules fearp applied if you were ever at a disadvantage in a possible fight (for instamce outgunned and the opposing party already has their weapon out. Or even has a friendly under gunpoint for a hostage situation. This can be argued here as the officers had your employer under gunpoint before your weapons were drawn. I never was aware of this rule in the fearRP rules that "disadvantages" are also a variable in fearRP.

Quote:
2.1 - You are considered to be under FearRP when you are in line of sight of a visibly armed person, who is within microphone range of you and is able to harm your character at that moment.

Taco pulled out his shotgun before he was in mic range of the officers

In this situation, not only did the officers (1 at all times) have you and Taco in their sights with their weapkns drawn, but they also had your employer under gunpoint. In this situation, Taco should’ve recognized he was under fearp, along with yourself (and actually you do pull your weapon out before shots are exchanged, so you had no intention to follow fearp yourself).

Can you link the PR?
PRA (13146)

(May 25, 2018, 01:43 AM)lad Wrote: [ -> ]
(May 24, 2018, 11:09 PM)Gungranny Wrote: [ -> ]
(May 23, 2018, 05:19 AM)lad Wrote: [ -> ]this is just to get it off my record xd

You broke the rules and got punished for it.

If you just want it off your record, I’m sorry to say that would require the punishment to be under an invalid reason.
That's why I'm making a request

At the time of our rules fearp applied if you were ever at a disadvantage in a possible fight (for instamce outgunned and the opposing party already has their weapon out. Or even has a friendly under gunpoint for a hostage situation. This can be argued here as the officers had your employer under gunpoint before your weapons were drawn. I never was aware of this rule in the fearRP rules that "disadvantages" are also a variable in fearRP.

Quote:
2.1 - You are considered to be under FearRP when you are in line of sight of a visibly armed person, who is within microphone range of you and is able to harm your character at that moment.

Taco pulled out his shotgun before he was in mic range of the officers

And do you have a copy of the Fearp rule that was current to this PR? As the rule did change not that long ago. Prior to the rule change, if someone important is in the crossfire and under control of the opposing party, it was considered a situation of Fearp.

In this situation, not only did the officers (1 at all times) have you and Taco in their sights with their weapkns drawn, but they also had your employer under gunpoint. In this situation, Taco should’ve recognized he was under fearp, along with yourself (and actually you do pull your weapon out before shots are exchanged, so you had no intention to follow fearp yourself).

Can you link the PR?
PRA (13146)

Please read my closing notes in the PR - the ID’ing issue as you were right in the ID’ing. Other than that, the closing notes is my final response to this.

If I also may ask, why now make this report? Unless there was another UBR.

(May 25, 2018, 04:22 AM)Gungranny Wrote: [ -> ]
(May 25, 2018, 01:43 AM)lad Wrote: [ -> ]
(May 24, 2018, 11:09 PM)Gungranny Wrote: [ -> ]You broke the rules and got punished for it.

If you just want it off your record, I’m sorry to say that would require the punishment to be under an invalid reason.
That's why I'm making a request

At the time of our rules fearp applied if you were ever at a disadvantage in a possible fight (for instamce outgunned and the opposing party already has their weapon out. Or even has a friendly under gunpoint for a hostage situation. This can be argued here as the officers had your employer under gunpoint before your weapons were drawn. I never was aware of this rule in the fearRP rules that "disadvantages" are also a variable in fearRP.

Taco pulled out his shotgun before he was in mic range of the officers

And do you have a copy of the Fearp rule that was current to this PR? As the rule did change not that long ago. Prior to the rule change, if someone important is in the crossfire and under control of the opposing party, it was considered a situation of Fearp.

In this situation, not only did the officers (1 at all times) have you and Taco in their sights with their weapkns drawn, but they also had your employer under gunpoint. In this situation, Taco should’ve recognized he was under fearp, along with yourself (and actually you do pull your weapon out before shots are exchanged, so you had no intention to follow fearp yourself).

Can you link the PR?
PRA (13146)

Please read my closing notes in the PR - the ID’ing issue as you were right in the ID’ing. Other than that, the closing notes is my final response to this.

If I also may ask, why now make this report? Unless there was another UBR.

Well blackdog's key points were:

How did you confirm his ID before takeing agressive action:

Why did you risk opening fire on the target right next to your employer, potentialy killing him?

How did you see his car long enough to confirm its ID when its licence plate was never in view long enough to see?

Why did you think it was acceptable to run up and gun down cops to save your friend/employer from being arrested when this is an action many have been punished before prior?

I think I answered those questions quite well

Also in the pr you said that "This can be seen as an also break of Fearp as you wouldn't risk hitting your associate while two officers had their weapons on him and in the direction of you two. Not to mention the questionable ID'ing of your associate."
1. You can see in the video you employer hide behind the SUV
2. We ided the man as our employer as seen above in the ubr

In the video, you both take out weapons before the employer moves behind the car... And I have no issue with the IDing. You were right on that. But you still decided to take up arms ehile the employer was in the line of fire. I really have nothing else to comment. The proof is there.

Denied.

After reviewing the suspension, I'm happy the suspension was valid under the circumstance and as a result will not be removed from your record at this point in time.

Thanks.

greg

Limelight Gaming

greg

Rogga

greg

greg

Soviethooves

greg

Soviethooves

greg

Soviethooves

Night