LenNyfAce.eXe said previously:

Im pretty sure that the evidence doesn't really prove anything, all he is doing is tell you your being warned and he is gonna spectate the other player, this doesnt prove you right, its more of Boe just doing what he is ment to do, he saw the other player as a minge and saw you as fine, he was just following protocall pretty much but the evidence from my view doesn't prove much

Smock and I both were there, all we had proof of was him attacking the knight, the knight did break nlr, and so we warned both of them.  

Firstly, it wasn't even my sit, so if I didn't care I wasn't required to come to the sit, but I came anyway because I care. Second the only thing we didn't have proof of is what you said about him attacking you. You should have reported him when he tried to rdm you the first time, because that is what caused this situation. And if you wanted to handle it RP wise, then call a staff member, and let them know about the events, therefore fixing the whole situation before it happens. As for the hostile intent rule, it makes it almost impossible for staff to deal with certain problems. It can be used as an excuse to rdm as well. How are we supposed to know these things in logs? Its not fair to put that stuff on staff, when its not in our ability to actually deal with those situations, it just isn't possible for us to know those things.

Moonlight Boe Dennis said previously:

Firstly, it wasn't even my sit, so if I didn't care I wasn't required to come to the sit, but I came anyway because I care. Second the only thing we didn't have proof of is what you said about him attacking you. You should have reported him when he tried to rdm you the first time, because that is what caused this situation. And if you wanted to handle it RP wise, then call a staff member, and let them know about the events, therefore fixing the whole situation before it happens. As for the hostile intent rule, it makes it almost impossible for staff to deal with certain problems. It can be used as an excuse to rdm as well. How are we supposed to know these things in logs? Its not fair to put that stuff on staff, when its not in our ability to actually deal with those situations, it just isn't possible for us to know those things.

How are we supposed to know these things in logs?
EXACTLY... So why punish if there is no evidence. That is my entire point. You made an assumption. Furthermore the second you tped to my sit to help the staff member it became a part of your responsibility to make an effort to solve the issue. Just because it wasn't your sit originally doesn't mean you should treat it differently. You have shown clearly in your replies how my appeal is 100% in the right. Further if you looked at the logs as I asked you too he came back within 10 seconds on me killing him and he only managed to kill me because I was typing the @ request. Something I told you many times. So don't try to claim I never called for staff originally...

We did have evidence... of you killing the dude. Not evidence of the intimidation you accused him of. So, I went with what the logs showed. Because those are facts, that I can trust. And I treated the sit as if it were my own. My point was that if I didn't care about your sit, I wouldn't have came to it in the first place. And if I am remembering correctly, you said you wanted to handle the situation by rping it out. Maybe my memory is just foggy, but that is what I remember. So, my point is, I trusted the logs over the words of a player, because logs don't have an opinion, they are simply numbers and facts. So I trusted the logs, over your word. 

The whole time, the guy was saying you rdmed him in the first place.