dno Ban Reduction

**ayo**

Your Character or Steam Name:

god (real)

.
Your SteamID (Click to retrieve):

STEAM_0:0:98044988

.
Your Discord ID#:

dno5082

.
Reason for ban:

RDM | POx3 || ExStaff

.
Length of ban:

2 Weeks
.

Reason for appeal (apology):

I am appealing with an apology because I was unaware that I broke the rule(s) when killing the character. So I can see what I did, on the server, was wrong but I was unaware of it at the time.

.
Why should you be unbanned?

I believe I should have my ban reduced to less then the two weeks because I did not mean to break the rules, I thought that what I did, on the server, at the time was within the rules and I did not mean to RDM the player. I do recognize that I do have past offences but I have been playing Diverge since its opening, in which I did not know many server rules, being new to MafiaRP at the time, so I did break the rules then but paused from that once I began to understand the gamemode. I did hold a staff position on Diverge, as well as faction management for Judicial, City, and FBI but I do not see reason as to why that would warrant an extension on my ban as those were several months, closer to a year, from when this occurred. My last note was more several months ago, in March. I have been on the server several times since then, playing every so often but have recently started playing consistently without issue, until now. I do try to stay within the rules, whilst playing, so I do seek to have this ban reduced to less than 2 weeks. Thank you for your time.

TL;DR: I haven't had a prior, in several months (Since March), I don't think being Ex-Staff warrants a longer ban, I do now see how what I did was wrong but at the time I was not on the server to rule break it was a misunderstanding on my part which is why I request a reduction for my ban.

**darkfire** · 12-07-2023, 01:57 AM

Hello I was the Admin handling this situation/

The reason I made it longer is because you kept saying you knew the rules you read them 4X and was sure you didn't do anything wrong. UA joined the VC support channel and heard the case as well as watched the video and agreed it was indeed RDM. You do have a very lengthy list of notes and bans but they were a while back. If you read the rules a 5th time id say a reduction is the fair thing to do. Please read the SOP as well so you can further understand how that situation could have ended differently.

**ayo**

(12-07-2023, 01:57 AM)darkfire Wrote: Hello I was the Admin handling this situation/

The reason I made it longer is because you kept saying you knew the rules you read them 4X and was sure you didn't do anything wrong. UA joined the VC support channel and heard the case as well as watched the video and agreed it was indeed RDM. You do have a very lengthy list of notes and bans but they were a while back. If you read the rules a 5th time id say a reduction is the fair thing to do. Please read the SOP as well so you can further understand how that situation could have ended differently.

Yes, I was aware that if someone was under FearRP they could not move. My character/I came into the situation being told that the player was shooting at officers, so that is why I didn't have a taser as my character was pursing them alone. The character continued to evade, so I shot. Thinking it was within reason because of the FearRP guidelines, which the UA member did agree too (That cops can place people under FearRP). The player did break FearRP, admittedly; so we're both in the wrong.

The reason to why I kept saying I have read the rules is because I was saying that I believed since the player broke FearRP I was able to engage them, you insisted that cops could not place people under FearRP. UA, joined, and denied that. The only reason in which UA agreed for it to be RDM is because my character was a cop, but he did shoot down your opinion of 'Cops can't place people under FearRP'. The player did break FearRP, I engaged, but because my character was a cop it counted as RDM. I was unaware of that part, as it is not necessarily stated in the rules - this is why you called UAAs we, including the two staff members were unsure of it it really was a rule break.

I wasn't spouting on about how I knew every rule, it was me saying "I read the rules and I don't see anything specific regarding a situation similar to this." No admin knew if it was RDM, its why UA was called and when called they did agree, cops can place players under FearRP. The actual player who called the sit, went to even butt their video and cut the part of me being within touchign distance of them, at gunpoint. Which you found, later on.

.

TL;DR. All of us (Me, you, Poision) were unsure so we had to get UA to determine if it was a rulebreak, UA agreed it was RDM but also agreed the player broke FearRP. I thought because they broke FearRP, I could engage, I did not know it would be RDM. There isn't a defintive rule for this situation, which is why I am apologizing, as I was unsure but did make sure to read the rules before I did play.

**darkfire** · 12-07-2023, 11:44 AM

That was not how it went. UA joined and agreed you can not do what you did. In no way does this situation result in the need to kill a man showing no aggression to you. Yes he had a gun on his back but that does not mean shoot first instead of going non lethal (which is in your SOP). As for saying we were unsure about the RDM is not true either. Non of us called for UA they just made an appearance on their own terms. The clip provided by the other individual showed you running up to him and giving him a lawful order while he didn't have a weapon out to then you shoot him down classic NYPD style. Reduction by a few days sure but regardless you continuing to think you didn't do the wrong action is the issue at hand. Learn from this experience and come on back.

**ayo**

(12-07-2023, 11:44 AM)darkfire Wrote: That was not how it went. UA joined and agreed you can not do what you did. In no way does this situation result in the need to kill a man showing no aggression to you. Yes he had a gun on his back but that does not mean shoot first instead of going non lethal (which is in your SOP). As for saying we were unsure about the RDM is not true either. Non of us called for UA they just made an appearance on their own terms. The clip provided by the other individual showed you running up to him and giving him a lawful order while he didn't have a weapon out to then you shoot him down classic NYPD style. Reduction by a few days sure but regardless you continuing to think you didn't do the wrong action is the issue at hand. Learn from this experience and come on back.

UA agreed that the player still broke FearRP, which is what I am saying.

Yes, I am asking for the reduction for that reason. I did not know what I did was wrong at the time, but I know now. I acknowledge what I did wasn't within the rules, but during the incident I didn't know which is why I am not disputing what I did, but apologizing because I do see that what I did was wrong.

**Rem**

Gino Lombardi ! ! !

Your ban appeal has been reviewed and accepted.

The ban will be reduced to 1 day.