Players Warned:bd]-Ryu.Okamura, bd]-Muramoto.Tenshin

[Implosion]

bd]-Ryu.Okamura,
bd]-Muramoto.Tenshin have not been warned for:

4.2 Demands should be reasonable and only one monetary or cargo demand can be issued during each piracy interaction.

Consequences:

Officially warned. You can issue only one demand per encounter. Getting someone to drop his cargo and then proceeding to make another demand is a big no-no.

---

Original Link for GM/Mod Use | Discovery Server & Forums Rules | Before You Post Here

---

If you require evidence, you may request such via PM from a Staff member. Only the accused or an official faction leader of the accused person's faction may request such. Once you have the evidence, and if you wish to dispute it, you may post in the Sanction Thread below. Do not continue PM'ing a staff member, as that will result in your Appeal being denied. If you PM a staff or post in the sanction thread and you are not directly involved, you are consenting to be subjected to the reprisal of my choice which may involve in game repercussions up to a ban. Blaming members of your immediate family, neighbors, friends, pets, and assorted Orcs, Trolls and any other legendary creatures may result in the use of GM Right #CTE 750AE

---

| [Youtube Channel] | [Daniels] [X] [X]  | [Jessica Scarlet] |

[Muramoto]

Evidence pls.

[Muramoto]

Evidence received. Only one monetary or cargo demand was made.

[Implosion]

Evidence received. Only one monetary or cargo demand was made.

And then another demand was issued to the transport. He was ordered to proceed on impulse. Upon attempting to cruise, they were disrupted. Did they not comply with the original demand? Of course they did, but they were not let go as per the rules. Not only this is unreasonable, but it's a clever attempt to bypass the rules by exploiting their wording. Nice try, though.

---

| [Youtube Channel] | [Daniels] [X] [X]  | [Jessica Scarlet] |

[Muramoto]

I guess you read the whole logs as this solely was a roleplay consequence being impolite towards us. Also, show me the rules that I cannot enforce roleplay consequences after someone complying to a demand. If this is unacceptable please update the rules as your wording is quite clear in this case and not warning people from something imaginary because someone doesn't like roleplay consequences.

"4.2 Demands should be reasonable and only one monetary or cargo demand can be issued during each piracy interaction."

As per my opinion enforcing roleplay consequences upon someone who was very sassy all the time is not a violation of the rules.

[Okamura]

The person concerned with the sanction supra, namely the UN transport who I will hereinafter refer to as the complainant, has filed a report on the basis of us supposedly issuing two demands. I'll contest this on the basis of the following:

1) The Complainant was given ample time to leave, he chose to idle near the gate and continue with what can be interpreted as border-line oorp taunting which not only makes fun of Kusarian culture but also Japanese culture. Do this to someone with a gun and the ability to kill you and the consequences are obvious.

2) Telling someone that they can leave is not a demand. Every transport is expected to leave the area after a successful and compliant piracy encounter. Their loitering usually isn't appreciated. Why did the complainant not leave? What was stopping him at the gate? Why persist in mockery?

3) Are we to understand from this that the staff is in the business of policing the roleplay consequences against people whom act too big for their breeches in a situation where consequences both can and do make perfect sense? Being interrogated by a faction that doesn't converse with yours regularly and then being met with nothing but disrespect is a direct path to consequence. If after the consequence the complainant feels so wronged so as to be entitled to insult the person that just enforced consequences on them, is it not justified to apply further consequence? After-all this is a roleplay server. A pirate taking your money or cargo and then giving you the chance to leave should be taken at face-value, and not taken for granted by the rules and used as a shield for bad attitude. This would prove aggravating to the pirate.

4) The staff shouldn't deal in vague interpretations of reasonableness, an extent of tolerance should by all means be written but not selectively applied according to the preferences of the staff. By that I mean that the attitude of the complainant wasn't reasonable either, yet it was allowed to occur because of the spirit of roleplay and met with a roleplay consequence. If this is contrary to staff policy, then the "Roleplay" appendage to the server listing should be removed.

5) Please direct your attention to this, you have most noticeably neglected their implications in the processing of this violation report.

-- Game Masters are obliged:
>To develop and safeguard the health of the Discovery Freelancer community, official server, and forums.
>To be fair and treat all players equally, independent of their level and faction alignment.
>Not to mix server roleplaying with server administration in any way.

Thank you.

[Implosion]

Right, first of all, this will be reviewed with the newly received evidence/statements, which unfortunately, cannot be backed by any proof.
Now, lets move to the text in red.
1: exactly what we are trying to do.
2: you were not treated unfairly. This is a very minor warning as a result of you issuing a second minor demand.
3: this is irrelevant. We did not mix roleplay in administrating. I'm not even sure understand the meaning of this rule.

---

| [Youtube Channel] | [Daniels] [X] [X]  | [Jessica Scarlet] |

[Okamura]

Right, first of all, this will be reviewed with the newly received evidence/statements, which unfortunately, cannot be backed by any proof.(NANI?!)
Now, lets move to the text in red.
1: exactly what we are trying to do.
2: you were not treated unfairly. This is a very minor warning as a result of you issuing a second minor demand.
3: this is irrelevant. We did not mix roleplay in administrating. I'm not even sure understand the meaning of this rule.

1. It's what you're supposed to do, but you haven't done it. This is a revenge sanction because someone's bad attitude elicited a roleplay consequence and instead of giving them a stern warning for such behaviour, you've instead chosen to encourage that type of behaviour by processing a motivated violation report without proper investigation.

2. We haven't been treated unfairly, but you haven't treated us equally. See the above.

3. Your job is to ensure the smooth functioning of the roleplay environment. The rule means that your job and its implications and rules must always serve the roleplay enviroment and never be used as a tool of arbitrary application. Yet you've admitted your own ignorance of the implication of this very crucial sentence. You've processed a motivated report and mixed administration with the flow of roleplay by warning us for slapping someone on the wrist for bad behaviour. And before you even think about suggesting it, no I have no interest in trying to sanction the other person. This is a roleplay server, his character is free to insult mine but likewise I am free to punish him for it within the scope of my ID rules. If I wanted to finagle with technicalities, I'd be focused on my day-job. It's extremely poor form, for you an administrator, to say that you don't understand one of the rules that you are supposed to follow.
I wanted to walk away from this with faith that you were committed and thorough with your own established procedures, but you've instead given me doubts. I don't think you're the devil because of this but you've lost my faith.

Thank you for your time, this is my final response. Repeal this warning or do not, that's up to you, I will go back to trying to salvage my immersion while everyone else entitles themselves to protection from consequences for bad behaviour. The team has made their support for behaviour such as this very clear in its authoritarian approach to faction diplomacy. Refer to the Custodi and Unioner incident as a relevant precedent of just how far the team is violating its own mandate. This game is no one person's sandbox, we'd all appreciate it not being treated as such.

Thank you for your time again.