Groz
-
Posts
1,280 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Groz
-
-
-
❤️
-
1
-
-
Hello, all. Thank you for remaining patient throughout and for not bumping too unnecessarily. I am not aware nor have I been sent anything regarding the Rule 19 violations, so I will be leaving the result of that up to whomever is the primary handler. This will only centre around the other listed rulebreaks.
I’ll start with Anti-Crime Zone stuff as that seems to be an ongoing argument throughout by both parties. I’d like to bring both parties attention to this paraphrased note present in the in-game rules.
And also the following where Downtown Los Santos is dictated as a Restricted Crime Zone:
I would very much argue that the outside of an apartment in the back of a parking lot at night is much more discreet of a location as opposed to them doing this outside on the main street. The DMV is a government building, yes, but the rule would only cover its immediate vicinity, not an apartment at the other end of the lot. If this occurred directly outside the DMV or on the main streets it surrounds, I could very much see how that would breach the above, but from all accounts it was a beating in what is for the most part a relatively quiet area save for the comings and goings of the small apartment complex. Yes, you could argue that there could possibly be cameras that may have caught them, it’s entirely possible and I would agree that it would most likely have been the case, however, a security camera being present doesn’t mean crime cannot occur and if they are caught as a result, it would be their own IC consequence for their own ICly silly actions. This is not the fault of the reporting party for misunderstanding this, these rules are intentionally left with much room for interpretation and open-endedness due to how arbitrary many scenes can turn out to be. I hope that clears up the anti-crime zone stuff as concisely as possible.
Moving onto the deathmatching situation, I’m in agreement that these are extremely dangerous people. Biker gangs historically have been extremely demeaning to women, this not a new-age concept. Women are often deemed as ‘property’ and are expected to behave accordingly, following a strict set of rules and regulations. Most Men involved in Motorcycle Clubs, if not all, adhere to the philosophies of those who came before them within the club, treating women as property and passing that thinking down to prospects to continue the cycle. I am not saying that in this situation you are completely powerless to stop them, but approaching a group of dangerous looking men and not expecting a potentially dangerous outcome is foolhardy. There are other ways to handle things that would have resulted in a much better potential outcome for your character in this scenario, but once again, this is an IC consequence for an IC action. I will, however, state that the whole shoe stealing business isn’t really an MC thing and is in all honesty, pretty fucking weird. I’m assuming that stuff is mentioned in the Rule 19 part that is privately being handled so I won’t comment further regarding it.
The other encounters can also be attributed to the above, though I will say encounter number three very much borders on Deathmatching. If someone has just spawned in, offer them the common courtesy of letting them atleast go into their apartment where they would have logically actually been. If you doubt the authenticity of their statement of logging in, just get an admin to check. Simply seeing their character phase into reality is a pretty terrible way to go about initiating a situation. Replying simply with “lol” and disregarding their requests is immature and a terrible way to interact with someone who has quite literally just spawned in. I’ll be giving a warning to Lloyd for the above common courtesy breach. While the actions above in terms of the beating and threats can be justifiable reasoned due to the once again extremely dangerous nature of Motorcycle Clubs and their history of violently belittling women, unjustifiably ignoring someone who is trying their best to inform you of their OOC situation is a dick move, period.
In conclusion, no warnings outside of Lloyd’s will be given and no voiding will occur. The outcome of the Rule 19 report is however still to be decided so be aware this decision may change with the outcome of that. Understand that while you are ICly an extremely dangerous group of individuals with a long history of reckless behavior, violent acts and a ignominious demeanour towards the opposite sex. You still need to follow our common courtesy rules and respect other players time and their OOC circumstances, you are outlaws ICly, but not above our OOC expectations.
-
1
-
-
Fuego, take it far!!! No luck needed. We out here.
-
The posts in question have been hidden as the scene is currently voided and doesn't exist in an IC context. If any more posts related to the brawl show up, please DM me and I'll handle it personally. Both Mongols and Vagos have been informed that they aren't to post anything regarding the scene for now.
The scene itself is awaiting Staff Management & Management's verdict regarding if/how it should continue along with it's initial validity. Until a decision is reached the scene remains voided as it was prior.
