ZCOM

  • Attention
    • Do not post useless +support.
    • Do not post personal vouches.
    • Do not shitpost or derail.
    Failure to adhere to this will get you infracted and/or banned.

    A permanent ban is often a method to get the accused to post an appeal. It is not at all times the verdict.
Status
Not open for further replies.
dnalevelc

dnalevelc

.
Dec 8, 2014
372
Players Name: Zeek Om
Steam ID: STEAM_0:0:19336084
Reason for ban: Disconecting to avoid RP / Negligence
Proof:

I (02.91084) was sweeping the CCH-A with two recruits, it was going well. One of them was searching him outside his apartment while the other one checked inside, he spawned a ton of computer props and used the door tool all over the place in his house in unrealistic ways. We came back outside to see how the search was going and he emoted "Throws molotov and runs" and ran. He proceeded to jump off a cliff down to the chasm area where the bridge crosses and disconnected when he got to the bottom. He threw a molotov at his feet and then jumped off a cliff which seems pretty close to negligence in my opinion.

CCA.C17-VICE.02.91084: Clear?
CCA.C17-RcT.96791: Yes.
CCA.C17-RcT.00846: Affirmative
CCA.C17-VICE.02.91084: On the wall buddy.
CCA.C17-RcT.00846: Wall please lad
** Zeek 'Z' Om complies.
CCA.C17-RcT.00846: I got 'im
Zeek 'Z' Om: Is there a problem?
CCA.C17-VICE.02.91084: 967 Look around inside.
CCA.C17-RcT.96791: Clearing.
CCA.C17-VICE.02.91084: Just a standard sweep citizen.
** CCA.C17-RcT.00846 clips his baton, frisking the man down while asking "Name and CID?", unless stopped
[RADIO] CCA.C17-RcT.96791: Whoa.. 910 look at this..
CCA.C17-VICE.02.91084: Holy shit.
CCA.C17-RcT.96791: Look at all this percursor shit..
** Zeek 'Z' Om Yeah. Actually.y
CCA.C17-VICE.02.91084: Anything on him?
CCA.C17-RcT.00846: [LOCAL-OOC] Hold on
** Zeek 'Z' Om throws a molotov on the ground and runs.
[RADIO] CCA.C17-VICE.02.91084: 910 requesting additionals to CCH-A5.
[RADIO] CCA.C17-UNION.01.37400: Reason?
Player ZC0M left the game (Disconnect by user.)


What would you like to see improved: I would like to see him actually let the RP draw out and be beneficial to the development of all parties involved. Disconnecting after engaging (with a molotov) and not waiting 15 minutes is unacceptable. I would know, considering I have gotten in trouble for the same thing before.

(Sorry I dont know how to get rid of the background color)
 
When me and mccrae were sweeping for Ravin Edgar last night, we decided to check housing blocks to see if he was hiding and we knocked on this guy's door and he had an immediate fucking meltdown about us metagaming him. Seems like an idiot frankly. He wouldn't quit raving in LOOC until one of us told him he wasn't even going to be searched and we were just checking rooms.
 
We chatted in-game afterwards. I stated that:

1.) The Molotov was:
A.) Not aimed at any CAA units, and was thrown on the ground.
B.) Used as a distraction.

2.) I did not disconnect from the server, and physically ran to a transition point (which involved an active pursuit and gunfire from CAA's)

3.) The rule specifically states firing a gun at a CAA unit.

I am willing to adjust my behavior to prevent this in the future now that I know.
If a ban is decided then I accept the consequences.

Thank you.



pirate said:
When me and mccrae were sweeping for Ravin Edgar last night, we decided to check housing blocks to see if he was hiding and we knocked on this guy's door and he had an immediate fucking meltdown about us metagaming him. Seems like an idiot frankly.
Click to expand...
Take what you want of it, at that time I still complied without issues. Also, yes it is no surprise the average citizen is aware of the conveniently timed searches that occur.
 
ZC0M said:
We chatted in-game afterwards. I stated that:

1.) The Molotov was:
A.) Not aimed at any CAA units, and was thrown on the ground.
B.) Used as a distraction.

2.) I did not disconnect from the server, and physically ran to a transition point (which involved an active pursuit and gunfire from CAA's)

3.) The rule specifically states firing a gun at a CAA unit.

I am willing to adjust my behavior to prevent this in the future now that I know.
If a ban is decided then I accept the consequences.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
1: The molotov was used as a diversion, yes, but it was thrown at our feet directly under the recruit that was searching you.
2: Taking a transition point while under pursuit and being shot at, is disconnecting.
3: It specifically states firing a weapon yes, but if you engage in s2k with grenades its all the same honestly.
 
Jadougie said:
1: The molotov was used as a diversion, yes, but it was thrown at our feet directly under the recruit that was searching you.
2: Taking a transition point while under pursuit and being shot at, is disconnecting.
3: It specifically states firing a weapon yes, but if you engage in s2k with grenades its all the same honestly.
Click to expand...
Thanks for not resorting to calling me an idiot. I acknowledge these corrections.
 
Didn't you jump off the bridge into the chasm to get to the canals transition point? Even putting aside the semantics of using the transitions over disconnecting (since the principle is that they're the same), your character would die from that jump and you've effectively PKed yourself through suicide.
 
