APPEAL FOR A BAN

[Bees]

You were PKed for participating in shooting up a factions property/raiding. I find this situation to be PKable for the attacking side as this is a direct attack and resulted in deaths of people from inside the property. I did not consider this RDM as there was an RP reason as to why this attack occurred, since that is the case, there are RP reprocussions.

Also, Bee, that PK rule is not referring to reactionary pks/situational. For example if I shoot an officer, and then I die, that wouldn't need to be pre-approved. This is like that.

Was never pre-approved, and no /mes.

You are bending the rules for you favor.

(Argumentative).

---

You were PKed for participating in shooting up a factions property/raiding. I find this situation to be PKable for the attacking side as this is a direct attack and resulted in deaths of people from inside the property. I did not consider this RDM as there was an RP reason as to why this attack occurred, since that is the case, there are RP reprocussions.

Also, Bee, that PK rule is not referring to reactionary pks/situational. For example if I shoot an officer, and then I die, that wouldn't need to be pre-approved. This is like that.

Argumentative Standpoint:

You can not bend the rules.

This event was never pre-approved. You even stated that. Do not deny that. It should have been voided in the first place.

The rules are there forever and stoned in.

[lostingrave]

my prayers out to you man hope you get unpked homie ill see in the game again soon homie we all know you didn't do anything wrong or try to start beef 1 up my homie I always got your back

[Ruffian]

You were PKed for participating in shooting up a factions property/raiding. I find this situation to be PKable for the attacking side as this is a direct attack and resulted in deaths of people from inside the property. I did not consider this RDM as there was an RP reason as to why this attack occurred, since that is the case, there are RP reprocussions.

Also, Bee, that PK rule is not referring to reactionary pks/situational. For example if I shoot an officer, and then I die, that wouldn't need to be pre-approved. This is like that.

Was never pre-approved, and no /mes.

You are bending the rules for you favor.

(Argumentative).

---

You were PKed for participating in shooting up a factions property/raiding. I find this situation to be PKable for the attacking side as this is a direct attack and resulted in deaths of people from inside the property. I did not consider this RDM as there was an RP reason as to why this attack occurred, since that is the case, there are RP reprocussions.

Also, Bee, that PK rule is not referring to reactionary pks/situational. For example if I shoot an officer, and then I die, that wouldn't need to be pre-approved. This is like that.

Argumentative Standpoint:

You can not bend the rules.

This event was never pre-approved. You even stated that. Do not deny that. It should have been voided in the first place.

The rules are there forever and stoned in.

Dude, I know you have fart where your brain should be, but try to read.

He's saying it doesn't need to be pre-approved. It's a result of the circumstances of the roleplay. Why would your massive shoot out get voided? You chose to do it, and in doing so, you chose to accept the PKs.

[Bees]

Be aware that killing members of other family’s or attacking them gives them a reason to retaliate, after a certain number of retaliations it can be considered a war and every person is at risk.

If they were PK'd, then why aren't the NOI also PK'd.

Argumentative Standpoint.

You can't bend the rules. Stop Deleting this Reply. Pendred stoned the rules that all events like this need to be pre-approved.

[Adler]

+1 situation should be voided

[Kevinthebestxx]

1+ should get unpked

[Pendred]

Your appeal has been reviewed and accepted.

Your character has been instated and may be used again. Note that this appeal was only accepted after an agreement between both parties to void the events of last night due to a misunderstanding. Keep in mind that the reasoning for the PK was perfectly just, and if it were not for the voiding it would've remained.