All Activity

evil

Your Name: Vent rat (my steam name) SteamID (STEAM_0:X:XXX): STEAM_1:1:736495895 Appeal Type (Apology or Dispute): Apology Which staff member banned you?: TheGamingThomas How long is your ban for?: Permanent Why were you banned?: RDM, Needs extending to Perma according to last note | Multiple POs // Extended to perma via request of original staff member - spiral Why do you deserve to be unbanned?: I’m writing to explain the situation around my ban and clear up what happened. About three weeks ago, I was banned for RDM after an incident during a patrol, and I want to provide some context so you can understand why I acted the way I did. During the patrol, two NSB players were repeatedly harassing our KG group, spamming pictures and refusing to leave when asked multiple times — I’d say it was at least 4 to 7 warnings. After a while, I got frustrated and mentioned to my commanding officer that if they kept it up, I might just have to take action. Unfortunately, after they ignored the warnings, I went ahead and shot both of them. In hindsight, I know I should have handled the situation differently. I acted impulsively rather than reporting it or trying to de-escalate, which led to the RDM. After the incident, we went on with the patrol, collected paychecks, and headed back to base for certs. I understand that this wasn’t the right way to deal with things, and I’ll be more mindful in the future about how to handle similar situations. I’m hoping to get back into the server and play by the rules from here on out. Additional Information: Also i used grammerly so it might have a little bit of AI

Hello, I was the person who approved the PK on you. So to begin with a few things, it started with you insulting the Vice Chancellor and refusing to leave his office. You were suspended for that. You were given a chance to APOLOGISE and keep you job. You refused and called him a retard. You were then fired for calling him a retard. You were then given ANOTHER chance to apologise and bite your tongue and you refused once again. You then AGAIN called him a retard and started to go on about how you were both equals. During this time you then THREATENED a member of NATIONAL HIGH COMMAND by saying things like "The last time someone tried to fire me it didn't end too well" and "prepare for the general conference on July 6th" After all the chances he gave, you then decided to launch a court case on him. The facts are this, 1. You went out of your way to disrespect a member of National High Command 2. You refused every chance he gave you to save your job 3. You then threatened a member of National High Command in multiple occasions 4. After him letting you leave and putting this behind everyone, you launched a court case on him Semantics don't matter in this, you saying he is "Acting like a Retard" doesn't matter, you called a member of National High Command a retard. Saying "The last time someone tried to fire me it didn't end too well" is also a threat, no matter your intention on that. You threatened him, simple. You still called him a retard and disrespected a member of National High Command. The bottom line is you are not untouchable and your superior was the Vice Chancellor directly and he gave you MULTIPLE chances and you spat in his face and threatened him. I will allow @Slugto respond to this appeal as I approved the PK.

You are not framing this correctly again. This is because of what I said, and again, I never said what you claim I did. Even if I have, it does not give you any amount of power to shoot a minister because they tell you the truth. Sure, I could have phrased it in a more polite manner, but the result would have been the same as it had been the other times we told you in that room. Your opinion was incorrect and could have harmed the state if the party had pursued its options. It is my right, as is anyone, if they think they were fired wrongfully, to take it to the courts. If that had not worked, I don't know what would have happened, because we didn't get that far. If you shot me before court. It is not last resort. You didn't even reach the court case. Also, why would I agree to be removed by you if you did it unfairly? No one that I know of would sue their boss for a wrongful termination. You are not the arbiter of the Law. There is not a single Minister I can think of who was shot because they chose to sue for wrongful termination. And again, it is not grief because I refused to accept that you wanted to get rid of me. In all fairness, I would have ten times the amount of grief due to the endless number of things you have done against me, given my side. Yet not a single time did I shoot you because you undermined my office or insulted me. I actively attempted to work with you so it would not happen again. No one insults their entire ministry and refuses to compromise with them, then accuses the other party of not coming to the table. It is laughable to think that you have that opinion. Once more, as I explained, it was not a threat, nor can you view it as one unless you are intellectually disabled. I have explained the meaning in the most precise terms multiple times, yet you have chosen to reinterpret it as a threat, despite never having argued against it before this point. Several people also informed you of why removing me was a "bad idea." So you knew what that meant. Do not beat around the bush and pretend to be ignorant of my statements. You had no right to claim grief or last resort because I came to you numerous times to help and form a positive relationship with you. You adamantly refused to engage in any positive dialogue with me for any reason.

