- Joined
- Dec 9, 2021
- Messages
- 140
- Thread Author
- #1
Steam/Character: Tsunami | C24:CpT.VICE-003
Staff Member Involved: Cengiz | Other Moderators
Date of Incident: 8-23-25
Reason for Appeal: Contesting Power gaming Warning | Defining Power game Action over Literature Mis-Verbiage
Context:
During the PCS-3 checkpoint scene involving Beanz PK Appeal, I was conducting an in-character evaluation of lower intention units (i5 UNION-550, i5 PATROL-932, and i4 PATROL-324). The purpose of the scene was to push loyalty, FearRP, and cohesion among units under my command.
Throughout the interaction:
UNION-550 was questioned extensively about his loyalties and relationships.
PATROL-932 was ordered to shoot 550, but refused — which I allowed. She emoted defiance and I escalated by firing a non-lethal shot into her Kevlar, which she roleplayed accordingly.
PATROL-324 was then given the same order. She directly refused, and escalated the refusal by stating:
“Cut the bullshit, Captain. This is boring now.”
This was said while I had a magnum aimed at her head. From my perspective, that was a direct break of FearRP. I escalated accordingly and fired a shot at her head.
The Issue
The warning I received was for “power gaming.” The specific line in question was my emote:
“shooting you through your mask in attempt to kill you on the spot. You may make a final action before dying.”
I see now why this raised concern. My wording suggested a guaranteed outcome, and I should have phrased it as:
“firing a lethal shot toward your mask/head.” This is a mistake that I'm willing to accept, that this singular line, if taken out of context, could be viewed as attempted power gaming.
The question is, was this truly a malicious intent or bad faith to power game the character into a situation that was unrealistic or forced. I can't understate that this was definitely not the case. If the moderation team could kindly consider all the included /me's that allowed for action, took into account the time between the actions and the open playability by every player, this line alone feels of a far reach to call the situation "A power gamed situation"
If the wording in this singular line was different as I described, which I agree, is a mistake, this would’ve left the result open to rolls, GM intervention, or player response. I do believe regardless of that, the outcome was already decided by the other parties involved, as they were given a number of opportunities to resist or comply with my orders before the final blow was delivered.
My Position
I don’t deny the phrasing issue. I can see how it looked like I was dictating the result instead of attempting an action. And I feel that if the singular line is taken out of context of the entire event, I can absolutely understand how the reviewing moderators would find this particular final sentence, to be that of power game. I was simply trying to provide a warning of the intent to allow the receiving party to react in a realistic manner.
The build-up was fair. I gave both 932 and 324 multiple opportunities to react, emote, or refuse the Captain’s orders. They had full agency to roleplay fear, hesitation, or compliance.
324 dismissed FearRP. Her line, “this is boring now”, while staring down a magnum, completely disregarded the in-character gravity of the situation. That dismissal directly contributed to why the encountered elevated to a lethal shot.
The execution wasn’t random. This is a series of events that built and built and built over a set period of time.
Moving Forward
I’m not appealing to erase my responsibility. I’ll own that my emote should have been written differently. In the future, I will:
Use phrasing that frames actions as attempts rather than guaranteed outcomes.
Allow staff/rolls to finalize lethal actions rather than my emote text.
Encourage RP tension without crossing into perceived “forced outcomes.”
Proof of Context | Play by Play breakdown of the time lapse and content that needs to be reviewed before being certain about ill intention.
Additional context showing the intent to provide all surrounding parties with time, and reasonable space to react.
This could be considered a clerical mistake, as I was trying to provide the receiving party with the intention of what the bullet would do. With my intentions on the table, I finished the statement with "You may react BEFORE being shot"
In my mind at the time, I was allowing for the receiving party to respond before the outcome I've displayed occurred. This was my full intention.
The action that took place before the bullet was shot by 932:
- In this example you can see clearly, that during the time frame allotted to the player to react, they instead, respectfully, chose to deal with the realism of the situation, and by constructing this /me, they provided me consent to begin shooting and delivering the intent of my original /me.
This is the moment that I moved my firearm over to 324. At this point in the dialog, and pay attention to the amount of time passing by. Place yourself in the scenario and see the situation at hand. Everything beyond 1:59 is open grounds for any level of resistance, or action. Which in this event, I would have respected the outcome of.
