Report a player - Multiple Cutlass (Mainly Barry C) - GTA RP

[Stuart]

I am confused, what cherry picking am i doing, there was no situation previous to the clips i showed by Brent and Leyton, Barry C posted my interaction (Bruno is missing video) with him entirely so what else is there to post

https://medal.tv/games/gta-v/clips/...e=cr-MSxlMW8sMTc0NzIxNjY5LA?mobilebypass=true for example. There is clearly more to this situation. So what's the context?

You can see in the video two Cutlass already there so a big part of the reasoning behind this is missing. Now going from your own words nothing happened what so ever for cutlass to show up, Interact with you here? It was "Out of the blue" to where the Cutlass members said you aren't getting an apology. Now it is obvious there is more to the situation, So again why are the videos cropped down and not providing the full context?

 

[Bmav]

https://medal.tv/games/gta-v/clips/...e=cr-MSxlMW8sMTc0NzIxNjY5LA?mobilebypass=true for example. There is clearly more to this situation. So what's the context?

You can see in the video two Cutlass already there so a big part of the reasoning behind this is missing. Now going from your own words nothing happened what so ever for cutlass to show up, Interact with you here? It was "Out of the blue" to where the Cutlass members said you aren't getting an apology. Now it is obvious there is more to the situation, So again why are the videos cropped down and not providing the full context?

There is nothing else to add all the situations were presented by both sides that was just the last interaction before guns got pulled i guess. It wasn't out of the blue it was because of the original situations which were posted on dutch london ?

 

[Stuart]

There is nothing else to add all the situations were presented by both sides that was just the last interaction before guns got pulled i guess. It wasn't out of the blue it was because of the original situations which were posted on dutch london ?

You say there isn't anything else to add however attempt to use the clip for "Baiting" however it's clear it's part of a bigger roleplay arc that has happened. It would overall help to have the full story when reviewing reports as in all honesty if I've seen one video that is missing half the context, What's to say the other things you have provided aren't missing things too?

 

[Bmav]

You say there isn't anything else to add however attempt to use the clip for "Baiting" however it's clear it's part of a bigger roleplay arc that has happened. It would overall help to have the full story when reviewing reports as in all honesty if I've seen one video that is missing half the context, What's to say the other things you have provided aren't missing things too?

There is no context missing at all some stuff that kash has posted in this report was from months ago from a completely different situation, if any context is missing i guess it would be multiple tweets from cutlass members to try and bait gunfights but i reckon those were to petty to bring to the report and honestly didn't save them, so i brought the things that were the most obvious and had all the context in there. If cutlass members are stating there is "previous context" it would be stuff from months ago previous to this situation and when i mean months i mean around like 6 months maybe a bit less.

 

[Stuart]

If cutlass members are stating there is "previous context"

I'm the one saying this as it's clear from the video you yourself provided to try and claim "Baiting" However that clip wouldn't be baiting as there is more too it as a whole. The main videos I've gone off are the ones you have provided and the extra parts Kash has shown of the videos in the main post.

I've not looked at the gun deal thing since I already know about it nor have I watched the glasses video yet, However was curious why there is such an attempt to try and get a rule break from a video that clearly has more to it.

 

[Bmav]

I'm the one saying this as it's clear from the video you yourself provided to try and claim "Baiting" However that clip wouldn't be baiting as there is more too it as a whole. The main videos I've gone off are the ones you have provided and the extra parts Kash has shown of the videos in the main post.

I've not looked at the gun deal thing since I already know about it nor have I watched the glasses video yet, However was curious why there is such an attempt to try and get a rule break from a video that clearly has more to it.

Because i don't think there is much at all, it was random they came down said i want tax or you leave, my member started leaving and they started egging him of saying they were gonna shoot him if he left so what other option is there to prove if that isn't baiting then i have no clue what is at this point, it was clearly random.
I think i know what you mean, that you want more from the pillbox situation to get your judgement but the Baiting already happened previous to that, the pillbox situation was basically the end result.
My point is the baiting already happened on turf, so why does the pillbox situation matter it was only the end result.

 

[Stuart]

it was random

You say it's random but offer no context? The point the report is still going currently I'm giving you a chance to provide the context behind it as I know there is more, It's more of a matter how much more. What was the context yous we're there, You said you we're injured but failed to state how?

It's fair to assume it was due to Cutlass and you and other grove ran to Pillbox. Now without a video it's impossible to say however I do hope you can understand the point I'm making here. Things can be twisted and turned and made a report out of when in reality there was never nothing wrong.

Explain how this is baiting to me given the two videos you have provided. One was the one I'm questioning currently and the other is Cutlass asking a Grove member if they have "Paid for tax".

My point is the baiting already happened on turf, so why does the pillbox situation matter it was only the end result.

I assume you are referring to this video and nothing more? https://medal.tv/games/gta-v/clips/...ite=cr-MSx6VlQsNTU0MjEyMzYs?mobilebypass=true

 

[Lucyy]

Hello guys! As discussed with Stuart I will reply here on behalf of Bmav.

