Invalid Report against ThatAintSpookyFalco

Name of Staff/Player:

ThatAintSpookyFalco​

Steam ID of Staff/Player:

STEAM_0:0:172255827​

Your Steam ID:

STEAM_0:0:30998825​

Which Server:

East 1​

Which Map:

Richland​

Which Round:

2nd to last​

Time of Occurence:

1:05-1:15 AM​

Reason For Report:

Favoritism/Discrepancy in Punishment​

Evidence And/Or Witnesses:

During the map Richland, Falco applied a slay to Rice and Chicken for the following:


Which is a completely valid slay reason.

However, immediately after this, Rice types in chat debating his slay and changing his initial reasoning (Im assuming), stating the following:



Falco then removes the slay:


This is problematic to me for one major reason. This situation that Rice was describing (e.g. common sense) was found invalid as a reason in another report, coincidentally against ThatAintFalco, found here: https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/report-against-thataintfalco-jabba-the-slut.53628/#post-563909

In which Jabba the Slut argues that the sounds heard could be radio, but ultimately that Shia Laboofer did not WITNESS the kill, much like Rice did not.​

 

I readded the slay back onto him, he told me it was common sense but after looking back at the deathscenes and seeing it wasn’t I was going to readd the slay which I already did. Tagging @Peach

 

I was 100% sure in this case due to a lot of factors. Sound ques, timing, potential of escaping.



I told Falco "readd the slay if you need to, I don't want to be the reason they report you". Since a handful of you were making such a big deal out of me contesting the slay without actually witnessing the kill or viewing evidence.

Not really a big deal though, just don't think it's favortism because someone challenges a slay and a mod looks into the evidence more.

 

Hey I’ve seen this and will respond to it in a bit.

 

Hey @Noccam :^) thanks for taking the time to make this report.

First off I just want to say that removing a slay when a player feels it was wrongly placed is something that happens quite a bit. This is usually so that the staff member can re-investigate and prevent possibly making a mistake in slaying the player. In this case @ThatAintFrankenstein ended up re-adding the slay after investigating further.

I don’t see anything here that would show favoritism or bias.
Everyone is human, second guessing yourself on a report verdict and wanting to take some more time to investigate before slaying a player is perfectly acceptable.

Since you weren’t involved in the actual report I don’t feel the need to get into it. If @Rice and Chicken feels the slay was unjust I would be more than happy to delve into it. However since this report is about Falco showing favoritism I’m going to be marking it invalid. I don’t see anything that shows abuse or breaks protocol. If you have any questions regarding this please feel free to send me a message here or on discord.