Time continues to pass. We are not passing through the minutes, all of which the surrounding units yielded to me, the weapon wielder, which I think is a responsible way to handle being held at gun point. None the less, they had the option to resist or comply at all times.
I offered Beanz in particular, viewable by the screen shots above, two reasonable attempts to depict their resistance, or compliance. In both instance, two for two, 324 decided to says "Cut the bull shit captain, this is boring now." - "No I'm not shooting him."
This is the money shot. Remember, before this /me was written, I want to put on the table what kind of events / chances have already passed.
- 932's reaction came above. The moment I withdrew the pistol, I was laying out intention to utilize the weapon if demands had not been met. This is warning 1.
- 932 became shot after depicting their own reaction to the bullet as per their choice. They had their opportunity to resist, and instead, with their own fingers, they wrote out a /me expressing being shot, which then allowed me to take my actual shot in game. This is warning 2. The shot only followed their granted permission by the /me.
- The gun was then pointed at 324. Aimed at their face as a 3rd level of warnings elevated.
- "Are you willing to gamble it" as the gun is in her face. Her response - "Cut the bull shit captain, this is boring now.", which I find to be direct conflict of FearRP, that's besides the point. This person has made it known now that their intention is not to comply, and that they have no intention to resist. Warning 4.
- I'm giving you an order. Shoot 550 in the chest. "No, I'm not shooting him." As I attempted to gather a now, 5th warning that a bullet was going to come out of this gun. At this point, I felt there would be no reasonable way to move forward other than lowering my firearm and saying "Oh, never mind then 324, you just do what you want to do" This obviously isn't realistic and I had no choice but to commit.
But before committing, I wrote this final, fatal /me. A 6th warning of intention. And it reads as follows:
/me points the gun directly at your face, shooting through your mask in an attempt to kill you on the spot. You may make a final action before dying.
This is following the 6th warning that there was intention fire this weapon. I had proof that I would fire the weapon having already shot the other unit. The gun in their face. And the /me states clearly "Before Dying". This is complicated, and oversight on my part, but the INTENTION of the "BEFORE DYING" comment was to give the same level of respect I did in the EARLIER /me, which was depicting the intent of the bullet BEFORE it happened.
But instead of taking this final, generous, 6th warning and full intent to fire, instead of resisting, I was presented a /me, which I felt gave me permission to continue as I had depicted the bullet. 324 states:
324 wrote a /me, that depicted what happened to her. Not the other way around. By making the statement that she /me "Gets shot in the face" You can see here that the player has now CHOSEN to paint their picture of their own death. ONLY AFTER this was granted to me, did I pull the trigger.
Closing
I respectfully request that the power gaming warning on my permanent record be reviewed, with consideration of the full scene context and the FearRP breach that played into it.
Even if the warning isn’t removed, I’d appreciate if the staff team could acknowledge that this was not malicious powergaming — it was an issue of wording and presentation, not intent, or bad faith.
The facts:
- I had permission of all players in the face of their allotted decision making, and only acted once I had their detailed /me's in possession with actually firing on them. I did not fire on them before they depicted their own demise in the /me's. This lead me to believe I had their explicit permission and fair input before doing such acts. Power gaming warns in my opinion, should be saved for situations in which a player receives ZERO consent of the other player, forcing them into an unrealistic action.
- I am willing to admit and adapt to the fact that the verbiage used in my language certified a grey area that the "Outcome was already decided", the reality is, the intent of the first action player has to be considered fully by the receiving party so that they could respond appropriately.
The opinion:
- I fear that during this scene, the units at hand did not understand that by the time it elevated to 324, that the intended outcome would be death. I solely made this so clear with my intentions in the /me, in an attempt to provide a warning to Beanz that this was not a game and that the bullet following would be of lethal intent.
Your honorable Willard Administration, I hope that you will review this warn with all the compiled context on the table, and see that Ole Tsunami had no intention of power gaming. I was explaining the intent of my actions and only acted once the receiving party gave me permission to continue. If the warn may not be abolished, I would at least appreciate the staff acknowledging that this was not done in malicious intent, rather, a problem in the verbiage used in the sentence, which is a correctable behavior.