You are trying to make this about you calling me a retard, that is just how the situation started. You calling me a retard is not why you were pk'd, you continue to not acknowledge your actions following this: filing a lawsuit, refusing to leave your position, keeping in uniform until I had to have you forcefully remove it. Anyone else would've been way more unforgiving then I have, you would not attempt this to anyone else, your continued denial of your actions lead to your combativeness and attacking instead of just simply retracting your statement, and moving on, instead you tried to sue me and threaten.

Again didn't call you a retard. Said you were acting like one by refusing to listen to your ministers for the 79th time. I never threatened you. I told you that after you threatened me, I wouldn't have a job. "The last time someone tried to fire me, it didn't end too well." Which would have been a threat if I hadn't followed up after you asked what that meant. The senior co-vice chairman, Kris Christie, defended me in a council meeting after someone else removed me because they attempted to say I wasn't doing anything and that I was useless, as you had said before. I had told you that before. It was a rebuttal to your statement that I was useless, which I wasn't, and it brought up a case that precisely defined that point. Since you said that constantly. I also mentioned that exact phrase several times during your entire tenure as Vice Chancellor. Never once did you call it a threat until now, when I told you what it meant, since you called me useless, worthless, pathetic and an endless number of other pejoratives over your tenure.

Your exact words were "I have nothing to apologize for" after calling the Prime Minister / Vice Chancellor (Your boss) a retard, then tried to subtly threaten me, then after all that fired a lawsuit. You were given chances to reconcile, you instead, chose to attack me.

Bear this in mind. Active disrespect would be being out in public and decrying your office or yourself. Never did I do that. I expressed my concerns to you in private meetings, not in the public forum.

I didn't actively disrespect you. You have disrespected me and my office multiple times under your leadership. I had never had any issues with any Vizekanzler, Kanzler, or President throughout my entire tenure until yours. Seeing you on the 6th doesn't apply to anything. I am not going to apologise for something I never said to your face. You refused to talk to me at all. You did not ask to reconcile at all. I was more than happy to work with you throughout your tenure. Over and over again, you refused to work with me. You didn't compromise at all. You calling me to a meeting to call me names and insult me until I apologise to you is not a compromise. Working through that and coming to an agreement that we both refrain from using such language towards each other, which I suggested when we met, is a compromise. Respect is earned and not given. I did, however, provide you with respect at the beginning of your tenure until you started insulting me consistently every single time we met. In which I gave respect to the title and not to you. Which is why I said that consistently. Also, there was a disagreement between the two of us. You directing me to apologise in front of the Minister of the Interior when it is between us makes no sense, nor did you ask or direct me to apologise while we were in that room. I filed an injunction against your order, which was illegal. I told you a week ago, along with Wolfson, how to remove civil servants using the Civil Service Act. Shooting me over calling you a name that I didn't even use is not only illogical, but also actively trying to work with you for your entire tenure and being hostile towards me twenty-four seven does not make people want to work with you. Yet still, I came to your office each time you asked for me and did my job. You being upset because you are not being professional, and then continuing to act unprofessionally, and me pointing that out, and how you act is not a Last Resort. I came to you to resolve our differences multiple times, and each time, you insulted me. This is an entirely one-sided relationship, and almost every single minister can tell you I tried to help you and respected your office. For you to turn around and accuse me of what you did is not only a lie but a blatant one. Also, you never asked to meet with me, the day you had people shoot me or ask to speak with me in any way. What you did is what you usually do, which is insult me and call me names in public, which I never called you names in public or over advertisements. You, however, did call not only me but multiple other people names in public.