It seems there has been some misunderstanding somewhere down the line so I'm going to try and clear some things up quickly.

So, the report was posted as we/Bmav believes that Cutlass had come to Dutch London baiting. A clear example why this has been reported can be found here - https://www.roleplay.co.uk/threads/report-a-player-robz-ballas-gta-rp.419340/#post-2452209. In this report, another member of the community was banned for baiting through a similar situation. They were on someone else's turf refusing to pay tax during a heated time between their gang and another. The reason that Bmav has reported here is because Cutlass came to a turf that wasn't theirs and started asking Grove members for tax on their own turf.

I have seen that Cutlass members have claimed that the reason they were attempting to tax on Dutch London was due to their assumption that the selling area belonged solely to Aztecas. This is untrue. This has been assumed by Cutlass from seemingly nowhere? Just to clear this up once and for all. Dutch London does not belong only to Aztecas. Aztecas were given 50% ownership of Dutch London due to our prolonged relationship with the gang and their wish to expand. We were approached, within RP by Aztecas about a deal involving them having shared ownership of Dutch. Grove agreed to this, each gang gained something from the deal. There is no need to keep repeating this cycle of Dutch belonging to Aztecas. Aztecas were not "gifted" anything and it had nothing to do with us having Aztecas on 2nd characters in Grove Street as we have had a good relationship with Aztecas since way before their 2nd characters.

Even if Aztecas did solely own Dutch London, I would still consider this baiting as they have admitted previously that they are still in heated times with Aztecas so I question whether their actions were just to get a reaction from Aztecas?

@Stuart, I'm going to try and answer as many of your questions as possible.

why is your videos been shortened now showing what @6AN6 provides giving more context.

In terms of this, there is no missing context imo. In relation to Kash's provided clip on Dutch London, Bmav had his gun in his hand prior to Cutlass' arrival. This was because quite often someone in gang will watch over those selling to prevent robberies. As soon as Bmav pulled up and realised that his gun was out, he quickly puts it away and even says "my bad" as it wasn't meant to be intentional. The Cutlass members then try to push a narrative that Bmav was being disrespectful and then continue to pull their own guns out in retaliation. They then start to get aggro with Bmav even though he is being very calm with them asking why they are taxing our own members on their own turf to which he receives nothing but attitude, seemingly wanting a reaction. They then start demanding an apology for "disrespect" even though Bmav had been nothing but calm, saying "my bad" to having a gun out and just trying to have a simple conversation with them. They then tell him to stop "being lippy" and that the Grove members they were trying to tax were "giving lip" for simply saying they are not paying tax on their own turf. The Cutlass members then start to continue following Bmav making constant comments seemingly looking for a reaction from Bmav.

Since following the trail it does look like it was only mentioned after Bowen made the post in Group members.

The disbanded comments did only start towards Grove since Bowen made it clear that it is unacceptable in groups. This is also information we're confused about Cutlass having since no one knew in game what was happening in Grove Street at the time. No one had told anyone that we almost disbanded, nor that we had 0 members. Whilst Ramsay states in his meeting with Kash that he "needs to rebuild" there was no talks of disbandment. The talk turned to Neb not being in the gang, and the OG members that are still within the gang, but no comments were made about lack of members or disbandment, so we would like to know how Cutlass know this information IC as we feel as though the "almost disbandment" was taken from the Groups Discord into game. Again, such comments we don't feel are acceptable as it's all we hear from Cutlass, that they "almost disbanded us once and they'll do it again" - it does come across that there are OOC influences to that.

Looking over it seems very cherry picked from your part. So care to explain why?

Bmav had no intentions for anything to look "cherry picked". He runs session recordings religiously. After each session recorded has ended, he then goes into that recording and take clips of the parts he feels are necessary. In relation to this report, he took clips of the baiting in which he was reporting as well as the shootout at Pillbox. Had he though that the rest would be necessary he would have clipped it all. Unfortunately, after he has what he thinks he needs he deletes the whole session recording as to not eat up the space on his pc. After I have personally spoken to Bmav, it has been agreed that everyone in Grove Street that has session recordings will keep said recordings for a whole 24 hours before they delete them. This is to prevent things like this happening again. As I am sure you can understand not everyone will use the session recording method, and will clip what they feel necessary during game play, but at the same time they will be limited to the clip lengths that medal allows.

In terms of this clip (here) - this was a situation that happened months ago, whilst Aztecas were still at war with Cutlass, around February time. We are confused how this holds any relevance to the report itself due to how long ago it was and feel it is an attempt to steer the report in a different direction.

Screenshot of the date of this incident has been sent to Stuart directly as to avoid metagaming, as before Cutlass showed up Bmav was at that location with someone else.

https://medal.tv/games/gta-v/clips/...e=cr-MSxlMW8sMTc0NzIxNjY5LA?mobilebypass=true for example. There is clearly more to this situation. So what's the context?