Staff Member Involved: Cengiz | Other Moderators
Date of Incident: 8-23-25
Reason for Appeal: Contesting Power gaming Warning | Defining Power game Action over Literature Mis-Verbiage
Context:
During the PCS-3 checkpoint scene involving Beanz PK Appeal, I was conducting an in-character evaluation of lower intention units (i5 UNION-550, i5 PATROL-932, and i4 PATROL-324). The purpose of the scene was to push loyalty, FearRP, and cohesion among units under my command.
Throughout the interaction:
UNION-550 was questioned extensively about his loyalties and relationships.
PATROL-932 was ordered to shoot 550, but refused — which I allowed. She emoted defiance and I escalated by firing a non-lethal shot into her Kevlar, which she roleplayed accordingly.
PATROL-324 was then given the same order. She directly refused, and escalated the refusal by stating:
“Cut the bullshit, Captain. This is boring now.”
This was said while I had a magnum aimed at her head. From my perspective, that was a direct break of FearRP. I escalated accordingly and fired a shot at her head.
The Issue
The warning I received was for “power gaming.” The specific line in question was my emote:
“shooting you through your mask in attempt to kill you on the spot. You may make a final action before dying.”
I see now why this raised concern. My wording suggested a guaranteed outcome, and I should have phrased it as:
“firing a lethal shot toward your mask/head.” This is a mistake that I'm willing to accept, that this singular line, if taken out of context, could be viewed as attempted power gaming.
The question is, was this truly a malicious intent or bad faith to power game the character into a situation that was unrealistic or forced. I can't understate that this was definitely not the case. If the moderation team could kindly consider all the included /me's that allowed for action, took into account the time between the actions and the open playability by every player, this line alone feels of a far reach to call the situation "A power gamed situation"
If the wording in this singular line was different as I described, which I agree, is a mistake, this would’ve left the result open to rolls, GM intervention, or player response. I do believe regardless of that, the outcome was already decided by the other parties involved, as they were given a number of opportunities to resist or comply with my orders before the final blow was delivered.
My Position
I don’t deny the phrasing issue. I can see how it looked like I was dictating the result instead of attempting an action. And I feel that if the singular line is taken out of context of the entire event, I can absolutely understand how the reviewing moderators would find this particular final sentence, to be that of power game. I was simply trying to provide a warning of the intent to allow the receiving party to react in a realistic manner.
The build-up was fair. I gave both 932 and 324 multiple opportunities to react, emote, or refuse the Captain’s orders. They had full agency to roleplay fear, hesitation, or compliance.
324 dismissed FearRP. Her line, “this is boring now”, while staring down a magnum, completely disregarded the in-character gravity of the situation. That dismissal directly contributed to why the encountered elevated to a lethal shot.
The execution wasn’t random. This is a series of events that built and built and built over a set period of time.
Moving Forward
I’m not appealing to erase my responsibility. I’ll own that my emote should have been written differently. In the future, I will:
Use phrasing that frames actions as attempts rather than guaranteed outcomes.
Allow staff/rolls to finalize lethal actions rather than my emote text.
Encourage RP tension without crossing into perceived “forced outcomes.”
Proof of Context | Play by Play breakdown of the time lapse and content that needs to be reviewed before being certain about ill intention.
Additional context showing the intent to provide all surrounding parties with time, and reasonable space to react.
This could be considered a clerical mistake, as I was trying to provide the receiving party with the intention of what the bullet would do. With my intentions on the table, I finished the statement with "You may react BEFORE being shot"
In my mind at the time, I was allowing for the receiving party to respond before the outcome I've displayed occurred. This was my full intention.
The action that took place before the bullet was shot by 932:
- In this example you can see clearly, that during the time frame allotted to the player to react, they instead, respectfully, chose to deal with the realism of the situation, and by constructing this /me, they provided me consent to begin shooting and delivering the intent of my original /me.
This is the moment that I moved my firearm over to 324. At this point in the dialog, and pay attention to the amount of time passing by. Place yourself in the scenario and see the situation at hand. Everything beyond 1:59 is open grounds for any level of resistance, or action. Which in this event, I would have respected the outcome of.
