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