Hi, The story goes like this, you were fired because after you actively disrespected me and refused to leave my office, I suspended (not fired you), I only planned to suspend you until you were willing to apologize, when called to a meeting, you refused to apologize, said we were equals, tried to lecture me, and then doubled down. On your way out of the door you said, "I'll see you the 6th" (alluding to the General Staff Summon and the Federal Council Meeting) and "The last time someone tried to fire me it didn't end too well". I then had you stripped of uniform and fired you the next morning. Your third opportunity to apologize came when we were both in the Minister of Interiors office at the same time. That same day, you proceeded to file a lawsuit against me, again refusing to reconcile or accept your firing. This was last resort, you, instead of willing to compromise as I requested multiple times and gave you multiple chances to do, you completely disregarded and proceeded to threat and conspire. This was Last Resort.

Accepted. From the clip provided I believe that the people involved were way too quick to shoot Bob Pikeman and I agree with Bob Pikeman's statement of "Your orders were not clearly given (just spamming a bind in chat is not clear)". This is espcially true when he is surrounded by 4 people yelling at him. I also do think that an arrest could have easily been made in this situation as the car was being bodyblocked and he was surrounded under gunpoint too. Also from this clip Bob Pikeman was put at gunpoint at 00:53 and then killed at 00:58 and the rules clearly state "You must have a valid RP reason to kill someone. You may shoot someone if they damage you with a weapon/vehicle. You may not shoot someone because of their physical appearance, faction or simply because they insulted you. You must give someone a verbal or text warning and allow them 10 seconds to respond before escalating the roleplay. Following this warning, you may kill them if they pull out a weapon. Do not bait someone to shoot/RDM you, and do not punch minge or initiate arguments to harass someone."

Accepted Welcome to the Staff Team!

Character's name & rank: Außenminister Alhmanic Rothgeb Schröpfer SteamID (STEAM_0:X:XXX): STEAM_0:0:215028615 Staff member who issued the PK (if you know): Prime Explain why you were PK'd: As far as I know, it was grief due to numerous arguments, disagreements, and statements that I and the Vizekanzler had over the course of a few months. Why should you be un-PK'd?: I do not believe he took this to the last resort due to me actively trying to work with him multiple times, and him snubbing me each and every time I attempt to work with him. Each time we had a meeting, he assumed that at the next cabinet meeting, I would side with him one hundred per cent. When I did not, he would call me to his office and complain that I wasn't siding with the state. Over and over again, this trend happened. He called me in person and in private, insults which I had been told about, which was our fourth meeting at the time. I told him that insulting ministers and everyone else wouldn't win people over. He told me it would. I then proposed protections for ministers because that would give them leeway with the rest of the state. He got upset and had the Kapo remove me from his office. The most recent argument we had was about him limiting the party and why what he did was considered bad procedure, as well as how the Konsul could challenge that with a Supreme Court case. The Truth and Science Minister also supported me in this matter. He then insulted me. To which I said you need to act professional in private as much as in public, as I told him numerous times. He denied this and then asked how he was acting. I said to him that insulting and cursing others at every turn without being diplomatic is reckless behaviour. I told him it was acting like a retard. He asked me, "Are you calling me a retard." I told him no. You need to act like the Vice Chancellor and be professional; otherwise, you'll start to develop a reputation similar to that of the procurement minister, who is known for yelling at everyone and earning no respect. He said I don't respect him and am now suspended, and that I needed to be removed. Later, he called me to his office and told me to apologise. I told him I would not apologise due to I did not call him a retard. Acting like one and being one are different things. He needs to act like the Vice Chancellor and defend the state to earn respect. He said I have never respected him. Which is not true. I told him numerous times, both in private and in public, that not only could he be one of the longest-serving Vice Chancellors, but he could also be one of the best. All he had to do was defend the state and stop getting into arguments or positions he could not win. To which he stated I was the reason he couldn't win because I have a cabal of ministers waiting to get rid of him. I rejected the accusation because it was utterly false. He proceeded to have me removed from the position until I apologised. This was going to be a legal battle. I attempted to work with him multiple times during his tenure, but he repeatedly refused my help. I do not believe this was a last resort for the reasons listed. I have attempted many, many, many times to work with him, and he has snubbed me every last time. After the sixth attempt to return to the table with him, it became impossible to work with him due to his insults and threats. I was not attempting to get him removed, killed or anything of the sort. My primary goal was to continue in my position as Minister of Foreign Affairs. We have argued a lot that is true, but for no other reason than disagreement on policy and how he talked to other people, which was easily resolvable. Sometimes you can't agree with someone on how they act, but this was a completely one-sided relationship, which I attempted to repair many times. Each time, he refused to listen to me or anyone else when we tried to help him.

