Player Sanctioned: ^Y^.GSV-Pankhurst

[EisenSeele]

After discussion and another vote, it was concluded that the sanction will stand as is.

The main argument posed against the sanctioning was that firing upon ships of the defending side after being killed in a different system did not count as re-engagement due to self defense - and that, if true, a sanction is not warranted or is grounds for reducing penalties.

By consensus, the argument was refuted by the following:
1) Player was killed by siege defenders during a pre-arranged base siege, with full understanding on all sides.
2) it is the PVP dead player's obligation to avoid combat with the players that have killed them - besieging the base that was being defended was highly questionable and possibly sanctionable as it is a deliberate action that forces interaction with the defenders, not leaving at the first sign of the defenders' return but instead remaining in a position to require interaction with the defenders is also sanctionable - these two scenarios in which a PVP dead player forces interaction with the players that killed them is the main reason why this incident was considered definitive reengagement.
3) The context that this occurred during a POB siege, and by a veteran player that should have known better factored into the severity of the penalty. We do not want to normalize poor behavior when it comes to large fights to begin with, but even more so when the stakes are higher due to the potential for the loss of a base is concerned.

---

FEEDBACK