calloway

Much of the argument presented here hinges on selective framing, misdirection, and minimizing context. Let's address the points directly: You're downplaying what was a clear, consistent effort to monitor NSB activity far outside the normal bounds of your role. While you claim it was “within jurisdiction,” the information being gathered wasn’t isolated to internal military affairs, it intersected repeatedly with NSB operations and personnel which we had obtained. You may not have issued formal orders, but the behavior formed part of a larger pattern of overreach and obstruction, especially after a prior conviction. PKs are not just about a single illegal act, they’re about cumulative behavior that becomes untenable. This was part of that. It’s only broad because the list is long. Post-trial, you continued to act in defiance, challenging detainment, refusing to provide documentation, resisting lines of questioning, and generally obstructing process (I specifically knew you'd react this way, which is why I pushed you in this direction.). Whether you felt justified doesn’t change the pattern of IC resistance that, over time, made your position indefensible. You were not targeted arbitrarily, you were given multiple chances to deescalate and work with me. You chose not to. You’re omitting what actually happened. You were broken out by armed individuals during an MOI breach and left the building with them. Whether you walked or were “told to leave at gunpoint” is not the issue—the issue is that you left at all. That behavior, in combination with prior escalation, is what sealed the PK. Whether Reto's PK was later appealed doesn’t change that your involvement in the breach was real and actionable. You’re treating this appeal as if it’s a court trial. It’s not. PKs are not decided on who “technically” committed a crime, they’re based on sustained, unrecoverable character trajectories that make continued RP what it is. I can argue technicalities all day, because I almost certainly think I am right in this situation, but that's not my point here. You had multiple high-profile infractions, were given multiple second chances, and continued to escalate, and they were all written down and verified. I was able to match your behavior to crimes committed, and got a PK approved because of that.

This appeal misrepresents both the timeline and rationale behind the PK. First, the punishment received during the earlier trial (demotion, jail time which was never served, and a fine) was acknowledged, but that was not the primary reason the PK was issued. I initially requested a PK after that trial, but it was denied due to lack of final justification. That was fine. What changed was your behavior afterward. Over the following week, you continued to escalate: - You began collecting and logging information on NSB personnel without jurisdiction (we had evidence) - You publicly defied and antagonized the NSB. - You were present at the scene of an NSB agent’s assassination and then escaped our custody during an armed breach. (we had evidence and direct corroboration) Whether you planned the escape or not is irrelevant—what mattered was that you left willingly with armed individuals of which we had concrete evidence were not "2 lapo and 1 kg". That event was the final justification for the PK. It confirmed a pattern of active defiance, circumvention of consequences, and alignment with hostile elements. It wasn’t a random escalation, it was the culmination of everything leading up to that point. Not every detail can or should be disclosed due to its relevance to other players and ongoing roleplay. But the decision was reviewed, justified, and accepted, not based on a single isolated event, but a sustained pattern that I was able to prove. Your character was given multiple opportunities to walk back from the line. He kept sprinting past it. In my opinion, what I had was more than enough for your characters PK.

Hey there--I feel compelled to reply to this appeal. I was involved in the situation and was one of if not the leader of the entire situation in the office. I can confidently say that Anarky (Klaus von Verz) was NOT there at all until the hospital situation--of which we simply just messed around after that. He was not there at all and was even confused upon coming back at what was happening. I am purely commenting on this just to set the record straight. There were others you did Pk that were totally guilty of what they were accused of--but Anarky was not one of them and was only affiliated with us.