(Unfortunately, above post submitted before I had finished pasting, and I can't edit, so continued below).
QUESTION TWO: Is there any evidence that I intended to not follow the rules, at any time?
I would argue that not only is there no evidence I intended to break any rules, but in fact there is evidence the actions I did were done so very reluctantly. The prime example of this is when I asked permission from CIC to escalate ("can I shoot"). And the reply jumped that "BE is authorized".
If we accept that there was no intent to break the rules. Why is this nuance not indicated in the note? Indeed the note can be read as making it sound like I dishonestly indicated I was shot at. Consider a future staff member reading that report, against the evidence here - how would they perceive what is written in the note, against what actually happened?
QUESTION THREE: Is the note itself an accurate representation of what occurred, and what (if any) rules were broken.
Breaking the note down for consideration:
This is not an accurate representation for what happened according to the evidence. The logs, and discussion, all confirm that the PO shot the DCC dead after being issued an order from the XO. Whether that order was unlawful, is immaterial to the fact that statement is factually incorrect. The disarming of the player was only casually related, in that it occurred. The source of shooting the DCC dead was the order from the XO.As PO, shot a DCC dead in the Alamo after they started disarming the player
[QUOTE]no escalation was followed/quote]
I would find it unfair to consider that the constant plea for MP, command, as well as many verbal threats about what was supposed to happen count as proper escalation. I am not a combative person, and my role as PO was not a combative one. I don't play with a good ping so I generally pick support roles. I didn't want a physical escalation, and I think it is clear from the logs that I tried desperately for some time to resolve the issue without any violence at all. To call this lack of any escalation is grossly unfair.
I believe the discussions with the staff member from the witnesses backup the logs, which is that the weapon went off while I was being disarmed. It is absolutely reasonable that, in the confusion, and not knowing this edge case - that I would assume I had been shot.claimed that the DCC shot at them with a gun but both witnesses the player provided claimed they did not see the DCC shoot at the PO
REQUEST: Logs between the witness(es) and the Admin This is because we have only seen a specific excerpt of the logs to present a very specific viewpoint (did the DCC shoot the PO?). I accept I was mistaken in thinking I was shot. I think the evidence supports this in the logs, and I think the evidence from the witnesses will back that up.
I think it would be a good rule to consider that admins, when wanting to make evidentiary statements from individuals to support an accusation, provide all their communications with witnesses in the interests of discovery. This has a long precedent in the real world for good reason. Given the power an admin has, both in their ability to directly message others as well as give punishment - an admin can keep asking questions till they get the answer they want, but exclude answers which might be exculpatory.
Under the rule set forth in Brady v. Maryland, the prosecutor is obligated to provide to the defendant any information that is exculpatory or potentially exculpatory, without any request by the defense. While it might seem odd to quote this, it really does cut to the heart of justice. Do we want admins and moderators to be able to message anyone and keep asking till they get the answer they want?
I think before any determination is made, we should see the complete message logs between the referenced admin and the witnesses in this matter.
