Denied Rhodes LeBlanc PK Appeal

[LyingFox]

The GM observing the scene affirmed in my DMs (I insisted they speak here but they refused because they want to avoid getting involved after a bout of trouble given to him by Nath and Badger).

Mind you he was also a part of the original scene prior to my murder, active on his character which was involved with cartel affairs.

View attachment 52689

Hello, I’ll speak here one last time as to add-on to this.


I was asked by Heafustus in my Discord DMs if I could get on the server to overlook something that required a GM — Of course, it being my group, and assuming it was just something small, I agreed.


I wanted to do something ICLY first — that being to just get some food, since I was pretty hungry at the time, I walk into where everyone was and saw this big meeting.


I walk over, I give a PM to Heafustus asking if this was it, he said yes, my character walks to the back room of the area where a bathroom is just so I can GM the scene without just teleporting away — I did NOT know ICly or OOCLY of what was going to happen, nor what the conversation was of the meeting until later on.


Heafustus asks for a PK Auth — I ask in game master chat what exactly was needed for a PK, and what the route for getting one would be, I was told by at least two different people in Gamemaster chat that as long as they had valid reason, I could auth a PK.


Heafestus gave me the reasoning, which I deemed fit, as it was regarding a power struggle between groups and in the end, I agreed with the reasoning, and authorized it. (later on, Orlock, on behalf of Badger and Nath told me otherwise.)


Later on through, what I can only describe as the worst LOOC discussion and roleplay of a PK, Halo’s character was getting pushed back into a room where my character, ICly was — As a GM, I of course, didn’t want to go ahead and just fight him, since it would be unfair; instead, I offered him a hostage of my character — Sadly, I had to go for work, which cut it short.


Muho was the overseeing Admin and Gamemaster.

 

[Hefestus]

Hello everyone!

Vasil Shuka here, taking the stand for a short while, to try and alleviate some of the damage done by the lack of context being provided on my part, as being the main guy who was handling the PK Authentication application.

To begin, I'd like to preface that a lot of the issues that have come with the validity of the PK Authentication were due to my own failure of filing in the application in a timely manner. The short time frame, coupled with my inexperience/lack of knowledge (though not voiding me of the responsibility thereof), led to me having to hack-job a PK Application right as the preparations for the encounter beginning had been laid in place. In this instance, I had contacted a GM via `!ahelp` for some help with this entire endeavour and was waiting for a response. In that time, @LyingFox had also been present, and I decided that I'd ask him too for clarification on the PK Authentication process.

Now, I want it to be fully clear, that while @LyingFox was the one who granted me the authentication, he was not the only GM present for that encounter. Had he not been there, I would have got my application from Muho instead. In addition, the liability that has been handed out to @LyingFox feels a bit unfairly placed, especially considering that I am still a person with the ability of common sense, and should have ample responsibility of handling the process of a PK Authentication in a seamless and timely manner, such that we do not get situations like these for all parties involved.

And one more thing, I want everyone involved in this discussion, staff and player alike, to completely ignore the fact that @LyingFox was a GM to an encounter that involved a group that he is a part of. The reason why I want this to be the case, is that you can observe in the entirety of the entire one hour and half long video that I had recorded, wherein @LyingFox showcases complete and total impartiality to the "antagonist" party against his group, with great examples such as:

1. Giving the character of Rhodes counter-attacks to level out the 1 vs. 6 encounter into being more balanced.
2. Allowing the character of Rhodes to get a one-shot PK (wasn't one due to complete and utter luck) on my character.
3. Granting himself as hostage to the player of Rhodes, since he was being cornered where his character would be IC.

This fact is not opposed by any of the parties involved. Even @Halostrophe ought to agree that @LyingFox was way more impartial to him. Should he not, I believe that there are a few logs lying around that would prove otherwise. As such, I implore all staff to completely ignore this factoid, as per all the examples presented here, that factoid cannot bear any fruit to any possible accusation of unfair partisanship.

In the end, I want people of the community to be left with this: the duty of the GM is to guide roleplay situations of players v. player confusion/conflict, with the intent of finding a solution/ending, wherein both parties find themselves decidedly happy with the end-result. While @LyingFox may have failed in his duty to uphold clear and concise authorisations for a PK (which would've still been quite hard in the position I had put him in), he has undoubtedly tried his damned hardest to manage and guide an encounter that is as balanced as possible. He showcased complete impartiality in the encounter and even granted boons to the party in difficulty when it was not expected of him. Even if the end result of that encounter has now become this thread, that is merely an issue that we players bear the responsibility of, rather than the GMs involved which tried to remediate it. Furthermore, the issue of the PK Authorisation should bear significantly more liability on me, for not upholding my responsibility of being a player in the community and needing to know what the rules of said community entail, in detail.

Ok, I am done. Can we now please wait for Robert to send the timeline of events so we can deal with the actual problem, rather than who authorised what?

 

[Robert]

Hello,

After re-reviewing the facts there was a minor misunderstanding on my end during the initial review where a message, or well PM from a player to another player was mis-read as meta when it was really just a S2RP clarification on what 2 characters were already doing to ensure there is 0 confusion on whose turn was whose.

For future note in this regard to all who read this, please ensure such clarification messages are kept in LOOC for all to see- can even refer to people by IC or OOC name in short-form if need be- or however you may think would best get the person needing said clarification during S2RP to see your message.

PMs can easily sully the situation as some can be misread / misinterpreted as meta completely by accident like what happened with me in the initial review phase.

Silly me but being honest, was confused when I first read it.

---

As for the PK itself, the decision made is that we will be DENYING the appeal on the grounds that:
- Q1 of the PK rulings are validated, at least 2 players involved had and possessed valid PK/Kill reasons against Rhodes, just 1 is enough.
- Q2 of the PK rulings are also satisfied as no rule breaks, exploits or any other sussy behavior had occurred leading to the PK.

While some invalid reasons for the killing are certainly mixed into this PK, the reasons we have reviewed for the killings and some stated in this very thread just recently, have also been deemed valid under the Q1 section of the Policy.

Thus meaning the since all conditions are indeed verified and fit the criteria necessary to perform this PK- the PK shall stay intact as is.

Thanks,
- Rob