It was "Out of the blue" to where the Cutlass members said you aren't getting an apology. Now it is obvious there is more to the situation

In terms of this, Bmav was at Pillbox as earlier on in the day he had pissed off some locals on Grove Street (they are known to be incredibly aggressive) and he had been shot by them, causing some injuries. Bmav had decided to go to Pillbox to lay in a bed and heal his injuries. This is when Cutlass arrived and a conversation started. Cutlass then started asking Bmav for an apology in which the conversation took a turn when Bmav asked why he shouldn't get an apology from them. Then as you see in the clip, one of the Cutlass members takes off towards the back doors of Pillbox before a Cutlass member outsides opens fire into the hospital at Bmav - causing an all out gun fight inside the hospital.

I assume you are referring to this video and nothing more? https://medal.tv/games/gta-v/clips/...ite=cr-MSx6VlQsNTU0MjEyMzYs?mobilebypass=true

There are 2 clips from 2 different members of Grove that Cutlass tried to tax that day:
Brent was the first to be approached - https://medal.tv/games/gta-v/clips/2cYds0c0EsWLB_/d13375lzL6Mg?invite=cr-MSx4UDYsMTk2MDMzNTA0LA
Then later on in the day Leyton was also approached - https://medal.tv/games/gta-v/clips/...ite=cr-MSx6VlQsNTU0MjEyMzYs?mobilebypass=true

Regardless on who Cutlass thought owned Dutch, we would still consider this baiting, whether they were wanting a reaction from Grove or Aztecas.

I hope I have managed to clear some things up. Please if you have any questions let me know

 

[Stuart]

A clear example why this has been reported can be found here - https://www.roleplay.co.uk/threads/report-a-player-robz-ballas-gta-rp.419340/#post-2452209. In this report, another member of the community was banned for baiting through a similar situation.

So the reason this report was made is because others made a report that started off as an RDM claim? You are also missing the point. Grove Street is grove no? Whilst yes you can sell on dutch london both Vagos and Grove "Claim it's their turf", However you say they come to grove and asked for tax. I have seen no video of this ever happening only on dutch london. Furthermore did you seen where the asking for tax happened? This was on Roy Lowenstein Blvd off Dutch london towards police impound, This can be seen in both videos from Bmav and Kash.

I have seen that Cutlass members have claimed that the reason they were attempting to tax on Dutch London was due to their assumption that the selling area belonged solely to Aztecas. This is untrue. This has been assumed by Cutlass from seemingly nowhere?

This is an RP issue no? Cutlass believed another gang owned it and went from there.

Aztecas were not "gifted" anything and it had nothing to do with us having Aztecas on 2nd characters in Grove Street

I'm confused by this?

In terms of this, there is no missing context imo. In relation to Kash's provided clip on Dutch London, Bmav had his gun in his hand prior to Cutlass' arrival. This was because quite often someone in gang will watch over those selling to prevent robberies. As soon as Bmav pulled up and realised that his gun was out, he quickly puts it away and even says "my bad" as it wasn't meant to be intentional. The Cutlass members then try to push a narrative that Bmav was being disrespectful and then continue to pull their own guns out in retaliation. They then start to get aggro with Bmav even though he is being very calm with them asking why they are taxing our own members on their own turf to which he receives nothing but attitude, seemingly wanting a reaction. They then start demanding an apology for "disrespect" even though Bmav had been nothing but calm, saying "my bad" to having a gun out and just trying to have a simple conversation with them. They then tell him to stop "being lippy" and that the Grove members they were trying to tax were "giving lip" for simply saying they are not paying tax on their own turf. The Cutlass members then start to continue following Bmav making constant comments seemingly looking for a reaction from Bmav.

Whilst in your opinion there might not be missing context, You cannot tell me situations begin from people appearing from nowhere and standing in front of you?

Now I know there is more to it, For example Bmav and Cutlass had some beef before going to Pillbox and then it carried on. I think one thing people don't realise is staff members have seen most of the situations that are in this report, So I know the context more wondering why only half the story is wanting to be told overall.

Even just by the response Cutlass and Bmav gave at Pillbox shows there is more to it than there wasn't any build-up nor prior RP that resulted in shooting.

The disbanded comments did only start towards Grove since Bowen made it clear that it is unacceptable in groups. This is also information we're confused about Cutlass having since no one knew in game what was happening in Grove Street at the time. No one had told anyone that we almost disbanded, nor that we had 0 members. Whilst Ramsay states in his meeting with Kash that he "needs to rebuild" there was no talks of disbandment. The talk turned to Neb not being in the gang, and the OG members that are still within the gang, but no comments were made about lack of members or disbandment, so we would like to know how Cutlass know this information IC as we feel as though the "almost disbandment" was taken from the Groups Discord into game. Again, such comments we don't feel are acceptable as it's all we hear from Cutlass, that they "almost disbanded us once and they'll do it again" - it does come across that there are OOC influences to that.

