Complaint against Garth Pawolski

[Cussiek]

Okay so, I'm in the wrong because I used the only weapon I had on me against hostiles? Again, I didn't select it at the start of the round knowing what I'd be going up against. I don't understand how engaging hostiles with the only weapon I had, that would in fact be effective against said enemies, is me being in the wrong here.

And again, you'll note in the screenshot that immediately after the rocket is fired, he throws the grenade, which did infact explode. I know what I did and why I did it, he primed it, so I saw that as your response to my request and fired, that's all there is to it.

So you're telling me this - "I only packed a rocket launcher, and only a rocket launcher, because I didn't know what kind of enemies I'd be facing. Therefore, I didn't pack a rifle, I didn't pack a sidearm. I only packed rockets." Correct me if I'm wrong, also correct me if the logic doesn't add up. I can't understand why if you didn't know what you'd be fighting why you'd take a weapon that's niched for AT and AA duty. That sort of logic is how we got ODSTs rolling out 14.7mm sniper rifles for door-to-door ship breaches. Ultimately, this sounds like you put yourself into a situation that forced the use of a rocket launcher solely with the intention of ganking people; it's no different from people joining in as Assistants in other servers and going straight for a toolbox to swing at random people 'because there might be a traitor/ling/etc.' There is no reasonable ignorance claim there, there was no effort to pack anything but a rocket launcher because 'it's busted' in the terms of IC damage. The intention was purely meta with no character input. Furthermore, there was an approximate two hours time frame after you'd been in an engagement with URF insurrectionists and Covenant forces - again armed with light weapons - which might've told you that maybe, just maybe, you'd be fighting infantry not vehicles. Hence, why not go for a rifle and a sidearm; the armory wasn't locked, you had multiple allies you could have asked for a sidearm from; yet you refused. You decided to stick with a rocket launcher and only a rocket launcher with the expectation of fighting an enemy that'd given no evidence of heavy armor or need for a rocket launcher. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Furthermore, I know what I saw as well. What I saw, what I posted from the logs, was someone who broke into a literal X-Files location, screamed "SURRENDER NOW," immediately fired a rocket launcher at a guard with a grenade in his hand, and then defends himself by saying he heard a grenade prime. From what I saw, and what my screenshots show - you took no action to de-escalate. You took every effort to ensure that you were just outright taking people out of the round. You took every action to be an aggressor. You, with others assisting, used tools to tunnel through a secret, unknown escape passage solely because of OOC knowledge. You did not give IC considerations a second's glance as you were purely motivated to win a game.

For the sake of argument - let's say he did prime the grenade, let's say he threw the grenade first. Let's say, after being told on more than one occasion that it was a restricted location that wouldn't even allow refugees in, you weren't the aggressor. What does that change? You still put yourself into a situation that was outright meta - you still packed nothing but rockets solely to just one-hit-punch other characters out of the round. You still broke into an ONI Research base after being warned to leave verbally on more than one occasion. What changed? The core of the complaint is metagaming - which the evidence still shows you wholeheartedly doing.

As an alternative punishment request, just remove the UNSC's access to heavy weapons. If we're going to have people who can't make proper decisions when it comes to RoE, IC interactions, and IC loadout, make it for them.