Time continues to pass. We are not passing through the minutes, all of which the surrounding units yielded to me, the weapon wielder, which I think is a responsible way to handle being held at gun point. None the less, they had the option to resist or comply at all times.
I offered Beanz in particular, viewable by the screen shots above, two reasonable attempts to depict their resistance, or compliance. In both instance, two for two, 324 decided to says "Cut the bull shit captain, this is boring now." - "No I'm not shooting him."
This is the money shot. Remember, before this /me was written, I want to put on the table what kind of events / chances have already passed.
- 932's reaction came above. The moment I withdrew the pistol, I was laying out intention to utilize the weapon if demands had not been met. This is warning 1.
- 932 became shot after depicting their own reaction to the bullet as per their choice. They had their opportunity to resist, and instead, with their own fingers, they wrote out a /me expressing being shot, which then allowed me to take my actual shot in game. This is warning 2. The shot only followed their granted permission by the /me.
- The gun was then pointed at 324. Aimed at their face as a 3rd level of warnings elevated.
- "Are you willing to gamble it" as the gun is in her face. Her response - "Cut the bull shit captain, this is boring now.", which I find to be direct conflict of FearRP, that's besides the point. This person has made it known now that their intention is not to comply, and that they have no intention to resist. Warning 4.
- I'm giving you an order. Shoot 550 in the chest. "No, I'm not shooting him." As I attempted to gather a now, 5th warning that a bullet was going to come out of this gun. At this point, I felt there would be no reasonable way to move forward other than lowering my firearm and saying "Oh, never mind then 324, you just do what you want to do" This obviously isn't realistic and I had no choice but to commit.
But before committing, I wrote this final, fatal /me. A 6th warning of intention. And it reads as follows:
/me points the gun directly at your face, shooting through your mask in an attempt to kill you on the spot. You may make a final action before dying.
This is following the 6th warning that there was intention fire this weapon. I had proof that I would fire the weapon having already shot the other unit. The gun in their face. And the /me states clearly "Before Dying". This is complicated, and oversight on my part, but the INTENTION of the "BEFORE DYING" comment was to give the same level of respect I did in the EARLIER /me, which was depicting the intent of the bullet BEFORE it happened.
But instead of taking this final, generous, 6th warning and full intent to fire, instead of resisting, I was presented a /me, which I felt gave me permission to continue as I had depicted the bullet. 324 states:
324 wrote a /me, that depicted what happened to her. Not the other way around. By making the statement that she /me "Gets shot in the face" You can see here that the player has now CHOSEN to paint their picture of their own death. ONLY AFTER this was granted to me, did I pull the trigger.
Closing
I respectfully request that the power gaming warning on my permanent record be reviewed, with consideration of the full scene context and the FearRP breach that played into it.
Even if the warning isn’t removed, I’d appreciate if the staff team could acknowledge that this was not malicious powergaming — it was an issue of wording and presentation, not intent, or bad faith.
The facts:
- I had permission of all players in the face of their allotted decision making, and only acted once I had their detailed /me's in possession with actually firing on them. I did not fire on them before they depicted their own demise in the /me's. This lead me to believe I had their explicit permission and fair input before doing such acts. Power gaming warns in my opinion, should be saved for situations in which a player receives ZERO consent of the other player, forcing them into an unrealistic action.
- I am willing to admit and adapt to the fact that the verbiage used in my language certified a grey area that the "Outcome was already decided", the reality is, the intent of the first action player has to be considered fully by the receiving party so that they could respond appropriately.
The opinion:
- I fear that during this scene, the units at hand did not understand that by the time it elevated to 324, that the intended outcome would be death. I solely made this so clear with my intentions in the /me, in an attempt to provide a warning to Beanz that this was not a game and that the bullet following would be of lethal intent.
Your honorable Willard Administration, I hope that you will review this warn with all the compiled context on the table, and see that Ole Tsunami had no intention of power gaming. I was explaining the intent of my actions and only acted once the receiving party gave me permission to continue. If the warn may not be abolished, I would at least appreciate the staff acknowledging that this was not done in malicious intent, rather, a problem in the verbiage used in the sentence, which is a correctable behavior.
Last edited:
