Fultz

[Joykill]

Closed in the rule means conclude hence the closed section to place them once concluded.

Not posting here again. This is your opinion of the rule to mine.

Arguing with you what the rule exactly means is a waste of time, but you failed to address my simple question of why you closed the thread. Answering or not, I do find exactly this quite significant for the case.

[Fultz]

I warned the player who created the admin abuse to stay on topic. Since he went off topic and then continued to do so while repeating the case to us instead of punishing him and the others who went off topic I ended the conversation in the thread and allowed another administrator to conclude and close the case.

I handled the case as I felt was needed. I did not issue physical warnings to either of them due to my personal opinion on the case. You may feel that I should give them warning level, but I did not. That is like arguing I should of banned someone longer on the servers. I dealt with the case as I felt needed. I am sorry if you felt I should of dealt with it differently, however my way of doing so did not break any rules.

I understand the miss communication between you and myself and I apologize for that. I hope now that you understand the situation. I cannot explain it any further than that.

[Joykill]

I warned the player who created the admin abuse to stay on topic. Since he went off topic and then continued to do so while repeating the case to us instead of punishing him and the others who went off topic I ended the conversation in the thread and allowed another administrator to conclude and close the case.

I handled the case as I felt was needed. I did not issue physical warnings to either of them due to my personal opinion on the case. You may feel that I should give them warning level, but I did not. That is like arguing I should of banned someone longer on the servers. I dealt with the case as I felt needed. I am sorry if you felt I should of dealt with it differently, however my way of doing so did not break any rules.

I understand the miss communication between you and myself and I apologize for that. I hope now that you understand the situation. I cannot explain it any further than that.

Since he went off topic and then continued to do so while repeating the case to us

Completely irrelevant to the case - you broke admin abuse case regulations.

I handled the case as I felt was needed.

I'm not going to even attempt discussing whether or not this is the right way to help the situation, all I can say is that you broke simple admin abuse case regulations.

I did not issue physical warnings to either of them due to my personal opinion on the case.

Right, this is the exact problem - you are directly involved in the case, therefore not able to administrate the discussion even slightly unbiased.

You may feel that I should give them warning level, but I did not.

I don't care which punishment is handed out, but the few rules objectively tells not to close threads.

That is like arguing I should of banned someone longer on the servers.

Nope, not at all. The matter is not which punishment you handed out, frankly I don't really care, but the fact that you broke the rules of this particular forum section.

I dealt with the case as I felt needed.

And what you felt needed was against admin abuse case rules.

I am sorry if you felt I should of dealt with it differently, however my way of doing so did not break any rules.

This is not close to being a subjective matter. The official ruleset tells not to close threads. This has nothing to do with my personal opinion.

[Joram]

Not involved - Warned

[tmes2000]

User has been warned for this post. Reason:

I believe i have enough right to post since anyone who has read that part of the thread has witnessed this rule supposedly being broken. The admins are implying that the rule means archive instead of closing the thread even though the rule states close, if archive is what the admins meant then the rule should either elaborate this or just say archive to prevent any further confusion. If the rule is what the admins are saying it is then i dont see any rule broken, but if were judging based on what the rule says now then a rule may have been broken

User Warned - Posting in a thread without sufficient right.

[Enzyme]

The accused admin closed the thread to prevent people posting on it without sufficient right. He did not decide on the thread by moving it to either denied/approved.

The rule "4. Admins are not allowed to close threads about themselves" is so admins accused of admin-abuse cannot decide on their own case and simply push the thread away. Fultzy did not make a verdict on the thread against him, he only locked it so people couldn't post further in it.

Closed. No abuse noted.