This is something I've not fully looked into and on my list anyway however if it is a common thing they have said prior then it's not just related to Grove now is it. I know about the message put out in groups anyway. When Neb was removed, I didn't find anything mentioned in Group members about them not being in Grove so I don't get where you are trying to use that as a point saying "They mentioned it because Neb was removed", For all I know and after checking there was nothing said about it. If it was mentioned in RP then someone has loose lips.

Bmav had no intentions for anything to look "cherry picked". He runs session recordings religiously. After each session recorded has ended, he then goes into that recording and take clips of the parts he feels are necessary. In relation to this report, he took clips of the baiting in which he was reporting as well as the shootout at Pillbox. Had he though that the rest would be necessary he would have clipped it all. Unfortunately, after he has what he thinks he needs he deletes the whole session recording as to not eat up the space on his pc. After I have personally spoken to Bmav, it has been agreed that everyone in Grove Street that has session recordings will keep said recordings for a whole 24 hours before they delete them. This is to prevent things like this happening again. As I am sure you can understand not everyone will use the session recording method, and will clip what they feel necessary during game play, but at the same time they will be limited to the clip lengths that medal allows.

Whilst this may be the case, You have to understand how it looks. Bmav (Now you) are the spokes person for grove, Kash is for Cutlass to save this report being longer than it is. This is why it's directed at him and it can be asked to the person who made clip.

This is part of the problem as well, "Taking parts people feel are relevant to prove something" Yet fail to show everything else that could be relevant to try and sway the staff teams opinion. In all honesty I'm more than annoyed with that.

Indeed not everyone uses session recordings however picking what parts you want to keep and not just looks more suspicious and in all honesty I'm grateful @6AN6 has given us the context for the video linked. Since the one provided in the report was only 42 seconds (From Grove) yet 6 minutes from Cutlass. I hope you get the point I am making here where longer is better and shows us "A third party looking over the situation" a better idea of what actually happened, Over what it's being made to look like.

Screenshot of the date of this incident has been sent to Stuart directly as to avoid metagaming, as before Cutlass showed up Bmav was at that location with someone else.

Whilst I have seen the screenshot, I also see that it was from 3 months ago. I get the reason for it however very very confused why it also wasn't reported then, However with that being said it is something to keep in mind in general however still should of been reported back then. Since holds no relevance in this report both the video from Kash and Screenshot I will be ignoring that in this report.

Bmav was at Pillbox as earlier on in the day he had pissed off some locals on Grove Street (they are known to be incredibly aggressive) and he had been shot by them, causing some injuries. Bmav had decided to go to Pillbox to lay in a bed and heal his injuries.

Without the full video we will never know, Whilst it's mentioned he was in a bed who's to say something else didn't happen? We can put any narrative there but unless we see video of it then it's more difficult to judge based off of that, But again there is more to it than Cutlass showed up then shot. We both know this however only one side is putting it on the table.

Regardless on who Cutlass thought owned Dutch, we would still consider this baiting, whether they were wanting a reaction from Grove or Aztecas.

From Kash's own video it's not Grove they are taxing.... Whilst you may consider it baiting without context, With context it shows a much different picture as a whole.

Also just to add for Bmav: - What you don't understand Kash, is unlike other people in the server I won't let you or your gang bully me. A comment you made. Sounds more an RP issue not an OOC one. I'm honestly shocked this hasn't been delt with in RP however ran into a report......

Think my main question is, Is there any actual evidence showing this "Baiting" and no roleplay connected to it?

 

[Lucyy]

So the reason this report was made is because others made a report that started off as an RDM claim? You are also missing the point. Grove Street is grove no? Whilst yes you can sell on dutch london both Vagos and Grove "Claim it's their turf", However you say they come to grove and asked for tax. I have seen no video of this ever happening only on dutch london. Furthermore did you seen where the asking for tax happened? This was on Roy Lowenstein Blvd off Dutch london towards police impound, This can be seen in both videos from Bmav and Kash.

No, the report was made due to our understanding that the situation would come under baiting. Swooney was banned off that report for baiting, in a very similar situation as the one here. Dutch London has been known as Grove's selling turf for a long time. It used to be shared between Grove and Vagos, a war happened and it was claimed as purely Groves. Vagos were allowed to sell tax free but the whole strip belong to Grove after that war. And whilst in the clip of Leytons you see them telling him to "get" and that if he sold another bag they would "ziptie him" the original question of asking for tax happened on Dutch London and they then followed him to Roy Lowenstein and the "ownership" of Dutch expands to wherever the selling area boundary starts and ends including Roy Lowenstein where you are still able to sell.

This is an RP issue no? Cutlass believed another gang owned it and went from there.

This is indeed an RP issue, but their assumption is what caused them to come down to someone else's turf asking their members for tax.

I'm confused by this?

Cutlass have this idea that Aztecas were gifted ownership of Dutch London due to us previously having 2nd character in Grove. This is not the case and wanted to clear it up so we can move past it.

