Considering the evidence you have breached rule.
In deciding this I have taken into account the following evidence:
The content of the support case and the decision of the support members
The content of the other support case referenced and the decision in the support case
The video provided by Mr. Antico which shows you went to Support while a roleplay situation was underfoot.
The statements made on this post
The rules and policies in question are the following:
4.6 – You musts give the victim 8 seconds to comply with your demands, unless they have a clear change in behavior such as start running away or reach for their firearm.
If you have broken a rule you cannot report the other player
You cannot use someones evidence unless they are exploiting/hacking
What the f*ck is a support appeal
In interpreting this rule I make the following decisions:
For each demand you give, you must also give the person 8 seconds to comply with the demand unless there is a clear change in behavior such as starting to run away or reaching for their firearm.
If the person is drawing their firearm already or already running away, these will not constitute changes in behavior.
Saying no you won't comply will not void this period
Hostile action from gang member or affiliates will void this period
In considering if someone changes behavior it is your job to consider lag (e.g. if they start running before you start shouting on their screen you will be guilty)
Changing where you aim to aim directly at a person with a firearm will be a change in behaviour.
The rule is applied more strictly where the person is just running, compared to pulling a gun.
It may be possible for somebody to implicitly disobey your direction, but this would require you doing more such as saying 'this is a robbery'.
In some such situations a 'reasonable reaction time' may be enough
There is no rule that where you have broken a rule, you cannot report another player. This said, the rule breaks of both sides will be considered when deciding a case. The following are important factors:
Who broke the first rule
Was the second rule break in response to or related to the first rule break
Was the second rule break more serious then the first. (and how does the seriousness relate)
Generally the first rule break cannot be mitigated against by a subsequent rule break, however a subsequent rule break can be mitigated against by a prior rule break.
This parties can agree to both drop the case if they agree they both broke server rules.
How large was the first rule break. (and was it an obvious rule break or a rule break based on technicalities)
Was the first rule break made directly at the person who committed the second rule break or merely a gang member.
Did the second rule break prevent the first rule break from becoming more serious.
Was there a high likelihood of the first rule breaker continuing to breach server rules.
There both parties still report the following formula will generally apply:
First Rule Breaker: Full Points - Second Rule Breaker: Half Points OR First Rule Breaker: Half Points - Second Rule Breaker: 0 Point Warning (Depending on case)
While generally support members cannot use someone else's evidence against them unless they are exploiting or hacking, this is a staff policy and not a server rule.
SMT have the ability to bypass this rule where they feel it appropriate (I note, this is used rarely)
A persons own evidence may also be used against them to mitigate a case they bring forward (e.g. to show facts or that they broke rules first).
This does not allow support to give points only off this evidence.
A person admitting facts may be considered.
A persons own evidence may be used against them to show lying to staff or attempting to hinder staff duties. (By SLT+)
Moderators+ may void this rule for hacking, duping, third party software or major exploiting. This does not apply to minor exploiting.
Probation conditions may void this rule.
Support Appeals are used to appeal against decisions made by support in support or on the forums. It is the alternative to the infamous 'second opinion' and allows very senior staff to provide in depth considerations. While reviewing a case, the reviewing has a large discretion, able to simultaneously review related decisions which are raised in the appeal (but not directly appealed). Overall these cases are not really about giving people points but really providing reasons to people that can be used for later support cases. All of the points I have mentioned above may be used to assist a person in support in order to create more uniformity between staff member decisions.
Findings of the case:
From the evidence and lack of reply I have made the following findings:
You gave a demand, to stop running, but failed to give 8 seconds, or even a reasonable reaction time before you shot.
Your evidence had not been used against you or at all during making my findings on the case. (only in the probation terms)
The rule break made after your rule break does not nullify the original breach.
The points given in this case have been increased due to your extensive history of RDM and Fail Initiation
For the reasons above you shall be receiving 10 points for the breach of server rules (RDM). This said, as you are currently on a 14 day ban, you shall receive an extra day on this ban, causing it to end on Sunday instead of Saturday. (Please be aware Doug Jumper chose to extend your ban as per your appeal)
You are being placed under probation (Although you should have been on it already) with the following conditions: (ending on the 31st of August 2019)
Forced 2 minutes of evidence prior to rule breach
Double points for failing to allow a person to comply
Double points for any offences similar to those that you have committed in the past.
( @Dave Lee - In the future please watch out with exploiting offences which allow you to knock a player out. Due to the fact that the original offence was your first offence ever on the server and due to the prior rulebreak, the points for the offence will be reduced to 5. These points will not affect any staff applications. I will not be reducing them to 0 as I do not consider them to be an appropriate response to the original rule break considering it was only just a rulebreak and was not directly towards you)