Durkel Shikarego (Theo Phrastus) "unjustified murder"

Shikarego · Post by **Shikarego** » Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:03 am #380625

Post Content:

Shikarego / Theo Phrastus
Banning admin: Durkel
Ban type (What are you banned from?): Temp Ban (from servers)
Ban reason and length: 1440 minutes / As a botanist: Killed a chemist who was attempting to recover his stolen chem machine from botany. Jumped straight to murder when he didn't know the full circumstances. Just chill man.
Time ban was placed (including time zone): 4:13:14 server time, it says
Server you were playing when banned (Sybil or Bagil): Sybil

Your side of the story: I came back to botany with a multitool to find my bucket-hatted partner being chased around botany by an officer and what looked like a medical doctor (I think he had a defib?). They were running around botany, there was some blood around, somehow the botanist was dodging everything. I didn't know what was happening but I jumped in to help. I tried to disarm both his pursuers, the other botanist turned to do the same. The officer (who I assume didnt ahelp?) pulled out his baton, one of us disarmed him. I picked it up. I stun the doctor, I think I get flashed but the other botanist then disarms the guy. As soon as I'm back I grab the baton, pull the doctor and start whacking while the officer chases me -- this was our chance. My partner tries to disarm the officer while he chases me, then some assistant (NO IDEA where this guy came from, maybe I'm just dumb) comes in with a screwdriver(?) and helps my partner with the officer while I finish off the doctor. After it was done, my partner called it an "epic win" or some shit like that, which indicates to me that he expected the fight would end in death for good or bad. He showed no interest in reviving them, and it was his fight so I left it be -- I had no idea what was going on.
It is possible that I'm fucking up the chronology regarding the flash, but I know I got flashed, and we the officer was also disarmed of a pepper-spray.
The key things I wanna highlight in this recounting is that A) I didn't start the escalation B) the fight seemed in full swing by the time I got there C) Given how little I knew, I had no idea what kind of fight we were having. I mean to say: Was my partner accused of being a traitor? A cultist? How likely is my involvement to get me killed? Would I be perma'd? Especially tricky when sec is involved; earlier today a HoS plasma-fired botany after we had returned what had been stolen. There is no reasonable way to deescalate with sec, but even if there were I did not jump in at a moment where I would have been listened to -- the fight was in full swing.

Why you think you should be unbanned:
So the main argument for me being banned seemed to revolve around the fact that the other botanist was only disarmed twice. I assume the next step of this is something like: So the threat wasnt that great/ so actions weren't taken that warranted such a response / and so on. I'm not sure if I even saw a disarm, and I don't think that matters. When I got there what I saw wasn't something the laws show (or at least, I must assume this). It looked like your standard heated combat, everyone running around trying to spam disarm each other on some diagonal. The idea that I chose to escalate the situation is absurd, as I already believed it to be significantly escalated.

If part of the claim is something like : Well you dragged that poor doctor around and hit him, that was clearly not happening before. Yeah, sure, but that's the shit that follows disarm spam fights, right? Especially when its 2v1, especially when one is sec, but not necessitating either of those variables to be made likely. I am unconvinced that I behaved in a way that was not expected. No one seemed surprised. There were three victors in that fight and all of them seemed happy with the outcome. I was genuinely surprised when the bwoink went on as long as it did.

I love playing botany, and when there's only one chemist I like to get the spare dispenser. If they come for it, I give it back unless I'm an antag. I much prefer resolving things with words to fighting, and maybe that's cuz I'm unrobust but its how I play. I did not walk in on a conversation about the chem dispenser, I walked in on a fight. Durkel suggested I shouldve tried to deescalate; I am not convinced that any admin would expect that to work unless I had a taser.

I did not "jump straight to murder", I joined a fight that other people started. Consider the escalation rules:

"If a player wrongs you(theft, insults, shoving, etc), you may retaliate. If you choose to retaliate with violence, you in turn have opened yourself up to violence. If you choose this route, do not expect admins to help you out if you die, even if you were not the original instigator. If you are concerned about being "kill baited" then consider calling security, using non lethal means to subdue your opponent, fleeing, or otherwise working things out (talking them down, getting your stolen items replaced, etc)
You may instigate conflict with another player within reason (you cant completley destroy their department, kill them unprovoked, or otherwise take them out of the round for long periods of time) but they are entitled to respond with violence. If you think its unfair or excessive they killed you for taking their ID, consider not stealing next round.
If you are the instigator in a conflict and end up killing the person you are fighting, you should make a reasonable effort to return them to life at least once, only seeking round removal if they continue to pursue you. This protection doesn't apply to an instigator being killed." (copy+pasted from the rules page)