Whilst in your opinion there might not be missing context, You cannot tell me situations begin from people appearing from nowhere and standing in front of you?

Now I know there is more to it, For example Bmav and Cutlass had some beef before going to Pillbox and then it carried on. I think one thing people don't realise is staff members have seen most of the situations that are in this report, So I know the context more wondering why only half the story is wanting to be told overall.

Even just by the response Cutlass and Bmav gave at Pillbox shows there is more to it than there wasn't any build-up nor prior RP that resulted in shooting.

The Pillbox situation happened after Cutlass had come trying to tax Grove members on Dutch. I believe Bmav went to Pillbox after his "conversation" with Cutlass to heal some old injuries. Cutlass arrived for whatever reason I can't speak for them, and this is when the altercation at Pillbox took place. Bmav is unsure as to whether they intentionally followed him to Pillbox, or if they were there for their own reasons, but the conversation you can see in the clip happened and the shooting started.

This is something I've not fully looked into and on my list anyway however if it is a common thing they have said prior then it's not just related to Grove now is it. I know about the message put out in groups anyway. When Neb was removed, I didn't find anything mentioned in Group members about them not being in Grove so I don't get where you are trying to use that as a point saying "They mentioned it because Neb was removed", For all I know and after checking there was nothing said about it. If it was mentioned in RP then someone has loose lips.

The only thing about Neb being removed was when Ramsay was speaking with Kash in this clip. This is why I mention this. Kash (and Cutlass) claim they were told in RP that Grove had "disbanded", I see no evidence of this being provided. Simply saying that Neb was removed (from Ramsay) is no indication that Grove had almost disbanded. Hence why I say that we feel as though this was taken into game from the Groups Discord. I can assure you no one told Cutlass about Groves issues in game.

Indeed not everyone uses session recordings however picking what parts you want to keep and not just looks more suspicious and in all honesty I'm grateful @6AN6 has given us the context for the video linked. Since the one provided in the report was only 42 seconds (From Grove) yet 6 minutes from Cutlass. I hope you get the point I am making here where longer is better and shows us "A third party looking over the situation" a better idea of what actually happened, Over what it's being made to look like.

Of course I understand your point, but I think Bmav was more focused on the fact they had come down asking for tax off Grove members on their own turf. That was the bit he was reporting. Bmav had no reason to keep the part where the Cutlass members in the car were giving him attitude as he felt it held no importance to the fact that they had come down asking for tax on a turf that wasn't theirs.

Whilst I have seen the screenshot, I also see that it was from 3 months ago. I get the reason for it however very very confused why it also wasn't reported then, However with that being said it is something to keep in mind in general however still should of been reported back then. Since holds no relevance in this report both the video from Kash and Screenshot I will be ignoring that in this report.

There was nothing to report within this situation, it wasn't us that brought it up it was Kash. We are unsure what relevance it holds to the report considering how long ago it was hence why a screenshot of the date was sent to you. Bmav had nothing to report from that situation hence why it was never mentioned.

Without the full video we will never know, Whilst it's mentioned he was in a bed who's to say something else didn't happen? We can put any narrative there but unless we see video of it then it's more difficult to judge based off of that, But again there is more to it than Cutlass showed up then shot. We both know this however only one side is putting it on the table.

In Bmav's defence, I also wouldn't keep a clip of me being shot by locals and I wouldn't feel it holds any relevance. As I stated above, whether Cutlass followed Bmav to Pillbox we don't know, only Cutlass can answer that, but Bmav went there to heal old injuries and was confronted.

From Kash's own video it's not Grove they are taxing.... Whilst you may consider it baiting without context, With context it shows a much different picture as a whole.

It is Grove as I stated above. After the war with Vagos (which I am sure Tomas can attest to) full ownership of Dutch London was given to Grove Street and Cutlass were taxing Grove members on their selling turf.

Sounds more an RP issue not an OOC one. I'm honestly shocked this hasn't been delt with in RP however ran into a report

This is indeed an RP issue, it was stated in connection with the 3 month old video provided by Kash.

Think my main question is, Is there any actual evidence showing this "Baiting" and no roleplay connected to it?

As shown in the clips we have provided. Cutlass members came down to a turf that isn't there's and tried to tax Grove members. Whether it's well known or not, the whole of Dutch London was claimed by Grove Street after the Vagos war. A deal was then made to benefit both Grove Street and Aztecas and ownership was shared with Aztecas in an even split - this is in terms of the whole of Dutch London is now owned by both Grove Street and Aztecas, so now theoretically, anyone selling there could be taxed by either gang for example.

 

[Stuart]

First thing I will make clear. If you aren't involved in the report then don't comment on it! The only parties commenting is Lucy on behalf of Grove and Kash for Cutlass. Should others decide to jump on the wagon you will find yourself with a warning and a possible restriction from the forums. Reports are here for the players involved to comment on and the staff team as a whole.

Moving on,

No, the report was made due to our understanding that the situation would come under baiting. Swooney was banned off that report for baiting, in a very similar situation as the one here. Dutch London has been known as Grove's selling turf for a long time. It used to be shared between Grove and Vagos, a war happened and it was claimed as purely Groves. Vagos were allowed to sell tax free but the whole strip belong to Grove after that war. And whilst in the clip of Leytons you see them telling him to "get" and that if he sold another bag they would "ziptie him" the original question of asking for tax happened on Dutch London and they then followed him to Roy Lowenstein and the "ownership" of Dutch expands to wherever the selling area boundary starts and ends including Roy Lowenstein where you are still able to sell.

The Balla report you have provided holds no relevance at all, Whilst yes a ban was given for baiting both situations and roleplay as a whole are totally different, So lets not try and use other reports. I've always said and will continue to say that using an outcome on another report to try and spear a report with much different context won't work as you will not come across the same situation twice. By this I mean the roleplay as a whole, Build up, People involved, Outcomes ect.

As for who "Owns Dutch" we will cover as reading the response you say it was vagos and grove, Then only Grove and Aztecas haven't now you are saying both Grove and Aztecas own it. In all honesty I'm confused so if a third party can't decide how on earth do you expect people in RP to when there is no consistency

A deal was then made to benefit both Grove Street and Aztecas and ownership was shared with Aztecas in an even split

As per this ^

The Pillbox situation happened after Cutlass had come trying to tax Grove members on Dutch. I believe Bmav went to Pillbox after his "conversation" with Cutlass to heal some old injuries. Cutlass arrived for whatever reason I can't speak for them, and this is when the altercation at Pillbox took place. Bmav is unsure as to whether they intentionally followed him to Pillbox, or if they were there for their own reasons, but the conversation you can see in the clip happened and the shooting started.

It's now changed from there was no prior RP to this happening after the "Tax" video. If I am being told different things and the truth only NOW coming out, What else has been left out of the report? Begs to question in all fairness.

Of course I understand your point, but I think Bmav was more focused on the fact they had come down asking for tax off Grove members on their own turf. That was the bit he was reporting. Bmav had no reason to keep the part where the Cutlass members in the car were giving him attitude as he felt it held no importance to the fact that they had come down asking for tax on a turf that wasn't theirs.

I'll cover this a bit later as I do have questions for Kash too.

Now for you @6AN6

Explain the relevance of this video taken 3 months ago?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Furthermore, I'd like to know the RP involved before the whole Dutch thing that yourself and Bmav posted a video for. In addition to this I want to know why there was a gunfight inside Pillbox and why it couldn't of waited until after.

I'll await the responses and go from there as I'm sure the responses will bring more questions than answers. (Just a heads up too, Responses will be a bit slower from me due to work).

 

[6AN6]

@Stuart
How would you ever understand why we behave the way that we do if I don't provide you with the background information around our interactions? The moment with the sunglasses was significant because it made us realise how small-minded and resentful Bruno is. He refused to give us a pair of "sunglasses" in return for a "Pistol" he had stolen, showing to us that he would much rather be against us than do business with us. I could send you more videos that show how our relationship with Grove broke down, but I think you already have enough to deal with.

To put things in perspective, let me say that Bruno and I were previously close friends until we began to fight the Aztecas. This oddly resulted in Bruno acting against us, though I'm sure he would clarify that this has nothing to do with the fact that the Aztecas were Grove's second characters at the time. Keep in mind that context is crucial, and stories develop over the course of days, weeks, or months.

 

[Lucyy]

As for who "Owns Dutch" we will cover as reading the response you say it was vagos and grove, Then only Grove and Aztecas haven't now you are saying both Grove and Aztecas own it. In all honesty I'm confused so if a third party can't decide how on earth do you expect people in RP to when there is no consistency

I will try and give a timeline
For the longest time, Dutch London ownership was split between Grove and Vagos at the intersection. The half of Dutch that lead to Vagos was theirs, and the part behind Grove was ours.
A war started between Grove and Vagos, and the outcome of that war was that Grove would take full ownership of Dutch London, including all available selling areas.
Grove had sole ownership of Dutch until recently (during the Balla war) when we were approached by Aztecas wanting to expand their property. A deal was made to benefit both sides and Aztecas half of the deal was half ownership of Dutch, which was granted given what Grove were getting out of the deal benefitted us greatly. This meant that while Dutch London itself wasn't split like it was when it was owned by Grove and Vagos, the entirety of Dutch is now owned by both Grove and Aztecas.

It's now changed from there was no prior RP to this happening after the "Tax" video. If I am being told different things and the truth only NOW coming out, What else has been left out of the report? Begs to question in all fairness.

Afaik this is where the miscommunication has come in. The Pillbox incident happened after the tax incident. How long after I am unsure of.

let me say that Bruno and I were previously close friends until we began to fight the Aztecas. This oddly resulted in Bruno acting against us, though I'm sure he would clarify that this has nothing to do with the fact that the Aztecas were Grove's second characters at the time.

A message Bmav wants me to get across here is to not confuse "friendship" with "tolerance". Bmav knows how you treat other gangs on a regular basis, and to avoid unnecessary "beef" he tolerated yourself and Cutlass. It's easy to see how Cutlass members can go from having a conversation to getting aggro and accusing people of having "attitude" and "giving disrespect". It was easier for himself and Grove if he was civil with Cutlass and tolerated their presence. It's a known fact that Grove Street has been seen as a "weak gang" and Cutlass, in our opinion, took advantage of this with constant blacked out robbing's, shit talking & upright disrespect. Which is why Grove finally decided enough was enough and we were not longer going to "tolerate" and accept the disrespect Cutlass were giving and expecting us to roll over. Grove never had a "relationship" with Cutlass, we simply wanted to keep the peace but enough was enough. Your obsession with Grove having Aztecas on 2nd characters as members is getting a bit out of hand and it seems to be something you try and use as an excuse for everything? We get you don't like our relationship with Aztecas but that is a you problem and something you're going to have to get over eventually as it is not something you can use every time a report is put up against your group.

 

[Stuart]

How would you ever understand why we behave the way that we do if I don't provide you with the background information around our interactions? The moment with the sunglasses was significant because it made us realise how small-minded and resentful Bruno is. He refused to give us a pair of "sunglasses" in return for a "Pistol" he had stolen, showing to us that he would much rather be against us than do business with us. I could send you more videos that show how our relationship with Grove broke down, but I think you already have enough to deal with.

I know why Cutlass act the way they do. I'm more in the loop than you may think with most gang things.

Now going over your own response you've still failed to answer so I would like you to re-read what I asked and provide the answers please.

Also in relation to finding Bmav, I am very very curious how this happened. There any video of that?

Grove had sole ownership of Dutch until recently (during the Balla war) when we were approached by Aztecas wanting to expand their property. A deal was made to benefit both sides and Aztecas half of the deal was half ownership of Dutch, which was granted given what Grove were getting out of the deal benefitted us greatly. This meant that while Dutch London itself wasn't split like it was when it was owned by Grove and Vagos, the entirety of Dutch is now owned by both Grove and Aztecas.

So what Kash is doing isn't wrong. In RP Aztecas do sell there and in RP yous share it.

One thing I will say is this to yourself directly as I have spent some time today looking back on group members chat. Anything said there is OOC not IC. Trying to explain this and HOPE Kash or Cutlass would use that in RP will simply get you a punishment under the following rule;

(C1.8) Encouraging Rule BreaksForcing or encouraging another member of the community to break a rule.

I will leave it there for the group members chat in discord but I am sure you can find the message I am referencing.

Afaik this is where the miscommunication has come in. The Pillbox incident happened after the tax incident. How long after I am unsure of.

Again wouldn't this be an RP issue and not a report a player issue? I have a funny feeling that neither side has bothered to even talk to each other, Only moan and complain for months both IC and OOC.

For both of you and both gangs, Keep RP to RP and OOC to OOC. Don't mix the two as it just gets toxic and overall we will end up looking into what we will do if we step in.

 

[Lucyy]

Good afternoon Stuart, apologies for my late response.

One thing I will say is this to yourself directly as I have spent some time today looking back on group members chat. Anything said there is OOC not IC. Trying to explain this and HOPE Kash or Cutlass would use that in RP will simply get you a punishment under the following rule;

I'm not sure what you mean by this? No one HOPES Kash or Cutlass use OOC information in game. What we believe to have happened is they have already done this. In terms of what happened with Dutch as well as the disbandment comments.

We believe this is information that they have found out OOC and used in game, and so far no evidence has been provided to prove the contrary. Where did Cutlass get their information from? Not only for Aztecas owning half of dutch (which they assumed was all of so were misinformed) and what was happening with Grove? As we know we never told anyone about Aztecas ownership of Dutch nor did we go around announcing that we almost disbanded. We believe both of these pieces of information were taking from OOC sources.

I would also like to ask why these "disbandment" comments are being accepted? Considering another member of the community who I will not name was banned for making VERY similar comments, for example "I'll make you never wake up again" (IC terms translation meaning "I'll make you never log on again"). We feel there is a very valid difference between them saying to another gang once or twice "we're going to disband you", to every interaction with Grove including something along the lines of "we disbanded you once we'll do it again". Considering that there's no way for Cutlass to know IC that we almost disbanded plus their boasting in the Groups Discord about it at the time? It's hard to believe that this is not 1. OOC information brought IC and 2. Influenced by OOC factors every time it is said given the background.

 

[6AN6]

@Stuart
According to what I understand, Kilo broke down the roleplay that happened at Dutch as follows:

"Cutlass arrived at Dutch London to tax due to the conflict between Cutlass and Aztecas. Grove happened to be there, and were taxed as anyone would have been. Disrespect was shown by the initial Grove member by driving off and ignoring the attempts to talk to him which escalated the situation to a verbal dispute and resulted in warnings, eventually this member left unharmed. A second Grove member was then attempted to be taxed and lingered around the area which escalated it to a point of him being removed with a threatening presence and also left unharmed. Bmav approaches with his gun drawn and escalates the situation further, being shown an aggressive response by the Cutlass members. After a verbal dispute between the two parties involved, Bmav was chased and tried to hide in Pillbox. Cutlass arrive to have a conversation and try to resolve the situation and were not content with the resolution and the attitude being shown by the character of Bmav and so it escalated naturally to a point where the two groups butt heads and it turned into a physical dispute." - Kilo

I apologise if your question was misinterpreted; it appears that a lot of topics are being discussed.

Thank you, @Stuart . I hope I've given you enough information, and I appreciate you taking the time to read through all of this.

@Lucyy I don't know how much you know, but since you gave them Dutch London in game, we've been fighting with the Aztecas over it.
I'm not sure why, as I've mentioned multiple times in this report, you keep bringing up our usage of the word "disband". In character, we use the term "disband" as an insulting term. Our main objective is for this community to continue growing because we enjoy playing and being a part of it, not for any gang to really split apart in game.

 

[Lucyy]

@Lucyy I don't know how much you know, but since you gave them Dutch London in game, we've been fighting with the Aztecas over it.

My question still stands Kash, on how you knew that Aztecas had part ownership of Dutch as this wasn't discussed in game by either party. We strongly believe you have take the information from OOC sources and then used it in game. If you have any evidence to prove the contrary we'd love to see it.

My question regarding the using the words "disband" was aimed at Stuart, not yourself. Quite frankly I don't care how you rationalise using it. My point still stands that we believe it is being used under OOC influence as again, it is not information you would have been told in game as no one in Grove went around announcing that we almost disbanded.

 

[6AN6]

@Lucyy , what are you talking about?

 

[Stuart]

I'm not sure what you mean by this? No one HOPES Kash or Cutlass use OOC information in game. What we believe to have happened is they have already done this. In terms of what happened with Dutch as well as the disbandment comments.

So here is what I'm referring to, "Find out in RP" then "States it in Group members" I am baffled by your logic with it but as I mentioned I suggest you keep what I said in mind moving forth.

We believe this is information that they have found out OOC and used in game, and so far no evidence has been provided to prove the contrary. Where did Cutlass get their information from? Not only for Aztecas owning half of dutch (which they assumed was all of so were misinformed) and what was happening with Grove? As we know we never told anyone about Aztecas ownership of Dutch nor did we go around announcing that we almost disbanded. We believe both of these pieces of information were taking from OOC sources.

Yet you have failed to provide any evidence they did. I will tell you straight, Bmav (Grove) made the report. The burden of evidence is on you not the staff team. In all honesty it's clear this is more than "RP beef" and it's becoming stupid. I think we have already gone into how little you actually know or get told so in terms of "As far as you know you've never told anyone". Can you prove to me this never happened or no?

I would also like to ask why these "disbandment" comments are being accepted?

Did you not bother reading Bowens comment? In terms of RP you can RP whatever you want (To a point) Yes there is a line, However if someone is trying to go out of their way to get people to disband than indeed that is a place we will review and go from there.

"I'll make you never wake up again"

Yet shown no evidence and I'm not going to take your word for it.

It's hard to believe that this is not 1. OOC information brought IC and 2. Influenced by OOC factors every time it is said given the background.

Again we will circle back to the "evidence has been provided to prove the contrary". Can you prove either statements or are they simply that? Waffle....

I apologise if your question was misinterpreted; it appears that a lot of topics are being discussed.

No worries and thank you for answering. Gives me a bit of a better understanding. I know this was a while ago and I can't prove otherwise other than a date it happened.

My question still stands Kash, on how you knew that Aztecas had part ownership of Dutch as this wasn't discussed in game by either party.

Can you prove this? 50 people across two gangs. Show me evidence that this was never discussed in RP. Otherwise I will just be denying this report as in all fairness it's becoming silly.

 

[Lucyy]

So here is what I'm referring to, "Find out in RP" then "States it in Group members" I am baffled by your logic with it but as I mentioned I suggest you keep what I said in mind moving forth.

This is the exact point I'm making. No one mentioned in RP so we're wondering where Cutlass got the information from if it wasn't taken from OOC?

Can you prove to me this never happened or no?

How do I prove no one said anything in RP? I know for a fact none of our members went around telling people about the deal with Aztecas or that Grove almost disbanded.

Yet shown no evidence and I'm not going to take your word for it.

The person banned for this was Candice (married to Ju Long), an ex-triad, 2nd in command afaik. I'm sure there will be a log of this somewhere.

Can you prove this?

Again, I'm not sure how you'd like me to prove no one said anything in RP? It would be a lot easier to prove if we did say something.