-
If you have an issue with a concept, report it to IFM. We have and have always had official means to go about bringing attention to any issues with portrayal, concepts, ect. Don't go starting arguments and beef on a forum thread, there's means to bring attention to issues without being a salty, arrogant jackass in front of everyone.
Thread beef is stupid, if you partake in it, you are doubly stupid. Keep it on topic. Any further instances of it here will result in forum punishments (warnings, mutes and bans) and potentially faction-specific punishments.
-
4
-
1
-
-
Hi. I wanted to clarify a few things quickly from an IFM POV as it appears though they have been misconstrued, misunderstood or just not explained correctly on the topic itself. While the Restricted Crime Zone rules main purpose is to provide illegal factions with long-term historical significance to the area a means to execute their day-to-day business without needing to worry about the expanse of rules that come with operating within Restricted Crime Zones, it does not justify a major gunfight outside an opened, uninvolved establishment with many civilians that could potentially be caught in the crossfire. Just because they are inside does not mean they do not exist in the context of the shooting and doesn't mean they couldn't exit and get hit with a stray round. A shooting like that puts many other lives at risk besides your target and can come with severe consequences for innocents. This should have been reported and approved beforehand. Historical significance would give you reason to defend yourself on your turf should conflict arise, but this is more than a simple defensive conflict. It is a complex situation that involves many sides, administrators should have been made aware of its occurrence.
Now, since we've clarified that I'd like to actually move on and begin working our way to some form of resolution. First I'd like to start with the reported party; above you've claimed historical significance to Vinewood and it's surrounds. I agree to your claims one-hundred percent and believe you have the right to exercise the Crime Free Zone rule, my main question being is why did the shooting need to occur here of all places? This is your turf after all that you're claiming historical significance to, a big shooting like this brings a bunch of unnecessary attention, not to mention the eyes of the law. It's sort of the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. If your goal as an illegal faction is to operate in relative ambiguity and make as much money possible in the quietest way, surely a public shooting like this that puts many lives in danger isn't worth it for a singular "security guard" (we'll get into that later), when other means such as a kidnapping, jumping, ect. could have been just as effective and attracted much less unwanted noise?
-
Hi all! Sorry for the wait.
So, the IC reasoning behind the initial grounds for the attack are solid. If you kick the hornets nest, you shouldn't be surprised when the hornets decide to sting you. On the other side of the coin, STL are also justified in their retaliation. Initially, I had no issue with letting this continue as it was, however, upon receiving several bits of evidence and digging through the logs myself, I've found some drug abuse in the initial attack that resulted in Dante's death. There were several instances prior to the attack where drugs were used with zero roleplay before or after. Because of this it, throws the attack, while justified ICly, into an OOC grey area,
I'll be voiding the shooting on these grounds, to let it continue after the initial attack had breaches in our rules would not be wise. Conflict does not come above adherence to them. As I'm lead to believe, various members of V13 have been Character Killed since the initial attack, that being said, members that still exist on both sides who still remain may contact me for refunds on whatever was lost in both the initial attack and the retaliation and members that were CK'd as a result can also contact me and I'll try to lift them. Have a good one.
-
This behavior is absolutely unacceptable in every sense and you should be extremely ashamed of yourself. Homophobia and racism do not become permitted through Discord simply because you 'don't play'. It's a lazy excuse to justify such actions. On top of all of this, I've received several screenshots of you trying to manipulate in-game events through Discord along with calling factions retards and worse.
You don't belong here, plain and simple. You're not going to be protected because of your time as an admin. In fact, your retired admin status is hereby revoked. Any and all leadership roles you have on the Mexican Mafia discord are hereby revoked, and you're banned until I say otherwise. Don't bother appealing. Enjoy 'not playing'.
-
43
-
4
-
12
-
-
Will be handling this one. I'll give the reported party 24 hours to respond and to somehow justify this.
-
I fell asleep counting the number of sheep in the replies.
Archived. Best of luck in whatever you decide to pursue on the server in the future @Cal Jordan.
-
2
-
1
-
-
I'll be handling this one as it loosely relates to a previous report I concluded regarding V13 and STL. Please give me some time to go over what's been submitted here, if you have anything you wish to submit privately regarding this you can send it via Discord. Thanks.
-
1
-
-
Closed as per request.
-
Takes long when people submit 20000 words despite it being a 250 word limit.
Takes longer when everyone and their mother decides to reply under it with another 20000 words that do nothing for the report.
Takes even longer when the admin that said they would handle suddenly wakes up to 4 extra pages of back and fourth conversation that resembles Skyrim NPC dialogue.
-
6
-
1
-
-
Hey! First of all thank you for everyone for sending in their relevant pieces of evidence and information and for everybody's patience while I worked my way through this whirlwind of text, screens and video. I'll go through each of the reporting parties main gripes before giving out a final verdict as to keep everything as organized and as readable as possible.
Overuse of Force: The numbers shown here aren't really a valid example of what we would deem as an overuse of force. The Rules of Engagement give a pretty good example as to what we'd define an overuse of force. Someone in a hit crew bringing a single AR and the rest bringing pistols isn't overkill in the slightest, as the reported party said, they were watching you all for quite some time before deciding to use Ivan as their insider. Just because your members are a few meters away from the initial point of attack doesn't mean they don't exist. If they can confirm that a reasonable force is occupying the area they are going to attack, it's only right to bring more capable weapons or risk their lives ending, which is what they should value above all else. If they nearly doubled your defending crew in numbers and were all bringing fully loaded carbine rifles, that would be a different story.
Chasing people down: As far the person on the bike getting shot goes, he was shot at the initial point of the shooting several times as per the video, he should not have been idly cycling around or trying to flee in any direction. He should be finding some safe place to call for help, either inside a building or in one of Vespucci's many alleys. If you look at the video, the initial shots on Noah and the shots that finished him off happened only half a block apart. He should not be anywhere near there much less cycling around after a shooting like that. You don't flee towards gunshots. If you play silly games you win silly prizes. If they can identify you as someone who got away from the initial shooting and you on your own volition return to the nearby point of the shooting, that's not their fault fault for finishing the job they initially began. It's yours for letting them. They don't know he's unarmed, they don't know he's not going to move a block down and take out a glock in some reckless bullet-filled rambo style assault. If you hang around gangsters that are actively at war, you're going to be a target - period.
Using new/low hour characters in conflicts: Ivan should not be involved in your attack process at all. Prior to Feburary 22nd, he had 4 hours total on his character. It does not matter if he was around at the start of the faction or was somehow even a leader, a character with that low of an hour count should not be going out and warring with others. It's plain silly. I understand that real life can sometimes take precedence but we're already very generous with what we deem as an acceptable hour count and that falls well under it. You can use any number of people to organize an attack, you should not be bringing in people with that low of an hour count into block wipes. While not fully listed under our Rules of Engagement, it's something we expect to be moreso just common sense. If you're going through the trouble of planning out an elaborate bait attack like this, make sure you're executing it with characters that have been actively around OOCly. If you feel you need to check their hour count, they probably aren't the right people to be bringing along. That's your responsibility as a faction, not anyone else's. Take the initiative to ensure this in the future.
As far as a final verdict on all of this goes, I will be voiding the shooting in its entirety - given that the key component in the shooting, Ivan, should not have even been taking part in the first place. Ensure that whenever you are going to retaliate, wipe, or provoke conflict it's done by people who have IC history and OOC activity. Nobody wants to fight a war versus a bunch of 4 hour hangarounds. Those who were killed and lost their items can contact me through Discord to organize a refund. Please make sure both sides have understood what I've said here, especially the reported party as any further instances of low hour characters being brought in to fight wars will result in a much more severe repremand from IFM. You can contact me if you have any questions. Thank you once again for your patience.
-
1
-
-
Will be handling this. Please send me any remaining information/evidence via Discord. Will read through what is here in the meantime.
-
I second what MrsHamster's already said. Seeing everyone come together and donate such an incredible amount, not for a reward, but to genuinely help someone in need was extremely heart-warming. Thank you to everyone who was able contribute even a small amount, and to those who went out of their way to spread word of this around communities even outside of our own, endless thanks.
Because of all of you, we've been able to make an extremely positive impact in an extremely unfortunate situation. We've come together as a community, regardless of any perceived differences, and legitimately helped a little girl get a much better chance at a brighter future. Words cannot do it justice, but just know that what you all did was amazing and you have mine and many others thanks indefinitely. 💖
-
2
-
-
Topic will remain pinned until the window for donations shuts.
MrsHamster gave up so much of her free time to our community as a staff member and was such a happy, positive force in our team. She has most likely helped many of you in her time as an Administrator. If you can spare even a small amount, it would add up immensely. Best of luck and prayers Viktoria, from all of us at GTA World.
-
8
-
1
-
1
-
-
Thank you for your timely response Floccker. This, as mentioned above, is not the first time you've done this. And quite frankly, the first instance of this should be the last. You were granted a simple warning then, this won't be the case this time around. As a lighter punishment seemed to do nothing to dissuade you from doing this yet again only a few days after.
You alone are responsible for your actions, and the consequences of them are also your responsibility. You'll be receiving a ban for the entire duration of February and what's left of January, effective immediately. Any further instances of this will result in the ban being permanent. Drinking is fine when done responsibly. You've shown you can't drink and be responsible on our server, therefore you're not welcomed back on it until the duration of your ban is over. Use this time to evaluate and come up with better solutions to eliminate this happening in the future, because if it does, it will be the last time.
-
2
-
-
Will be handling this.
Leilani Moore was the masked person in question.
@Floccker, please give context to your actions. You have 72 hours.
-
3 hours ago, bwarp said:
but the server is based on la 🤷♂️
LS does not equal LA. LS replaces LA and San Andreas replaces California. San Andreas and by proxy, Los Santos, are their own governing bodies with their own statistics and sociopolitical ideologies.
We use Californian lore to give context and deepen the story for factions and characters but we're not strictly following every single statistic and geographical material available. It's not a 1:1 type deal.
-
2
-
-
Hi, thanks for the patience everyone.
I'll address and provide clarification on the two rules Matthew was reported for as that seemed to be your overall goal in this, before giving my official verdict. Rule 10 does specify that you shouldn't kidnap someone for the sole purpose of mugging them, however, the rule was put in place to bring an end to the constant barrage of sub-par robberies that essentially boiled down to Person A placing Person B in the trunk/backseat of a vehicle and driving them out to Blaine County to execute their substandard mugging. While yes you could make an argument that moving someone from one spot to another (i.e; sidewalk to alley) technically does fall under kidnapping, in a situation like that, it's acceptable. Someone isn't going to execute a robbery on you in the middle of a public sidewalk, it's idiotic and makes no real sense. If the opportunity comes up to move you a very short distance to much more secure location to carry out the goal of a robbery, that's more than okay. It shows common sense, rationale and that Matthew's character places extensive value in his safety and understands that it's much easier to be caught on a sidewalk as opposed to a silent alley. As far as Rule 12 goes, the 'safe-zone' effect really only provides you safety if you're inside the store, in the customization menu itself, and directly outside the store (the front door for example), though this can have different variables depending on things that have occurred. The main goal of this is to provide logical safety in logical areas.
The robbery wasn't fully initiated until approximately here, you were well away from the clothing store and moved that far away under your own volition. The rule itself can go through several variables as each scene occurs differently, so robbing someone directly at a bank as opposed to speaking to someone outside a store, engaging in a brief conversation on a sidewalk before quietly ushering them into an alley would be a much more substandard scene compared to what we're looking at here.
As far as my verdict goes, I'm in the belief that Matthew did nothing wrong. It's pretty evident that he didn't go to the clothing store with the intent to rob your character and was midway through purchasing his own clothes as you walked in. An opportunity was presented to his character after-the-fact as you were walking away from the store, Matthew took the opportunity and approached it with caution and realism, bringing you to a much more secure location within walking distance to execute his plan in a much more quiet environment. He never attacked your character in public, or did anything to make himself stand out as dangerous other than lifting his shirt somewhat to reveal the gun in his waistline, he never pulled the gun out - he simply ushered you towards a quieter area and proceeded from there, everything falls under acceptable parameters there. I hope I was able to provide some clarification on the rules regarding 10 and 12. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you need further info on them.
-
2
-
1
-
2
-
-
-
I'll be handling this one. Please give me some time to review all of the evidence provided and I'll get back to you both.
Close Davis LTD (again)
in Archive
Posted
Closing it is not a magic fix to eliminate room-temperature IQ late night "sorry it was my little brother on my pc bro please bro" individuals from doing what they do best. They'll just find other spots to congregate.