Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • PLEASE PAY ATTTENTION

    Before making complaint with a prefix for curator of the project please read these rules.
    1. Make complaint only in case if you already posted for high admins and they did not help you.
    2. Complaints for curator of the project ONLY for management level complaints. You can't appeal your warning or 7 days ban. You can appeal only permanent or long-term bans.

    Thank you for attention! (c) Mazhor Pluxury
Rejected
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your ID
144449
Players nickname
Shadow_Rahul
Administrators nickname
Bobby_Pluxury
Date
Sep 27, 2025
Time
11:01
Proofs
https://youtu.be/l98jGEQNBs4

LazyRahul

Player
Player
Joined
Sep 23, 2025
Messages
3
I am respectfully submitting this formal appeal to challenge the Chief Administrator's recent ruling regarding my penalty for GZ 1.3 (Leaving RP situation by joining a green zone).

The Chief Administrator's ruling was: "No such thing as you can leave when being surrounded by criminals!"

While I respect the Administrator's authority in defining an active threat, I believe this interpretation of the rule creates a direct contradiction with mandatory roleplay initiation protocols set forth in the General Rules.



The Contradiction with General Rule 6.15​



My initial appeal was based on the fact that the aggressors failed to issue a clear, verbal demand to me.

  • General Rule 6.15 explicitly requires aggressors operating outside of the Ghetto to "issue them demands" and allow "5 seconds" for the victim to respond before escalating to violence. This rule establishes the necessary verbal component for RP initiation.
  • The ruling essentially states that the visual act of being surrounded is sufficient to lock the victim into the RP, thereby making the aggressor's obligation under GR 6.15 (issuing demands) optional.
  • By making the mandatory demand optional, the ruling removes my ability, as the victim, to utilize General Rule 1.12 (which prevents killing a person who complies with demands).
I was penalized for moving to a safe zone because the aggressors had not yet fulfilled their mandatory RP requirement to initiate the scenario properly. I was not trying to escape a completed situation, but rather moving from an uninitiated threat.

I respectfully request that a supervising administrator review the evidence provided below and clarify that aggressors must still adhere to GR 6.15 to establish a valid, lock-in RP scenario, thus confirming that my GZ 1.3 penalty was incorrectly applied.

Thank you kindly for taking the time to review this matter.
 

Bobby Pluxury

Chief Administrator
Chief Administrator
Joined
May 18, 2021
Messages
26,010
Further spam of appeals will lead to forum punishments, answers clear, do not make your own rules and follow the rules, you are in the ghetto!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom