Fire I, Enzyme am posting this on behalf of Dimitris. I have no affiliation with him. Fire

Your Name: Dimitris

Accused Staff Member: Polluxz

Involved users
Dimitris, Pollux

Date & Time (GMT): 14/11/22 @ 15:18 GMT

Abuse of Power? and/or Infringement of the rules?
Abuse of power,Infringement of the rules

Explanation and Evidence
[14:45]Lerfix: This was a UBR posted on my behalf: https://fearlessrp.net/showthread.php?ti...#pid885525
[14:46]Lerfix: The UBR should have been automatically accepted as per rule 6c of the courthouse, but Pollux decided it was ok to bend rules to his liking in order to deny it
[14:46]Lerfix: This first screenshot if from our chat, in which Pollux changes his story about 3 times

[Image: image.png]

14:49]Lerfix: Yes I also provided Pollux with 2 examples of the rule being forced on the hour
[14:50]Lerfix: https://fearlessrp.net/showthread.php?ti...#pid824976
[14:50]Lerfix: 2 hours late, they still removed his ban
[14:50]Lerfix: mine was about 6 almost 7 hours late
[14:50]Lerfix: 2 more
[14:50]Lerfix: https://fearlessrp.net/showthread.php?ti...#pid867838
[14:51]Lerfix: Also

[Image: image.png]

[14:51]Lerfix: notice how once he realizes the rule have been forced on the hour multiple times he stars making other things up in order to find grounds to deny the UBR
[14:52]Lerfix: Also pay attention to how he said he would reply later that day at first when I messaged him, once he realized he fucked up tho he rushed to conclude without mentioning my concerns regarding rule 5c at all
[14:54]Lerfix: I have been around a long time, we've always had bad SAs, but it never got to the point where rules were quite literally ignored just in order to keep players banned
[Image: image.png]

6]Lerfix: Here once again lying about the UK time he was supposed to reply
[14:56]Lerfix: it was 8 AM not 5
[14:57]Lerfix: And again I don't see how thats my issue at all, 7 days is 168 hours which were well over by the time he replied, thus my UBR should be approved by rule 5c of the UBR rules

[Image: image.png]
As per Staff Report Instructions, Pollux is barred from concluding this report, but he is requested to give input.
Doctor Internet;

Developer, Systems Operator,
Data Protection Officer, Business Advisor,
Server Administrator, Community Moderator
Additional text:

Just to add a few more details on how Pollux changed his story in a desperate attempt to find grounds in order to deny my UBR
[Image: image.png]
Firstly making some stupid claims regarding timezones, I don't think there has ever been an other case where such thing was argued regarding that rule. As I mentioned before this has nothing to do with timzeones, 7 days is 168 hours, those 168 hours were well over when Pollux decided to reply ( Keep in mind he only concluded it after I messaged him on discord about it )
[Image: image.png]
Deciding not to apply the rule until the end of the day, although it was quite obvious he was supposed it ( Bias towards me? )
[Image: image.png]
Deciding the rule is not relevant? While the 7 days were well over?
I would also like to once again mention how Pollux at first said he would be making a reply later that day
[Image: image.png]
but once he realized he was in the wrong he rushed to deny it, without mentioning the UBR rule at all nor allowing me to make one final reply when I quite literally asked him, I do understand that he did not need to wait for my reply, however the way I see it if you have nothing to hide you would not mind allowing someone one more reply
[Image: image.png?width=1067&height=676]
Sincerely, Enzyme
Ex-Supervising Administrator
Hey Dimitris,

I stand by everything I said. 6c isn't relevant here at all, your actions are. You lied on your UBR and the ban was 100% valid. We take ToS bans seriously and simply don't wish to have someone like you on our services, especially considering you'd rather lie and deny about what happened than admit the truth. This is a gaming community in the end, not a courthouse. 6c isn't law and as management we can decide to overrule on a case-by-case basis where required - which is what we did in this situation.

Harassment isn't tolerated on our services at all, and some of the things you did were horrible. We have a responsibility to ensure FL is a safe environment for all and you certainly weren't helping us achieve that. That's why your UBR was denied and 6c isn't going to make that all go away.
Fearless Management
"It's quite entertaining Pollux how all your claims regarding my ban are so generic ( some of the things you did were horrible ), it is obvious you have no idea what you're talking about and you also have no knowledge regarding my case, would you mind going into some details regarding the so called harassment?

Rules are there to be followed, not bend to your liking because you are lazy enough to let the only UBR at the time go the full 7 days and then make ridiculous claims regarding time zones ( an argument never heard before regarding that rule ). You need to finally start taking responsibility for your actions and respect the rules, you are not above those rules and it seems like still are not fully aware of that.

I do hope that this AA will be concluded by Conn himself and not the management team, especially since 2 of them are in your pocket since day one.

Kind regards"
Sincerely, Enzyme
Ex-Supervising Administrator
[Image: courthouseconclusion.png]

Staff Report: Pollux v. Dimitris


With this post, and the internal discussion surrounding it, we aim to review the circumstances of the report, make findings and deliver actions.

This post was written by Doctor Internet, with case and post review by Conn, Doctor Internet, Self, Joe Joe and Wolven.
As the report was about Pollux, he was excluded from the process.

Guiding Principles

In this review, we aim to follow a number of guiding principles:
  1. Duty of care to the community and company.
    • Avoiding situations which cause harm to members of the community.
    • Avoiding situations which are illegal.
  2. Common Sense and Fairness
    • Implement solutions which minimise confusion, and maximise fairness.
  3. Stare Decisis
    • Following prior decisions, where conditions can be compared.
  4. Following Rules and Policies as written.
    • Minimising grey areas and confusion.


In the report, Dimitris accused Pollux of breach of guidelines and abuse, in his failure to follow courtroom rule 5c. We will review this as an abuse of discretion.

This also brings into question the original appeal, in its relationship to the closure. We review de novo.

For this report, we have four main questions to answer:
  • Should Dimitri's appeal have been approved?
    • Thus, should he have been unbanned?
  • Furthermore, did Pollux err in his decision to close and deny?
    • Thus, did that err elevate from an error, to an abuse?

Through this, we move to the original appeal.

Appeal Review

The original appeal argues that the ban was unfair. Conversely, The Team states the case was severe, and Pollux states that, under regular circumstances, the appeal would be denied. In reviewing what evidence remained, along with statements provided by current and former team members, we affirm.

With the reason provided, in that the ban was unfair; the Appeal Rules state that “A Permanent ban cannot be disputed unless solid evidence is provided proving your innocence.” Therefore, we reject this as a reason for appeal.

The Team states that you lied; stating in your prior appeals, taking “full responsibility” for your prior behaviour, yet in the newest appeal, that you didn’t harass anyone. Due to a lack of consensus within the reviewers, we make no opinion.

Overall, under the merits of the original appeal, solely on the appeal, we affirm the denial.

Appeal Rules

Next, we review rule 5c, which states that, “If the player successfully provides staff information to their request, staff have 7 days to either conclude or ask for further information else your unban request will be Approved and ban removed from record.” During the review, we questioned the interaction of this rule, and the requirement for valid appeals. I.e. Does an otherwise invalid appeal still benefit from the 5x rules?

Following the prior rased evidence requirement, an appeal, such as reviewed, should be immediately denied. However, rule 5 requires that, should such an invalid appeal remain unanswered, it must be approved. It is clear that the interaction of these two rules must be reviewed.

In favour of allowing 5c, principles 2 and 4 move us towards allowing 5c, even for invalid appeals. The rules as written are clear, in that if an appeal is left for more than the allotted time, the appeal must be approved. However, principles 1 and 2 move us away again, in that, if an appeal should not have been made in the first place, there shouldn’t be a reward for that being missed.

After discussion, three points of clarification have arisen:
  1. Invalid appeals are not made valid by time alone, so by default, 5c does not apply to invalid reports.
  2. Invalid appeals are implicitly validated by an administrator’s response, causing 5c to apply in this situation.
  3. All non-troll appeals must be given a chance to reply.
    • However, this rule is not followed in practice, especially for invalid appeals.

With this, we have decided to review and rewrite the appeal rules. However, that will not be addressed in this case, and we continue with them, as they are today.

Therefore, to answer the question of, was the appeal, at the time, subject to 5c, we affirm.

Pollux's Response

Next, we move to the question of, did Pollux err in his decision to close the appeal.

In Pollux’s argument, that we “don’t enforce to the hour”, we reject. Evidence has been provided of other cases, where it has been enforced to the hour, and nothing in the rule states otherwise.

For the argument of “your UBR wouldn’t be allowed in the first place”, we affirm, as reviewed above.

For the argument that “management can overrule on a case-by-case basis”, we affirm. We have an ability to overrule on individual cases, to further our guiding principles, an ability we must have to be able to argue and decide on novel cases, to the benefit of principles 1 and 2.

For the argument that “We have a responsibility to ensure a safe environment”, we affirm, as is clear in our guiding principles.

Therefore, under ordinary circumstances, your appeal should have been approved, and the ban lifted.
However, under the specific circumstances of your ban, the appeal would not have been approved, aside from 5c, and was decided days before 5c’s limit, though not posted.

Through this, and the Owner's veto, further affirmed by review consensus, we will not change the outcome of the appeal.

Pollux Abused?

Finally, we answer, did Pollux’s error elevate to the level of abuse.

By the evidence provided, it is clear that the appeal was on its way to being denied, further, it seems clear that Pollux believed he had multiple reasons for 5c not to apply, and was not in violation of the rule.

However, Pollux’s conduct, both in failing to close on time and in his responses to you, caused confusion with the case, leading to this report.

We do not believe this rises to the level of abuse; however, for the conduct, Pollux will be issued a written warning.


Actions Taken:
  • Future Review and Rewrite of Appeal Rules.
  • Ban 83759 will remain on record and in place.
  • Pollux will be issued a written warning.
Doctor Internet;

Developer, Systems Operator,
Data Protection Officer, Business Advisor,
Server Administrator, Community Moderator

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)