Character
Rules
Events
Map
RP Points
Proplimits
Statistics
Steam Group
Members
Hall of Fame
Team
Bans
Blacklists
Warnings
Changelog
Content
06-17-2018, 09:43 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 01:06 AM by Fearless Community.
Edit Reason: Checked Encoding
)
I did not remove your chair to see how you would respond to the discovery if it being bulletproof and whether or not you would choose to leave the chair upon seeing it was bulletproof.
We aren't required to make your moral decisions for you, and shouldn't have to babysit a roleplay to ensure its participants follow the rules. It's up to you to do so, and when you fail to follow those rules that's where we come in.
In your case, after being attacked you elected to stay in the chair because you saw it protected you from Kawaii. An abuse of props/entities.
Punishments are a case by case basis. Using JackZ as an example is ill-founded because that was based on personality traits and personal experience with the individual. In your case, there is solid evidence of your rulebreak and a 'personal profile' isn't necessary in order to come to a conclusion on the matter.
In terms of a 'deal', a complete removal of a ban when there is obvious abuse present is unfair. I think the only bans that should be allowed to have 'dealings' are bans when the user will be restricted from accessing the server for a considerable amount of time, such as 1 month bans and longer. Changes to your ban should only be made when solid evidence of innocence is present or a mistake by the banning staffmember, such as the FearRP reasoning in your ban which I have conceded as a personal mistake.
That is my personal opinion on 'dealings' and that will be my approach to it. Should the administrator who eventually concludes this UBR believe otherwise, that is up to them.
Captain Barry
We aren't required to make your moral decisions for you, and shouldn't have to babysit a roleplay to ensure its participants follow the rules. It's up to you to do so, and when you fail to follow those rules that's where we come in.
In your case, after being attacked you elected to stay in the chair because you saw it protected you from Kawaii. An abuse of props/entities.
Punishments are a case by case basis. Using JackZ as an example is ill-founded because that was based on personality traits and personal experience with the individual. In your case, there is solid evidence of your rulebreak and a 'personal profile' isn't necessary in order to come to a conclusion on the matter.
In terms of a 'deal', a complete removal of a ban when there is obvious abuse present is unfair. I think the only bans that should be allowed to have 'dealings' are bans when the user will be restricted from accessing the server for a considerable amount of time, such as 1 month bans and longer. Changes to your ban should only be made when solid evidence of innocence is present or a mistake by the banning staffmember, such as the FearRP reasoning in your ban which I have conceded as a personal mistake.
That is my personal opinion on 'dealings' and that will be my approach to it. Should the administrator who eventually concludes this UBR believe otherwise, that is up to them.
Captain Barry
![[Image: xTRvpSf.png]](https://i.imgur.com/xTRvpSf.png)