No AI generation here, The only assistance I use when writing is Google Docs Auto-Correct.

First off, holy chatgpt.. Second off, your little pixelated IC position has no say in this appeal.. ent) and Major Pikeman (Deputy Chief of the Gendarmerie) 3rd thing, no it doesnt.. He was not involved at all in this scene.. He has no bias. Don't care, nor does it matter.. Formal detainment does not matter, its the fact you were detained..

Denied. This ban was justified considering your actions and recent POs. I'd recommend reading the rules during the remaining time on your ban.

To whom it may concern, I am submitting this statement in my official capacity as Richterpräsident of the Interior Ministry, and as an active witness to the incident involving the detainment and PK of Major Bobb Pikeman, Deputy Chief of the Gendarmerie. I believe there are several key misunderstandings or misrepresentations that need to be addressed regarding the events that transpired, and I would ask those reviewing this appeal to consider the following facts—facts which I personally observed, and which are verifiably documented in a video clip that I have provided. At no point was the vehicle fully stopped. The staff car was in continuous motion—reversing and maneuvering—throughout the incident. No actual detainment took place. Neither myself nor Major Pikeman were pulled from the vehicle, ordered out with sufficient time to respond, nor physically restrained in any capacity. The "order to detain" was delivered casually by a general while he was actively disengaging from the situation and running away. It was not issued in a structured or deliberate manner that warranted immediate lethal escalation. Major Pikeman used voice radio to send a brief transmission—no longer than five words—stating “We’re being detained by the military.” This occurred simultaneously with the alleged “orders” not to use the radio, which were spammed in chat in rapid succession (twice, within a 5-second window). Only one military personnel was within 5 feet, a lieutenant armed with a pistol. The second, enlisted, was over 10 feet away and armed with an MP40. The term “surrounded” or “multiple guns pointed at you” has been used repeatedly, but is simply not reflected in reality. The notion that FearRP was fully established is incorrect. At no point were the vehicle’s occupants—two high-ranking members of the Interior Ministry—clearly stopped, surrounded, or given adequate opportunity to comply before force was used. If FearRP is to be upheld as a standard, it must be established in a reasonable, contextual way—not through rushed or half-formed orders followed immediately by gunfire. Furthermore, neither of us were ever cuffed or officially detained. The moment the radio transmission was made, gunfire erupted. The action was clearly premature, preventing any form of actual roleplay resolution. It is important to emphasize that position matters. Both myself (Richterpräsident) and Major Pikeman (Deputy Chief of the Gendarmerie) hold critical judicial and policing roles in the Innerministry. The precedent being set here—that two senior officials can be killed instantly without formal detainment, based on unclear orders—is deeply concerning and undermines the balance of roleplay between military and judicial structures. Lastly, while I will refrain from accusing anyone of bias directly, it is worth noting that all voices advocating for the PK are military-aligned, and the staff member who approved the PK request is also affiliated with the military. This is not an accusation, but it does represent a significant conflict of interest that should be acknowledged and addressed. This PK was neither handled with clarity nor in accordance with proper escalation protocol. The situation was rushed, over-aggressive, and failed to uphold the standards of immersive, fair, and balanced roleplay. I ask that this appeal be reviewed with the seriousness and impartiality it deserves, and that the footage—as placed below—be viewed in full context. https://medal.tv/games/garrys-mod/clips/kDB1AtlmfgFcNGOMh?invite=cr-MSxLS0MsNDE4MDg2NzQ5

just a bystander but you were 6 seconds in fearrp also you knew you were under fear rp by 3 men whit guns pointed at your head also you were given verbel and text warning you still radioed in that you were under arrest so you got shot you didnt account for your life so you got excuted for being a dumdass