FlatPancake said:
Didn't you jump off the bridge into the chasm to get to the canals transition point? Even putting aside the semantics of using the transitions over disconnecting (since the principle is that they're the same), your character would die from that jump and you've effectively PKed yourself through suicide.
Click to expand...
Not the bridge but yes, the edge by the church. No it is not a lethal fall height, I even landed on the cargo container and took no fall damage. I would expect a 'lethal' fall to do at least that.
 
ZC0M said:
Not the bridge but yes, the edge by the church. No it is not a lethal fall height, I even landed on the cargo container and took no fall damage. I would expect a 'lethal' fall to do at least that.
Click to expand...
The bridge and the edge by the church are the same height from the ground. I heard your legs break from above, you did not hit the container.
 
Let's also not forget the time where Kieck's character had a go at you IC for building a full-blown outdoor bar at NLO and you then blew Kieck up about it in global OOC. Real classy, fella.
 
rp_city8_2_hl20002.jpg

Forgive the use of female_04 as my measuring line, but I don't think you can drop a height of six Asian women and just shrug it off, even assuming you did land on the container. It should be quite obvious, but apparently it isn't, but using the in-game damage indicators and sounds generally is not a good gauge of realistic fall damage.
 
The only reason he didn't receive fall damage for that was that he landed on the downward sloping face of the container, which the engine doesn't consider an impact, just a glance, and stopped there or was slowed enough by friction with it to not take damage when hitting the next flat surface, or he ultimately stopped in water.
 
Jadougie said:
Mhm yepbe
Click to expand...
Why is that post being held against me when I was willing and able to return to be processed even after the server crashed? For the record: I did not request reimbursement or credits from the officer. The CAA unit in that post insisted on giving me compensation stating the credits were useless to him/her.

I guess I managed to piss off quite a few of the die-hard nerds shortly after joining.

You guys have an incredibly hypocritical way of handling all of this, and it seems overly complicated.

Do what you must, I am in no position to debate this further with any of you, it seems.
 
Hey bud,

I'll try and stay on topic with what the ban request is truly about here...

You tossed a molotov, then immediately ran to a transition point. That's what the text shows, but the question is if you actually gave time for the others players involved to react to you throwing the molotov or if you just threw it and sprinted off with how the scenario seems to be played out. Also, I don't know about you but where was all this taking place? If you're using a molotov as a distraction at a close distance, I'd probably lean towards that being more of a self-PK if it was something like this:

https://youtu.be/E7aCM7jRkmA?t=574

Basically, 'Peter Patterson' RPed taking out a molotov, threw it on the ground in an enclosed room, then sprinted off.

If you did something like that, I wouldn't be surprised if you found yourself banned.

On the course of solving or finding a solution, I think it'd be a good idea to link up with the players and redoing the roleplay with allowing them to react to you tossing the molotov and effectively being able to chase you in some way without you just running off and thinking "If I can make it to the next server, I'll be alright."

Anyway, hope this works out for you.
 
ZC0M said:
Why is that post being held against me when I was willing and able to return to be processed even after the server crashed? For the record: I did not request reimbursement or credits from the officer. The CAA unit in that post insisted on giving me compensation stating the credits were useless to him/her.

I guess I managed to piss off quite a few of the die-hard nerds shortly after joining.

You guys have an incredibly hypocritical way of handling all of this, and it seems overly complicated.

Do what you must, I am in no position to debate this further with any of you, it seems.
Click to expand...
It's not that anyone here is a "die-hard nerd", it's that we're a community of writers and you've done some things we consider to be a breach of trust between authors and are responding irreverently.
 
Kestrel Williams said:
Hey bud,

I'll try and stay on topic with what the ban request is truly about here...

You tossed a molotov, then immediately ran to a transition point. That's what the text shows, but the question is if you actually gave time for the others players involved to react to you throwing the molotov or if you just threw it and sprinted off with how the scenario seems to be played out. Also, I don't know about you but where was all this taking place? If you're using a molotov as a distraction at a close distance, I'd probably lean towards that being more of a self-PK if it was something like this:

https://youtu.be/E7aCM7jRkmA?t=574

Basically, 'Peter Patterson' RPed taking out a molotov, threw it on the ground in an enclosed room, then sprinted off.

If you did something like that, I wouldn't be surprised if you found yourself banned.

On the course of solving or finding a solution, I think it'd be a good idea to link up with the players and redoing the roleplay with allowing them to react to you tossing the molotov and effectively being able to chase you in some way without you just running off and thinking "If I can make it to the next server, I'll be alright."

Anyway, hope this works out for you.
Click to expand...
It occurred on the second floor walkway, outside of the apartment beside the door.

I am willing to do that if given the chance.



pirate said:
It's not that anyone here is a "die-hard nerd", it's that we're a community of writers and you've done some things we consider to be a breach of trust between authors and are responding irreverently.
Click to expand...
I would like to make reference to the following post(s):

http://taconbanana.com/index.php/topic/25030-the-value-of-a-script/#entry420438
http://taconbanana.com/index.php/topic/25030-the-value-of-a-script/#entry420519

In all seriousness, that sentence was so much more effective at getting me to understand where this all stems from, and why calling you and the other unit out on meta-gaming caused so much turmoil so quickly.

I thank you for refraining from calling me an idiot.
 
I really like you as a roleplayer, so I'm kinda dissapointed that you basically mingeran to a transition point.

But straight up no discussion, you already admitted to it. Therefore, a ban is in order for some length of time.
 
I can't stand this kind of stuff. Please don't do that ZCOM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top Bottom
Back