Jay Gatsby

Also that I might add, supposedly staff were witnesses, but in the replies so far it is only being talked about him looking up and killing Chimp. Hann stated he was 200+ hp and required more than one hit. If you get by a saber you get pushed back, considering he was 200hp, Korby would have had to follow him each time after hitting him (which would be around 3-4 hits). Unless this specific part of the story is left out then, the stability of the argument doesn't stand strong that it was intentional RDM and Chimp being 200+HP before the death. This means that Chimp had to be hit by Korby's saber around 4 times before dying. He died supposedly on the first or second hit (sabers dont do 200+ damage on hits). He purposefully could've killed himself to have a reason to call a sit on Korby. Also being in Hann's opening claim, why would Chimp choose to jump over a saber instead of walking around it? If Chimp was 200+ HP, why would he be fearful to run through a single hit of a saberstaff in order to move around the staircase (considering he can just heal back to full HP right after being hit once). Also being that If you got hit once in PD why did you run directly behind him, when he was stunned by police,  to "unintentionally and unironically" be hit once more by his saberstaff. Final thing being that if he had anything to truly lose, why would he be messing around with "being hit" by sabers when they're "pointing at the ground". This is appearing premeditated 

30 minutes ago, ThiccYe said:

As Korby seems to not have any proof of his side of the story (which he for some reason never does when he gets banned), I can’t see this ban getting appealed. Korby and Chimp also seem to have nothing but toxic interactions and I would suggest they avoid interacting with each other before more problems arise and create larger issues. 
 

-1

They most likely should make up in a voice channel as it brings them a possibility to hold somewhat of a common ground to hopefully stand on, rather than to have animosity and avoidance 

30 minutes ago, hann said:

Every sit I have taken with Korby where someone has killed him or whatever, even if it's an accident, even if they apologise and want to come to a resolution, Korby always insists that they be warned. He calls a sit for being killed from a hit. He calls a sit from being arrested with a dangerous weapon out. In this case, he killed Chimp and Chimp wanted him warned, exactly how when others kill korby, he wants them warned. It's not like we're picking on him or singling him out. He can't expect to not be warned for going against the rules. 

No of course, I know you have no intention of using him as a scapegoat. I am just implying that with Korby, its been shown to me he has a lot of people who denote his character without even knowing him and his intentions. However I am glad that you are able to reveal he doesn't share the same mercy that he requires.

45 minutes ago, Trem0r said:

This warn was based on damage logs, death position as well as a staff higher then myself witnessing the incident. Also we do not receive incentives based for warns/bans.

I don’t see how this is irrational in the slightest but ok.  If you would like to make long winded staff complaints I’d advise you to use the staff complaints section, this is primarily designed for the banned party to state there case and refute the ban if they have sufficient evidence or an explanation.

Death position and logs aren't hardcore and determining evidence of proving his intentions were to rdm. There were multiple staff, if im correct from memory, that were also a witness to what happened to Hann with the innocent youngling, yet after his rebuttal, it was seen clear that the staff were wrong. My intention of writing wasn't to show that this is a false result of a sit due to him being innocent. I am implying that the way the staff team goes about dealing with an accused person is with bias (dependent upon who is calling the sit), is impatient, and isn't open to hearing the truth of a story, rather going off of personal perspective. This type of ban has happened before, all I'm revealing is that the staff should be more patient and lenient with people who are capable of being truthful. Why this connects to this ban is that it is a probability it could be a false ban. I'm not arguing he is innocent, but also not that he's guilty. 

First sentence is me asserting my point of view based upon how I've seen the server treat him. The first part of the second is most certainly correct and the other half is also correct as judgement is very merciless and far from accepting the different points of views in a confrontation. Being that whatever the staff member see's is supposedly the ultimate truth which is incorrect, having a granted rank by a server owner does not declare you are always right. Third, Fourth and Fifth sentence is talking about a possible connection to a past case of a false ban only due upon the point of view from the staff's eye. Yet lo and behold, the staff were wrong, but as persistently seen, are too quick to judge. Sixth sentence is anecdotal and can be proved through testimony to determine. Seventh is a possibility, and most likely a truthful one, as Chimp most certainly did not lose anything except his time. The Eighth and final sentence is overall true, I didn't specifically say names as not every staff member is like this, however in my playtime, yes it can be seen very clearly. 

If it is wrong, take as much time as preferred and feel free to refute my personal experiences and analysis. This is a presumption I've made due to past experiences, yet somehow I'd be delighted to see you rewrite my own past experiences and gathered information to prove me wrong. 

I mean I suppose you guys refuse to give Korby the benefit of the doubt for almost any action he commits. Of course you do not know Korby's intentions as well as he does, but your authority in staff does not mean your viewpoint is entirely correct. This case could be paralleling the same case where some youngling was caught "rdm'ing" during a raid (With Hann and Chimp outside of spawn tunnel) and immediately called crossfire ; the truth being that he had a hit on Hann, and chimp ran in front of Hann getting himself killed. The staff banned this player immediately without giving him time to rebuttal and show his side. (soon of course he posted the clip of his defense and he was unbanned). It could be possible that this is the same case where judgement is called incredibly quick due to the overall mood and emotion, of the the host of the sit, instead of logic and reasoning being the driving factor. To my experience it becomes very transparent to see many staff members have incredible bias, impatience, and withhold a superiority complex during sits. Also being that Chimp, presumably I'm saying this, lost nothing from that death besides a mere few seconds of running back to where he died. There seems to be no mercy and rationality from the staff team anymore due to rewards being increased for taking many sits. (Almost as it is a race to have more sits, warns, and bans on the record) What a shame.