[Market Down]

The player didn't directly influence the sword or intentionally place it there. I work in an area of Criminal Justice, and I've seen on more than one occasion in the event that someone is indirectly hurt in the commission of the crime, the perpetrator is charged with every single piece of damage he did to others. My personal belief is that if this were a case where Sweepy was a traitor, and accidentally killed other traitors like this, I would not want him slain nor banned. Everyone on the T-Team is in it together, and they should have been more careful.

This is an innocent player causing carnage, that was only stopped by someone killing him, fully intending to kill more players with the sword which is why I think he should be banned for mass for this. The player was attempting to mass rdm, he killed two players in only THREE SECONDS before he was killed. He fully intended to kill more. In this case I think we can consider every player killed by his actions part of his original intent to kill more.

[Ryan]

An area of clarification: Sweepy shouldn't be liable for the people that died once the sword was on the stairs. They are only liable for the 3 people they killed when the sword was in their hands.

If someone were to hide the sword in a place like under the portal, they could be held liable for RDM dependent on staff discretion.

[DickRash]

+1 he only killed 2 people with the sword in his hand. Players on the server moved the sword around after he dropped it. He deserves all his other warns, but this is a poor precedent.

[茶 Tea]

+1

We are a nation of laws and rules, and especially at a time like this, we need to be giving every one fair due process. What kind of example does it set if even the TTT servers have kangaroo courts that cant follow their own laws? In these uncertain times, we need to come together, not fall apart.

[PandaInPants]

An area of clarification: Sweepy shouldn't be liable for the people that died once the sword was on the stairs. They are only liable for the 3 people they killed when the sword was in their hands.

If someone were to hide the sword in a place like under the portal, they could be held liable for RDM dependent on staff discretion.

Timeline from the logs of that round for everyone for full transparency:
1:07 Sweepy first kills QueenVraelka with the sword.
1:10 Sweepy kills Hakeem_LIVE with the sword.
1:11 Dickrash kills Sweepy, thus dropping the sword.

Then he only killed 2 people unless the timeline is wrong

[Dinomoto]

Sounds to me that Dickrash is Sweepys lord and savior here. Killing them before they could get that all important 3rd kill.


Unban. +1

[BGgamez YT]

To be honest, Sweepy should not have been banned for this. He technincally only killed 2 people with the sword before his death. The ones after his death should not have counted. Let him be unbanned. +1

[Ryan]

This appeal has been accepted. Locking for now, and will post a more in depth conclusion later tonight

[Ryan]

Holy airball. I forgot to actually conclude this.

After some discussion it was decided that Sweepy should only be held responsible to the standards of RDM for the first 2 kills. After Sweepy was killed, he was not in control of where the diamond sword ended up, and the only reason the kills were attributed to him is because the diamond sword will always attribute kills to the last person to hold the sword. This functionality is done for when someone decides to do something like intentionally hide the sword where it can be easily walked over (under the portal or at the bottom of the stairs).

If Sweepy had died and then someone immediately was killed to the sword as a result of his RDMing, there is some discretionary wiggle room for staff to count it as RDM if they think there was further intent to RDM.

Sorry for the delay.