[Brennan]

Your Name: Brennan 2.0

Ban ID: 1576

Banned by: [font=open_sansregular, Arial, sans-serif][L²] Nacreas @Nacreas [/font]

Server: Rockford

Ban Reason: [font=open_sansregular, Arial, sans-serif](PRA) - FearRP[/font]

Why should you be unbanned?:  When my ban was issued the FearRP rules were clouded and I was banned for something that would have been considered a 'grey' area at the time of the report. Unfortunately the video which I was reported has been removed, however @Enzymes  comment on why he believes I broke FearRP is still on the PRA. His comment reads:

In my opinion, Brennan broke fearRP.

- Brennan had his back turned on Fargo.
- Fargo had his gun on Brennan and told him to get on the ground
- Brennan turned around and faced Fargo before switching from a tazer to a rifle
- The rifle was in a lowered position

Because the rifle is in a lowered position, he's at a major disadvantage compared to Fargo who already has the gun trained on him.

All Fargo has to do is squeeze the trigger. He already has his aim on the cop.

Brennan has to raise his weapon before aiming and then firing. 


We do not do a "My gun is bigger than your gun"-reason when it comes to gun-point and fearRP.
Any gun counts as fearRP.

Now after the rules being rewritten Rule 2.1 Now reads

• 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. You must act afraid of armed people and life-threatening situations. You must follow the
  
• orders of the person(s) who have you under FearRP, and you may not draw a weapon on them or attack them. FearRP applies to melee weapons
  
• and tasers if you are within effective range (except if in a vehicle). You may not run away from someone who has you under FearRP
  
• and is pointing a gun/taser at you, unless they specifically order you to. You are not under FearRP if you are also visibly armed.
  
• Visibly armed in the context of this rule means that you have your weapon out and in your hands, regardless of safety mode. You are not
  
• considered visibly armed when you are seated in a vehicle, regardless of whether you are holding a weapon in hand or not. If someone switches
  
• from a gun to handcuffs/rope to detain you, FearRP still applies.
  

This clears up the situation and as this rule has now been clarified I don't believe my ban as valid as this addition to the rules states that I wouldn't have broken FearRP. Therefore I am requesting that this ban be removed off my record as it is no longer valid. I have only now written this appeal as I have only recently become active again and after re-reading the rules it is of my own opinion that this ban shouldn't stand.

Evidence:

---

[Limelight Gaming]

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

It will take a while for it to be reviewed.

[Nacreas]

Under review.

[Nacreas]

The rule was not clarified, it was changed. What wasn't regarded as FearRP then (being visibly armed regardless of safety mode) is now an addition to the rule. An addition that did not exist when this punishment was issued.

Although the rules have been updated, you were still in violation of the rule set enforced at that time.

[Enzyme]

As Nacreas pointed out, this was not something that was clarified, but a rule was changed in regards to fearRP. Therefore, you broke fearRP, and the ban is valid where you were found guilty for breaking the rules which existed then.

[Nacreas]

Brennan do you have anything else you wish to add to your appeal?

[Brennan]

Will reply later on currently unable to reply due to work commitments

[Brennan]

The only point that I can add is that I fail to see how its a change to the rule when the same principle of FearRP exists today. However I agree this is an addition to the rules, there is no arguing that point. 

The addition didn't exist at the time I was banned however, I still believe at the time I was banned this was a grey area. It can be seen on the player report that different administrators had varying opinions on this, I don't believe that this scenario had a unanimous opinion amongst the staff team. I'm arguing this ban because at the time, there was no clear rule that stated what I did was wrong. I was banned because of peoples opinion and interpretation of a rule that didn't clearly define what I did was wrong. 

I believe this addition to the rule set -even though it didn't exist at the time- removes the grey area of my offence. This addition to the rule set didn't contradict any rule before it, the addition simply clarified the rule.

When this addition was added it the post that accompanied it read

Hello community! I am glad to announce that after internal discussion it was decided to make adjustments to the current ruleset on the server to help fill any common grey areas that often cause issued and misunderstandings, particularly with our newer players. If you are fairly experienced with the gamemode you will find that most of these things have been enforced for a long time and not much has changed.

This post suggests that these additions were added to avoid grey areas such as the one we are now discussing. If the ruleset was adjusted so that incidents like this don't occur then I don't see why my ban can’t be wiped if the point of this adjustment was to prevent it from ever happening in the first place.

[Nacreas]

Being visibly armed (regardless of safety mode) was not an application of FearRP, it is now.

It didn't exist then because it has been added, not changed.

Denied. Thank you for your appeal.