So, botany wronged medical by taking a chem dispenser and presumably refusing to give it back (this is me speculating on what preceded the fight), medical retaliated with the rightful aid of security, the result being a violent interaction. Here I just wanna keep in mind the line "If you choose this route, do not expect admins to help you out if you die, even if you were not the original instigator," I think it's relevant. If the duo started the fight, their deaths should be expected; if the other botanist started the fight, then I think that might mean his killing them wouldn't be justified, but that's just my reading of things. So then, what of a third party (like myself) who gets involved and reads it as a sufficiently escalated situation? Assuming the situation is like mine in that it does not lend to the answering of questions. This is particularly the case here because of how outmatched my partner was.
Let's keep going: So clearly we cant be upset if medical decided they were pissed about the dispenser and wanted to set us on fire or something, sure. But then, the dispenser was taken thinking there was only one chemist, so the pretense of that would be a similar misunderstanding, correct? But I am certain an admin would think their attacking botany would be justified. Maybe I'm wrong.

It seems to me that in order for my involvement to be bannable, there would need to be sufficient reason to believe that I was MORE informed about the situation than I was. Durkel believes they can do this by looking at the logs. I disagree. I do not see how someone can see what HAPPENED (whether or not it was observed by the individual in question) and make specific judgement on how those happenings would be perceived, particularly if things like the movements of the players are not accounted for. I am not convinced that I should have seen the situation as less dangerous; I'm sure I could be with sufficient argument, but Durkel did not even try to address this concern, he just kept referring to the logs. I've been wondering if him not addressing it means it doesn't matter, but then I'm not sure what his argument is -- this point seems central. He seems to be sufficiently convinced that I should have known that murder was a disproportionate escalation, but I genuinely cannot understand how, but maybe that's because I saw what happened and he didn't. I was pretty sure the other botanist was gonna be murdered, that's why I got involved.

That's, basically, why I think I should be unbanned. I do not think there is the information available to convince someone that I knew what was happening before I got there, and to say that I over-escalated (if we use your rules as a touchstone) requires an awareness of the situation. If the other botanist had then said "Oh shit, I didn't wanna kill them" or anything to similar effect, rather than "I would call that an epic win" (I'm pretty sure that's what he said, ew) , then the next step would be to revive them. However, my partner's reaction to the situation justified my concern when I got into the fight.

Maybe I'm missing something? I just can't see where the assumption that I knew where the situation was before I "knowingly escalated" comes about. Sorry for the long post.

imblyings · Post by **imblyings** » Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:18 am #380629

tl;dr but if you see a doctor and security fighting your coworker, is it completely and utterly necessary that you have to join in on his side and help him kill the two? Departmental loyalties aside, does it really make sense to immediately help bludgeon to death two people in a fight which you yourself said you had no idea what's going on? You also said it's his fight, which is why you left the bodies instead of taking them to medbay, but you chose to intervene you can't just back out after you've robusted someone. Even a little communication to your coworker here would be nice, e.g. 'why were those two people trying to kill you?' even a 'tator?' would have sufficed to be a lcd.

The ban could be lifted it's just disappointing to see players choose the dumbest and most violent route, not communicate, then wonder why admins are speaking to them.

i mean for fugs sake your entire argument seems to revolve around 'well i didn't know it wasn't legit' and durkel is saying 'you should have known', somewhere in between surely the reasonable middle ground was, 'I knew I didn't know I should have found out or just not got myself involved'

Shikarego · Post by **Shikarego** » Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:24 am #380632

Hmm okay that's a fair point. I suppose my response would exactly be "department loyalties". Any time you see a fight, no matter how things look, one person could be just getting fucked out of a whole round and it's hard to tell who that might be. Whenever botany gets attacked, I side with botany because A) The aftermath of being wrong is less inconvenient B) I could be next C) That's what I would want if I were in their position.
I have gotten shafted enough times to say that I think the way I got involved was justified. In the future I'll likely be more self-aware, but I'll likely make the same decisions.

Your point that I didn't ask about it afterwards is a strong one, though. There I was certainly at fault, even if it doesn't break any rules.

I do wanna say real quick that I didn't think communication before my involvement was reasonably possible. You're right about my behavior after the event tho.

Shikarego · Post by **Shikarego** » Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:29 am #380633

Oh shit my bad, posted before you edited.

I don't agree that's the middle ground. That presupposes that finding out was possible before things got to where I was afraid they were going, which is my partner's death etc, possibly followed by my death or imprisonment or something. I'm just not confident the situation I walked in on was at a place where communication would have been successful, they were too focused on getting those disarms to look at chat.
To say I shouldn't have gotten involved is pretty compelling, except that surely I've tried that before. That tends to end poorly. Even if I only thought my partner was getting arrested, I could have been taken with him "just in case," as shitcurity tends to say. I just wouldn't be convinced that I wasn't gonna get fucked over too, better safe than sorry.

Shikarego · Post by **Shikarego** » Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:44 am #380638

I guess part of what I'm saying is: You're trying to say players should communicate more before jumping to conflict. I agree. But: Would you not agree that if other players aren't doing the same, you are at a disadvantage? Let's say I get arrested "just in case" after my partner, what would I say to get out of being arrested? What about trying to figure out what's going on while someone is attacking your coworker? And what if your coworker gets crit'd and then they move on to you? What good did your words do?
I guess this argument is made stronger when you look at sec. Sec, for the most part, is a shoot first ask questions later kinda gig, it seems. No one ever comes in and says "hey, you're wanted, you wanna come quietly?" I always have to tell them not to stun or cuff me cuz i'll come quietly -- they never believe me. And you know what, they shouldn't! There are too many robust fuckos who would take any opportunity given to them to fuck you up. Better safe than sorry.
So "better safe than sorry" leads to that kind of behavior, but then us feeble botanists and mimes and shit have to adopt a similar philosophy, right? "Better safe than sorry" eventually becomes "everything is worse than it seems," because we have all been in scenarios where that is the case. I'm not sure what starts this cycle, maybe people who play a mechnical game more than an RP game? I'm unsure. But I know that I don't like spending 10 minutes in the brig, only 2-5 of which I'd spend in a cell.
Like I said, I'm unrobust and would rather talk than fight. But sometimes you gotta play it safe.

imblyings · Post by **imblyings** » Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:01 am #380644

You're trying to argue for a playstyle where you have to absolutely kill everyone first on the basis that you know nothing about what's going on except that you don't want to be possibly killed or inconvenienced because two people are attacking someone else who is wearing the same uniform as you. That playstyle is not ok here, it's reckless and shows no regard for others. Judging by your posts, you were also the first to escalate to lethals.

There is no excuse not to have reached that middle ground. Even if you got involved you still should have found out what's going on. Two players were just taken out of the round, from your posts you weren't operating off any assumptions that they were antags or valid, it costs you more via being banned than it costs you to take the time to find out why two players were attacking the botanist after the fight that you decided to get involved in. And from the general feel of your posts, sometimes the game isn't fair. The game will give you choices that both seem unappealing and situations like these don't necessarily release you from your obligation to not dick around other players.

Security arrest procedure is nowhere near your situation involving a fellow botanist. Security players will often have to seek out conflict with other players who they aren't familiar with, don't know if they're willing to cooperate behind the screens by being compliant/sportsmanlike, or don't know if they're armed and willing to end the security player's round the moment they say 'can you come with me to the br-RUGH'. Security also don't kill people unless they are confirmed threats, they usually stun first ask later. Security get bwoinked if they kill first ask never, which is what you did.

Post by **oranges** » Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:13 am #380646

when you prefer to "win" more than you prefer to role play one wonders how you came to choose /tg/station

Durkel · Post by **Durkel** » Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:27 am #380651

The chemist you killed had barely done anything to warrant a death sentence.

Yes, I know not everyone is aware of the circumstances surrounding an event, but a lack of knowledge doesn't give you the justification to beat the poor bastard to death with a stun baton when the guy hasn't even landed a punch on someone. It was a retarded situation all around, but you were the one who beat the guy into the ground. Now if you saw him swinging his fists, spraying chems, doing whatever than yeah, go for it. However, two people doing a yakety sax isn't a good enough reason to murder the guy.

The chemist was trying to get his stolen chem machine back.
No one had gotten nasty up until the point aside for a disarm and a grab.
You then stunned and killed the chemist, the body was then placed in the back room. (I'm not sure who was responsible for placing it back there as It's 1 in the morning and I'm tried as all hell.)

Even if you're unaware about what the situation is, jumping in and killing someone like that is pretty awful.

Just chill, Not everything in the game is a life and death situation, and being detained by security isn't the end of the world. This could have all been easy been diffused if everyone either let security do it's job or at lest made a half assed effort to talk it out.

The reason the ban was placed was because you were the one who had drawn blood on the chemist.

relevant logs.

Spoiler:

Looking at the logs too if would be appear you were the one to also drag the chemist into the backroom and leave him there.

Edit : Just chill man, we don't need to instantly go from zero to murder.

2nd edit: The logs I posted look like cherry picked shit but they're up on the public site for everyone to see if they wish. I'll fix them tomorrow. too sleepy and sick.

Shikarego · Post by **Shikarego** » Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:30 am #380654

I'm not arguing FOR that playstyle, but you're correct that those are the inevitable implications. I am making an observation that we are pushed towards that kind of playstyle. I can (and I'm sure you can too, we all can) think of plenty of times where I get in a fight, knock the other guy die, get a few good hits in, and try to use your position of dominance to deescalate, only for the other person to keep trying to fight or come back with a bigger stick. I've died a couple times doing R&D because of that shit.
I'm not saying we should all be killing everyone who looks at us funny, but that other people take advantage of situations (intentionally or not) and it makes sense to protect yourself from that.

You might be right that I was the first to escalate to lethals, but I would have no idea unless you told me. As I said, I saw blood.

That's fair, and its compelling when you put it in the language of taking players out of the round rather than something about sensible reactions. But then, why wouldn't the admin just ask me to revive them? Better yet, why wouldn't they ask the other botanist to revive them? Yes, I was the one who killed the doctor, but I have no doubt the other botanist would've done the same. I'm prepared to be wrong on that but that's my read of the situation -- it looked way more violent than y'all seem to think it was.

"And from the general feel of your posts, sometimes the game isn't fair." Having trouble parsing this. Is your claim something like "yeah, that shit happens, but you cant protect yourself from it too much because that ruins the game for others"? If so, that makes a lot of sense to me, I find that pretty convincing. But then I'm trying to figure out what your response is, practically speaking. I was coming at it thinking these guys are trying to protect themselves from that unfairness such that it might ruin the round for the other botanist and maybe even myself. Are you saying we should act with this knowledge but not assume that others have the knowledge? I could be convinced that we should play that way, but I'm not there yet.

I'm down with the "no excuse not to reach that middle ground" argument for the most part, but I think it misses a part of the situation. It seems to me that you have yet to address my conclusion that the situation was past the point of talking; that my attempts at communication would get ignored, maybe while I was getting stunned or the other guy was getting killed. I think you would be 100% right in that one claim (regarding reaching the middle ground) if I could be convinced that all situations look like talking will get a response.
When I got there, it looked like things had been very escalated and they were in the middle of combat, running around the room spamming disarm. I'm just not yet convinced that communication would have worked there.
Although I am 100% convinced by you that I should have asked my partner about it afterwards rather than accepting his satisfaction the way I did, that was reckless for sure. I have to keep that in mind in the future.

Damn, I wish I could say I've had such great interactions with sec, but I can't. I feel like my interactions with sec are largely wordless; the actions precede my questions, which hopefully yield a response. But again, while I wish that weren't the case, it makes sense to me that it is. And as far as I knew, the sec officer came in and blew his taser trying to shot the botanist (the taser was empty on the floor) without saying a word, and I wouldn't be shocked if that were the case. I'm not sure if you mean to say that arrest procedure is more flexible/peaceful than what I'm describing? Not sure where you were going with this point, I feel like we're agreeing for the most part.

Why do you think I'm saying I prefer to "win"? If you are saying the "role play" here would be to attempt to communicate, I again say that you are assuming all situations will be seen as ones in which communication is possible, which just does not seem to be the case. If you walk into a room and 3 people are running in circles spam disarming each other, do you suspect your words will get a response? Even if they see you talking and read your words, surely they wont stop to respond and risk being knocked down? I don't know; that presumes I see why you said that, but that's a point I feel like is strong and hasn't been addressed at all. Surely you can remember countless situations in which only a fool would try to talk and expect a response? But maybe then your response is "Well you should get involved in violence if communication isnt possible first, even to help your coworker" (because I already thought the conflict was a lethal one) which I don't really agree with, but if that's the way you admins want us to play I will try to conform to it more. It just doesn't seem to be the way the game is played on /tg/, and I play every day.

--okay im gonna post this then read the new one cuz its kinda long already lmao i hope this isnt super tedious for yall--

Shikarego · Post by **Shikarego** » Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:45 am #380661

Okay so my main response this whole time has been: "Okay, I will grant that maybe the guy hadn't done anything to warrant death, but the situation i was looking at did not indicate that to me. It looked like it was a real fight going on in there." So it's not just "lack of knowledge" as you're putting it, but a "having of false knowledge", the difference being I wasn't just confused and decided to hit something -- I thought I had interpreted the situation reasonably. Afterwards, my partner's reaction to the situation reinforced this for me -- I had just saved him from a lethal engagement.

If I had been there when he asked for it back, I would've given it to him myself.
It looked pretty nasty when I got there, people were running around trying (and failing) to hit each other. EVERYONE was involved in the chase, all three of em.
I mightve dragged it, but it also mightve been the grey, who I also think took the sec officer's body?? I asked about it afterwards and no one answered. Anyway, I'm willing to take the blame for sake of argument.

So then, it seems you're accepting that it stemmed from a misunderstanding, but not acknowledging what my misunderstanding was, or at least not seeing it as entertain-able? I assume this comes from it being hard to accept someone's being wrong about something as a defense when you know what was right. That makes sense to me. But then why was no one surprised when I drew blood? It just doesn't seem right to me that the situation wasn't already escalated.

Reading the logs I'm only more convinced that they dont tell us much. I really don't think anyone watching the situation would think I was the main escalating factor, but I understand why the logs lead you to think that.

I'm convinced by you saying it would've been fine if I just let sec do their job, that seems right. Maybe I should've just left for a minute and come back. But again, that conflicts with the fact that it really DID LOOK like it was already gonna be a lethal situation in there. So I guess I'm saying you're right, it would've been better to stay out of it, but we can only say that because we KNOW that it wasn't the fight that at the time I thought it was.
So then, it being a misunderstanding, why not just ask me to revive them? I get that rules are rules, that's probably the response, just something I'm wondering.

So the "chill" thing resonates with me, but doesn't fit the situation I believed myself to be in. That's the thing: Y'all are making a lot of good points but most of them don't seem to address the misunderstanding. Unless you're also saying I would have been in the wrong even if, say, the doctor had stabbed the botanist first?

Edit: I hope this isn't keeping you up! Sorry you're dealing with this all tired and shit, fam.

Gigapuddi420 · Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:21 pm

It's kind of baffling to me how you're still defending your actions on this one with a weak excuse like departmental loyalty.

Like ok, you come back to your department and see the other botanist being attacked with non-lethal weapons by security. You get a hold of that non-lethal weapon and use the justification that someone is now also fighting you (non-lethally) to harm baton them until dead. With the body of both a officer and a doctor now sitting in your department, you do nothing to work out if the fight you just had was even valid.

I'm pretty sure you're not meant to kill security doing their job when you start a fight with them. That's what you did here, you see a conflict, decide to join in against security with no information, kill them and do nothing after to fix it. Somehow you're still confused this resulted in a ban? Not really sure how security sometimes being shit justifies you killing them the moment you initiate a conflict. The problem here seems to be your attitude, not the ban. Hell, you didn't even bother to work out why they were there.

I would have been in the wrong even if, say, the doctor had stabbed the botanist first?

Yes, you would have been wrong. It's easy to see why you are wrong because you harm batoned a officer who was making a arrest just because someone wore the same color jumpsuit as you. You chose to do that, you didn't have to join that fight. Then having chosen to join that fight, you went full lethals all the way to dead. You could have stopped at crit and asked questions. That would still be shit, but at least it'll be closer to reasonable and a admin will probably overlook that. After killing them you washed your hands of it. Honestly a ban is the least I would expect.

Shikarego · Post by **Shikarego** » Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:12 pm #380797

Hmmm okay, I'm mostly convinced by that, at least on paper. But while it all adds up on paper, it doesn't correspond with what I have experienced on /tg/ servers. The only point that might survive this lens discrepancy is that I did not try to figure out if the fight was "valid," that I was satisfied with what little was reinforcing my existing assumptions.

I've been killed by sec for knocking them down while they were trying to arrest me (antag or not).
I've seen people justify murder with "but the chem dispenser was in your office" or " one of you broke my window" or something.
I've thrown people (greys, clowns, etc) out of R&D, only to have them come back to break our windows with a fire axe. What happens when we try to stop them? The kill us.
Recently a HoS released a plasma mix into botany (destroying everything) because we stole a chem dispenser, even though we had given it back.

I'm not saying any of those events are good, justified, or in-line with the rules, only that they are the norm on your servers. It seems that it is now the norm to assume a conflict is a lethal and perhaps unjustified one. "Department loyalty" is just how I chose what side to support, as siding with my department will ensure I am not brought down with them -- it makes the most sense. It also seems to me to be the norm to kill security when they seem to be doing their job because trying to reason with an officer you just knocked down or had a fight with rarely ends well. "Okay what was that ab- AGHH" boom, tased, flashed, cuffed, probably kicked a few times. Next thing you know, you're gulagged for attacking an officer. The majority of sec doesn't do a whole lot of RP, at least in my experience. Maybe the good ones do, but even HoS Lexia will stun before saying anything.

I guess I'm saying I agree with you, or that I would like to but your argument just doesn't correspond to what has happened to me and in front of me on your servers. Does that mean that it's normal to break the rules now? Based on what you're saying: Yeah that seems to be the case, which makes me kinda sad. But that doesn't make you wrong, it makes /me/ wrong. It just seems to me that I had a real good reason to be wrong, a reasoning based on prior experiences on your severs, which I play on daily and exclusively.

Ever try to be a friendly wizard? I've tried it twice, both times I was gangbanged by a bunch of heads.

tl;dr: I'm down with everything you said, I guess. I just wish the /tg/ servers played more like what you seem to be expecting of me. If I were the doctor or officer in that situation, I think I would've expected to be killed. You might say I would be wrong to expect that, but my prior experiences on these servers tell me otherwise.
(I am still confused why we jumped to ban instead of "Yo that wasnt as bad as you thought it was, maybe consider reviving those guys." I've been revived by my killer as a result of ahelp before, is all. Perhaps yall still aren't convinced it was a misunderstanding, which is fair.)

Also thanks for addressing that question (the quote), your response made things a lot more clear for me. It does make me wish there was a section in your rules about the nuances of RP, such as justifications in joining a fight, but other than that I'm not sure I have questions about your response.

SpaceInaba · Post by **SpaceInaba** » Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:32 pm #380802

the longer these posts get the less sense they make
anyways I don't think the """"""norm"""""" of killing sec for trying to arrest you invalidates the rules just because its the """""""""""""norm""""""""""""""

Shikarego · Post by **Shikarego** » Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:38 pm #380803

Yeah I'm not saying it invalidates the rules, quite the opposite. I wish the rules were more represented by the """""""""""""norm"""""""""""""""""" (ie: the way most players treat each other) so that I wasn't so surprised. I think the rules sound better than the norm.

imblyings · Post by **imblyings** » Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:57 pm #380817

the rules tell you not to be a dick, i've explained it and gigapuddi has posted a reasonable neutral third-party viewpoint from a player.

/tg/Station 13

Durkel Shikarego (Theo Phrastus) "unjustified murder"

Durkel Shikarego (Theo Phrastus) "unjustified murder"

Re: Durkel Shikarego (Theo Phrastus) "unjustified murder"

Re: Durkel Shikarego (Theo Phrastus) "unjustified murder"

Re: Durkel Shikarego (Theo Phrastus) "unjustified murder"

Re: Durkel Shikarego (Theo Phrastus) "unjustified murder"

Re: Durkel Shikarego (Theo Phrastus) "unjustified murder"

Re: Durkel Shikarego (Theo Phrastus) "unjustified murder"

Re: Durkel Shikarego (Theo Phrastus) "unjustified murder"

Re: Durkel Shikarego (Theo Phrastus) "unjustified murder"

Re: Durkel Shikarego (Theo Phrastus) "unjustified murder"

Re: Durkel Shikarego (Theo Phrastus) "unjustified murder"

Re: Durkel Shikarego (Theo Phrastus) "unjustified murder"

Re: Durkel Shikarego (Theo Phrastus) "unjustified murder"

Re: Durkel Shikarego (Theo Phrastus) "unjustified murder"

Re: Durkel Shikarego (Theo Phrastus) "unjustified murder"

Who is online