[FL] Nighthawk's alteration of the rules pt.1

[Old Man Jokhah]

Posting on behalf of GHOSTKILL3R [Any replies stated by me (Awestruck) will be on behalf of GHOST]

Name: GHOSTK1LL3R 

Time/Date: 10-14-2015

Steam ID: STEAM_0:1:58027181 

Name of Administrator: [FL]Nighthawk 

Evidence:
All evidence and quotations that will be referred to will come from the following threads:
http://www.fearlessrp.net/showthread.php?tid=67506

http://www.fearlessrp.net/showthread.php?tid=10

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.fearlessrp.net/showthread.php?tid=10

I will be referring to evidence provided and stated by Nighthawk which has been acquired in the Courthouse of Fearless. My intent is to show how the following admin Nighthawk is inapt to be an administrator and will alter the rules in order to ban those that stand in his way.

As on 10-13-2015 the rules on lying in the courthouse were ‘committing such violations will lead to a lengthy forum ban.’. However, the admin in question resolved to altering the forum rules in order to give out a perm ban myself, GHOSTK1LL3R. Whether he was the one to give the perm ban or not, he was the admin that altered the rules.

Here is a Google cache showing the rules how they were prior to the admin in question altering the rules:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/se...php?tid=10 

As we can see they are:‘Fabricating or tampering with evidence with intent to mislead, and providing false statements is under zero tolerance - committing such violations will lead to a lengthy forum ban.’ However, after Nighthawk altered the rules we can see the rules changed to this:
https://embed.gyazo.com/c7708cfc9d67d8b3...e00f53.png

Which is now: ‘Fabricating or tampering with evidence with intent to mislead, and providing false statements is under zero tolerance - committing such violations will lead to a perm ban.’  Nighthawk states in the unban request ‘I am not lying in the courthouse Ghost. I attempted to edit the post yes but I do not have the sufficient permissions to edit that post as Soul confirmed when he confronted me the next day about it. Again the post was edited FOURTEEN days before you were banned. So do not try that.’ A few things I’d like to pull up from this quote. ‘I attempted to edit the post yes but I do not have the sufficient permissions to edit that post as Soul confirmed when he confronted me the next day about it.’. You state that you do not have the ‘sufficient permission to edit that post’. However, it states that you did alter the post and if you didn't have permission that would not appear. Additionally, I have spoken to multiple admins of the server and they have informed me that they are able to alter the post. 

As we can see, Nighthawk has now lied in order to protect his own back.You also state in the same post: 'Again the post was edited FOURTEEN days before you were banned. So do not try that.’ I would like to know how you knew it was edited fourteen days before I was banned? And I would also like to know why you know this. This will be the first admin abuse case posted and will be linked to a secondary admin abuse case which will be posted regarding a player report.I feel that Nighthawk is ill fit for duty as an admin and is too bias in what he does. This is no ‘innocent mistake’ made by the admin in question and is lying to cover his tracks.

I request that admins that are not involved, to post on this case and that the reviewing statement clarifies if admins are able to alter that thread.

I am involved in an aspect of the case relevant to the section I have bolded, underlined, and colored.
This will be a two part reply


1: ) As I said in the Ghost's UBR shortly before it was closed.  I was tasked by SA Killjoy to alter the rules from lengthy forum ban to perm ban, not Nighthawkd.

and more importantly,

2: ) I accuse you of attempting to falsify evidence in an effort to lead to successfully demoting this administrator.  If you take a look at the screenshot of the rules "before" and the rules "after", take a long long look.  The thread titles are completely different, as is the context there in.  I need a staff member to confirm this assumption.

This concludes my interaction with this case unless requested by investigating staff.

I invite any Forum Super Moderator to check the edit history of the HOW TO make a ban request to confirm that I am telling the truth.