Schnitzel <3 100 Agave & (trial mod) Machinekiller00

Name of Staff/Player: See title.

SteamID of Staff/Player: nfi.

Server: West2 / Tower map (the one on the roof tops - dont recall the name off the top of my head.)

Time of Occurrence: Around 11pm server time I believe (hard to tell when I live in Australia.)

Reason For Report: Fail to slay user: rynow / gave a very weak and unprofessional response.

On my T round, I climbed the far single tower. on the second level I purchased the Dragunov Sniper. I continued to break the window/glass in front of me, making sure to not have my crosshair over another player while doing so. (I remember seeing Mr.Lootings vid/report a week or so ago so always when I do this I make sure to stay away from others when breaking glass). I then got snipped from afar via rynow across the other side of the map. I filed a report and awaited a response.
A few moments later Machinekiller00 stated he was reviewing the report. A round or so later and I hear no response, I enquire and get Schnitzel <3 100 Agave repsonse stating "You shot 2 seconds before he killed you" and that "you had the Tratior weapon out..." which was followed up by "...which he prob saw"

Now I understand if he did indeed see my T weapon to reply in the report about such things... naturally if you kill a T and he reports you, you explain your reason for killing him right? so if it was indeed a seen T weapon, it would of been stated.
As for I shot 2 seconds before being killed... it was still no where in any players direction and it was to break the glass from inside the tower... (just like in MrLootings video he posted). I don't record like he seems to, but as no damage was indicated in the logs, and it was a single shot the whole case of "traitor baiting" seems very very slim.

The main reason behind this post/report is to notify said mods about the whole "he prob saw" comment I recieved... as mods you can't just assume players see things... unless it was stated by a reply naturally.
Please make sure this lazy comment/responce doesnt happen in future.
Thank you.

 

@Schnitzel will respond at his earliest convenience.

 

I just want to state that even in this case, unless you have video evidence, this is a word vs word situation. You shot and then the player shot you. Without any hard evidence, there is room for reasonable doubt and no slay would be issued.

 

I understand that point, however I find it flawed to say that without everyone recording their own footage will we never get true results.
Because of this very statement, anyone who discharges their weapons can be shot on site... even if they are trying to kill a known T...
I also know that there is no way to fix this issue and that its a very reoccurring instance.
I am more disappointed at the responses given by the mods. Especially while a trial mod online and in training at the time... thus setting a "standard" of conduct for his/her possible future position.
To imply a player "probably" saw something without any indication given to anyone else is thus putting the reasonable doubt in his corner and giving him the benefit of said doubt.
Something that moderators shouldn't do unless given evidence to back the statement.

I am happy to let the fail to slay rest, because of that issue but would still like the conduct of the moderators in question to be answered for.

 

We, if you have evidence or know a witness of that, it will still be word vs word.

 

Did you shoot the window out using your SVU? If so, it's likely the player who shot you saw your SVU and saw you shoot it.

 

@JAckh45
"Which he prob saw" although this seems unprofessional I was only paraphrasing as the report did not specify, either way, the suspected offender was not going to be slayed. now about the trail mod and setting an example. I do believe this whole conversation was in Private chat so that's discredited there. And your whole point of "Because of this very statement, anyone who discharges their weapons can be shot on site... even if they are trying to kill a known T..." You did shoot, but with a T weapon. No, the player did not mention it in his report. But with further investigating on my part, I found that evidence, it was a Traitor weapon. Think of it as police work, they bring new evidence to cases all the time, and that was mine. So I did not slay because he was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Anyone (except t buddy) could of shot you 2 seconds after you shot the SVU and they would not be slayed because they would not be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is how I explained it to the Trial Mod and if I am wrong by the act of gathering as much evidence as I can for each case, then I will be punished accordingly and answer for what I have done.

-Schnitz

 

"I do believe this whole conversation was in Private chat so that's discredited there."
That is where you are incorrect. While Machinekiller00 responded to me via private message, you however did not. you publicly stated these things in general. I'm sure the chat logs of the incident will show this also.

"Did you shoot the window out using your SVU? If so, it's likely the player who shot you saw your SVU and saw you shoot it."
Again... how can a ruling be based on an assumption? If nothing was stated by the accused that he witnessed a T weapon, then he simply didn't see said weapon. This is the whole point of this report. To give him the benefit of doubt here simply by it being "likely he saw it" is ridiculous. Especially in that map and the area I shot out the window from... it is in shade and under cover. Granted its not impossible to see it, however again, if he didn't say he saw it then he didn't see it.

Also I am happy with him not being slayed now, I see that there is no real way of finding out the truth unless there is more evidence given, something which I cannot provide as I don't record my matches. So I drop that case, as I noted in my previous post. However the fact that no one sees the assumption as a bad mod decision is what worries me. Still I've said my part so if this needs to be closed and processed then so be it. Thank you for your time.

 

He's not giving an assumption in your perceived aspect of it. There's no problem with a staff member speculating about an event after it has already transpired with a decision having been made based off of the reasonable doubt. There was no way a slay would be issued simply with the lack of evidence on your side and it being a word vs word situation. Schnitzel was not saying he would not slay the player based off of the fact that you had out your SVU. He was saying that the player could have also seen that you had out a t weapon; that fact was provided for your convenience to make yourself better.

 

But it had the opposite effect as you saw. I would of accepted the argument of "your word vs his" and let it slide as I have on previous accounts, however that was not what was given to me.
In a game of TTT, where it is a traitorous act to kill on suspicion and assumptions, to then be given a reply that suits the same traits, isn't acceptable.
The response that I was given as to why he was not slain was "he prob saw your SVU". Which isn't evidence and shouldn't be decreed as "law".