Your Name: Shoots SteamID (STEAM_0:X:XXX): STEAM_0:1:634637750 Appeal Type (Apology or Dispute): Apology Which staff member banned you?: Virus How long is your ban for?: 1 month and 1 day, 3 weeks and 5 (basically 6) days left. Why were you banned?: Metagame Why do you deserve to be unbanned?: I deserve to be unbanned because of my new understanding of the rules, and my actions which violated them. I deserved to be unbanned due to my willingness to acknowledge my mistake, and correct myself in the future. I do admit that it has been years since I have did a full read through of the rules, specifically the metagame section. When I started playing the server again, the many months ago I did, I failed to take into account that the server rules have grown and changed. With different additions and interpretations being set in stone. I continued to roleplay with this misunderstanding without a second thought. At first, I was going to initiate a dispute against this ban, but, as I read the rules I now understand; I was in violation of metagame rules 1, 3, 3.5, and 3.6. I now read these rules clearly and notice how I was not following them. It was never my intention to commit a serious rule break on the server, I can admit I took this habit of using OOC VC from other people outside of my friend group, as it is a known fact that this is a regular occurrence in the server. I still understand that although commonly done, it is still in violation. Especially in my situation seeing it was including a senior ranking official (NHC) of the server. Through my years of playing on this server, and a related server, Revenant, I have never faced a serious consequence because I have never committed a serious rule break. The most detrimental thing I had on my old record was prop abuse. I am a Prometheus player and wish to keep it this way, it is one of my most favorited pass times and its with a community that I enjoy. I hope I can bring an understand to the UA team, that I understand my wrong-doings, and simply wish to return back to larp and continue my day-to-day on the server as it was before this incident. I am even a previous staff member of both servers. I wish nothing more for this community than for it to grow and for more exciting opportunities to sprout from it. I believe my one mistake here should define me as a dissident to the server or its people. Additional Information: Me and Reverend are roleplayers. This is obvious. We are not minges, we seek to actively engage with the people of this server. We never wished to cause any disturbances, we were simply taking a shortcut. I can promise to the staff team that we were going to meet in game as well, we just took a cheap route to initiate our roleplay. I hope this appeal sits well with everyone, thank you.

I can smell Chattel Von GPT here .. When writing a ban appeal, it is always best to ensure you write it fully yourself, otherwise it comes off as not genuine, anyone can slap a prompt into a ai. We want to know how you have changed, especially in the case of a perma.

Hi, I appreciate you taking the time to write an apology. However, the situation you're describing doesn't match what actually happened. It was not a one-time mistake or a misunderstanding during an arrest. You and another player, who was also banned, were repeatedly killing and messing with the same individual in spawn, while asking strange questions. This behavior is nothing less considered than spawn-killing and RDM. In addition to this incident, you've already been banned twice and received two notes in the past month. Given this, my judgment seems only fair. Take this as a learning experience. I welcome you back when you're unbanned.

Denied. You hit the Interior Minister (member of national high command) in the face with your gun as a low ranking CO and then faced the consequences of your actions.

you know baumer

Your Name: Erwin Muller SteamID (STEAM_0:X:XXX): 76561199728372710 Appeal Type (Apology or Dispute): Apology Which staff member banned you?: Jakob How long is your ban for?: 1w Why were you banned?: killing someone because they said yes to being a jew Why do you deserve to be unbanned?: Hey admins, I got banned for 7 days for RDM and I just wanted to say I'm sorry. I know I shouldn’t have killed the civilian but he punched me first and kept resisting when I tried to arrest him. I thought it was okay in RP but I guess I messed up. I really like the server and don’t want to wait a whole week to play again. I’ve read the rules again and I understand now that I should’ve handled it differently. I promise I won’t do it again and I’ll be more careful next time. If you could lower the ban time I’d really appreciate it. Thanks for reading this. Additional Information: