Subject: "Ok I have got this now" Previous topic | Next topic
Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend CF Website
Top General Discussions Gameplay Topic #68882
Show all folders

JarmelThu 21-Sep-17 12:18 AM
Member since 19th Jul 2015
375 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list
#68978, "Ok I have got this now"


          

I will give it from and IC perspective:
Quote:
"To use your example, gank group had already set up post on the outskirts in order to try and kill you, and the criminal came along and saw that they were there. The criminal then proceeds to take advantage of that situation. There was no "aiding" there. Unless you are going to warrant based on the fact that the group should have left at that moment and dispersed because to even be there was to "aid." At that point you're basically warranting people for having to take an action to leave an area that theyd have every legal right to be in, just because someone else enters. Which makes absolutely 0 sense to me."

Answer:
I think I gave this elsewhere (And IC while the groups were smaller I did try to fight in the situations) what I can tell you is this
- Did the other group always get flags?
++ If they did not fight me while I fought 100% no
++ If they engaged yes, but only those who did

Quote:
"I'll use an own personal example to show a different concept. Person P sees magistrate M fighting criminal C in Hamsah. M words to Galadon. M is now en route back Hamsah on eastern when P sees him. M then detours to go a diff route back to Hamsah. That's at least what P thinks. So P goes and stands right outside the southern gate of Hamsah to hope and catch him walking. Meanwhile, C walks up to the area after P does and stands next to him, thinking the same thing. M then gets attacked, and warrants P. Did P aid? Even though P has his own agenda, M is outside of town, and P got there first? It's quite possible they colluded. It's also just as likely they didn't. Would you warrant P? Let's say they are in the same cabal. Would you warrant P then, even if they never tacitly or explicitly agreed to anything?"

Answer:
So if I have this right whats not clear is "M then gets attacked, and warrants P" who did the attacking? And it sounds like P and C were standing together for a time as M was approaching.

But for the sake of the answer I will assume that P attacked

Yes I would warrant P, for aiding a criminal to elude punishment collusion or not.

However I have made assumptions here but rest assured 100% there were plenty of instances where I would not flag. BUT having said that lets consider that P and C have pulled this stunt a number of times, the opportunity for benefit of the doubt to be applied most definitely would diminish.

I think one of the biggest issues is people think the application was
and I grossly over exaggerate to make point
"Criminal Elf is on eastern road, I'm on eastern road, HEY the criminal is gone, that level 11 elf is on eastern road they must have told them, GUILTY"
OR
"That criminal had chicken in there corpse, who else has chicken, everyone online does, GUILTY"
I can assure you that was not the case.

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote

HOT TopicTrib Law for Murphy [View all] , Lhydia, Tue 12-Sep-17 05:22 AM
Reply Law vs. Man, Saagkri, 21-Sep-17 05:49 PM, #62
Reply RE: Law vs. Man, Jarmel, 25-Sep-17 10:48 PM, #70
Reply Trib Law and Consequences, Tac, 21-Sep-17 04:00 PM, #60
Reply That's my main issue with creative flagging, Kstatida, 21-Sep-17 04:08 PM, #61
Reply I think that's universally true. No one argues their m..., Tac, 22-Sep-17 11:32 AM, #65
Reply RE: Trib Law and Consequences, Jarmel, 25-Sep-17 10:55 PM, #71
     Reply Yeah that's what I do, Murphy, 26-Sep-17 01:09 AM, #72
     Reply RE: Yeah that's what I do, Kstatida, 26-Sep-17 02:26 AM, #73
     Reply RE: Trib Law and Consequences, Tac, 26-Sep-17 10:49 AM, #74
Reply Epic fail Murphy, Lhydia, 21-Sep-17 08:26 AM, #57
Reply RE: Epic fail Murphy, Kstatida, 21-Sep-17 08:59 AM, #58
Reply Good for you. Move along., Murphy, 21-Sep-17 09:51 AM, #59
Reply Not everything is free to be reinterpreted, Murphy, 18-Sep-17 08:18 AM, #1
     Reply RE: Not everything is free to be reinterpreted, Jarmel, 18-Sep-17 08:59 AM, #2
     Reply You're making no sense, please stay on topic., Murphy, 18-Sep-17 09:18 AM, #4
     Reply Was that before or after he left the game forever? n/t, Lhydia, 18-Sep-17 09:05 AM, #3
     Reply i feel like you know this, laxman, 18-Sep-17 11:16 PM, #5
          Reply Exactly, Murphy, 19-Sep-17 12:52 AM, #6
               Reply Any IMM care to weigh in here? (n/t), Current challenge (Anonymous), 19-Sep-17 02:22 PM, #7
               Reply Sure., Ishuli, 20-Sep-17 12:16 PM, #8
                    Reply Do you take into account, Kstatida, 20-Sep-17 12:58 PM, #9
                    Reply You're assuming, sleepy, 20-Sep-17 03:50 PM, #10
                    Reply As someone who was around at the time..., Lhydia, 20-Sep-17 03:52 PM, #12
                         Reply RE: As someone who was around at the time..., sleepy, 20-Sep-17 04:11 PM, #13
                              Reply I don't think CF's trib laws were written by lawyers, lasentia, 22-Sep-17 09:22 AM, #64
                    Reply RE: Do you take into account, Ishuli, 20-Sep-17 03:49 PM, #11
                         Reply Flagging someone who defends their cabal, Murphy, 20-Sep-17 04:33 PM, #14
                              Reply RE: Flagging someone who defends their cabal, Ishuli, 20-Sep-17 04:43 PM, #15
                                   Reply So being off-duty matters after all?, Murphy, 20-Sep-17 04:59 PM, #16
                                        Reply RE: So being off-duty matters after all?, Ishuli, 20-Sep-17 05:38 PM, #17
                                             Reply RE: So being off-duty matters after all?, Murphy, 20-Sep-17 08:02 PM, #21
                                                  Reply RE: So being off-duty matters after all?, Ishuli, 20-Sep-17 08:13 PM, #22
                                                       Reply What do you mean it doesn't specify jurisdiction?, Murphy, 20-Sep-17 08:52 PM, #26
                                                       Reply RE: What do you mean it doesn't specify jurisdiction?, Ishuli, 20-Sep-17 09:20 PM, #39
                                                            Reply Holy Molly!, Kstatida, 21-Sep-17 04:56 AM, #54
                                                       Reply RE: So being off-duty matters after all?, sleepy, 20-Sep-17 09:00 PM, #28
                                                       Reply RE: So being off-duty matters after all?, Ishuli, 20-Sep-17 09:17 PM, #35
                                                            Reply RE: So being off-duty matters after all?, sleepy, 20-Sep-17 09:34 PM, #42
                                                            Reply RE: So being off-duty matters after all?, Ishuli, 20-Sep-17 09:53 PM, #45
                                                            Reply Fellow 2L checking in!, Andrlos, 21-Sep-17 05:51 AM, #56
                                                                 Reply Three law students? You poor bastards :), lasentia, 22-Sep-17 08:56 AM, #63
                                                                 Reply RE: Fellow 2L checking in!, sleepy, 22-Sep-17 02:34 PM, #66
                                                                      Reply RE: Fellow 2L checking in!, Andrlos, 22-Sep-17 05:29 PM, #67
                                                                      Reply RE: Fellow 2L checking in!, sleepy, 22-Sep-17 10:38 PM, #68
                                                            Reply RE: So being off-duty matters after all?, Kstatida, 21-Sep-17 05:15 AM, #55
                                                       Reply RE: So being off-duty matters after all?, Jarmel, 20-Sep-17 09:04 PM, #30
                                                            Reply I mean..., sleepy, 20-Sep-17 09:15 PM, #33
                                                                 Reply RE: I mean..., Jarmel, 20-Sep-17 09:33 PM, #41
                                                                      Reply RE: I mean..., sleepy, 20-Sep-17 09:38 PM, #43
                                                                      Reply RE: I mean..., Jarmel, 21-Sep-17 12:38 AM, #50
                                                                      Reply My example was terrible Criminal A Criminal B, Jarmel, 21-Sep-17 12:43 AM, #51
                    Reply Tribunal library. Look for Precedents :-D, Quixotic, 20-Sep-17 07:00 PM, #19
               Reply RE: Exactly, Jarmel, 20-Sep-17 06:22 PM, #18
                    Reply 4b with some investigation can allow a flag. 8 doesn't, Murphy, 20-Sep-17 07:54 PM, #20
                    Reply RE: 4b with some investigation can allow a flag. 8 does..., Jarmel, 20-Sep-17 08:45 PM, #24
                         Reply Are you just deliberately misinterpreting my words?, Murphy, 20-Sep-17 09:05 PM, #31
                              Reply I simply quoted you first and questioned what was said, Jarmel, 20-Sep-17 09:18 PM, #36
                                   Reply See post #37., Murphy, 20-Sep-17 09:27 PM, #38
                                        Reply RE: See post #48., Jarmel, 21-Sep-17 12:54 AM, #52
                    Reply RE: Exactly, sleepy, 20-Sep-17 08:33 PM, #23
                         Reply He argues that your intent doesn't matter, Murphy, 20-Sep-17 08:49 PM, #25
                         Reply Focus on my example first ..., Jarmel, 20-Sep-17 09:00 PM, #29
                         Reply RE: Exactly, Jarmel, 20-Sep-17 08:58 PM, #27
                         Reply RE: Exactly, sleepy, 20-Sep-17 09:16 PM, #32
                         Reply RE: Exactly, Jarmel, 20-Sep-17 09:16 PM, #34
                              Reply That doesn't really answer the Q, sleepy, 20-Sep-17 09:24 PM, #40
                                   Reply RE: That doesn't really answer the Q, Jarmel, 20-Sep-17 10:06 PM, #46
                         Reply That line in the sand cannot be drawn the way you draw ..., Murphy, 20-Sep-17 09:19 PM, #37
                              Reply RE: That line in the sand cannot be drawn the way you d..., Jarmel, 20-Sep-17 09:48 PM, #44
                                   Reply Here's what I imagined that can justify a flag:, Murphy, 20-Sep-17 10:31 PM, #47
                                        Reply I can see your point, Jarmel, 20-Sep-17 11:57 PM, #48
                                             Reply What if..., sleepy, 21-Sep-17 01:42 AM, #53
                                                  Reply RE: What if..., Jarmel, 25-Sep-17 10:36 PM, #69
                         Reply Ok I have got this now, Jarmel, 21-Sep-17 12:18 AM #49
Top General Discussions Gameplay Topic #68882 Previous topic | Next topic