Character
Rules
Events
Map
RP Points
Proplimits
Statistics
Steam Group
Members
Hall of Fame
Team
Bans
Blacklists
Warnings
Changelog
Content
02-06-2016, 01:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 01:04 AM by Fearless Community.
Edit Reason: Checked Encoding
)
Going to just number it instead of quoting.
1: Yes, all administrators can edit any post by system.
2: Again, this is an important detail as it reflects that SOUL (not the system) is the limitation.
3: One post being different from another isn't really that unusual. All it shows is that there was an oversight.
4: Just because there was an edit made doesn't mean that you have any conclusive proof that he actually changed any text.
5: As I clearly stated (do you even read the replies to your thread? I'm wondering cause I have to restate things I've already said) it's basically just bad wording. He has permissions, he doesn't have permission. If one S is the corner of this case, this is a joke. The word ACCESS was never used.
6: If Soul already investigated that nothing was changed, the cornerstone that he changed something is missing, hence the minor infraction of adding an S to Permission is a moot point.
Now in your Sum Up area
7: If Soul already ensured that no actual editing took place and you accepted that in your own words, what is the relevance of him making the edit? If no text was changed, and this is confirmed by the Owner, where is the basis of this point? You accept that no text was edited, but was to go on about how he edited. As for him making an edit in proximity to your ban, that's just an opinion. Do you have any actual fact to support that the edit impacts you in any way? No, because Soul already checked and said no actual text editing happened that day.
8: Fact being the thread says an edit happened. And as I explained, you can confirm finishing an edit with no changes and it will still add the edit stamp. Don't believe me, go make a post, click edit, change nothing, add a reasoning, and see. You will gain an edit stamp. Then I can make a huge case about how you made an edit, weather or not you actually changed anything, and continue to try to pass that edit stamp off as evidence, even though the highest level investigator already checked and told me NO EDIT HAPPENED.
9: I'm not the one making the case. I am not required to post evidence but I have requested it be investigated already. Again, really wondering if you've taken the time to review the replies to your own case. You will see the moment I stepped into the case I requested that it be proven by staff.
10: Again. He never said, at any point, he didn't have insufficent right, just that he didn't have permissions, which should have said permission to avoid this level of confusion.
11: So because he altered a thread, that the owner clearly stated nothing changed in, whom also spoke with him about said edit, you have grounds for a case of abuse? First off, the rules about which posts admins are ALLOWED to edit isn't all that clear, second off, the point you seem to be repeatedly missing, Soul already stated nothing changed. Him making an edit to a section but not changing anything, then getting talked to and instructed by his boss not enough for you? I'm not understanding where you are going with this, if he changed nothing, who cares if there is an edit stamp? At this point your arguement is "He lied about having the ability to edit that post." And that's pretty flimsy, not really abuse either, as administrators are not supposed to reveal what all they do or even can do to the general public. If you knew what I know about what all they can do or have, you'd understand why it's not public information.
12: Exactly what I've been saying. If Soul said no edit took place, he's not saying that an edit wasn't saved. He's saying no text or content was altered. So yes, it's a blind edit for reasons unknown beyond his comment on it.
13: This is very correct. If you start and edit and hit CANCEL that would be the case. As I stated already, he started the edit and instead hit finish and also was required to add a reasoning. Waiting for something was the reasoning. Considering the Owner has already been involved with Nighthawkd on this specific issue, I'm pretty sure whatever "waiting for something" meant was already investigated.
14: SO what you are telling me is I could take a picture of one spot of the forums, then take a picture of a completely different spot on the forums and it's conclusive? Again, each thread must be edited individually. Just because there is a slight difference in text from one to another doesn't automatically mean the last editor is responsible. As for me lying about anything, you have yet to debunk one thing I have said and your suggestions to offer "proof" were requested before your forum ban ended and you got back in this case. I haven't lied and that shows. You haven't lied either. What you have done is thrown up misleading evidence of two different posts, then initially attempted to pass it off as a before and after. If I wouldn't have spoken up at all, no one would have noticed, as several staff had already commented on the case and not noted it.
As for my ability to post here, you don't control that. I've stated very clearly for them to do the check, they haven't said one way or another. So if you want to try to get me off this thread, tell them to hurry up and check, because till you have a way to prove I'm not involved, I'll remain. You'll never find it, because I made the edit in question.
P.S. Before you reply to me, please take the time to review this thread in detail, so I can stop having to repeat myself over and over. I've show everyone I've spoken to in this case the same respect.
Cliffs version:
His pictures are still inconclusive, he's repeatedly avoided throwing up a before an after, Soul already confirmed no text edit took place. The only point this man has left is that Nighthawkd lied because he used the word permissions. He lied because he put that instead of the word permission. The original post was about him editing, with screens, how he lied about it. Now all that's left is how he added an S so he lied so please demote him? Get real.
1: Yes, all administrators can edit any post by system.
2: Again, this is an important detail as it reflects that SOUL (not the system) is the limitation.
3: One post being different from another isn't really that unusual. All it shows is that there was an oversight.
4: Just because there was an edit made doesn't mean that you have any conclusive proof that he actually changed any text.
5: As I clearly stated (do you even read the replies to your thread? I'm wondering cause I have to restate things I've already said) it's basically just bad wording. He has permissions, he doesn't have permission. If one S is the corner of this case, this is a joke. The word ACCESS was never used.
6: If Soul already investigated that nothing was changed, the cornerstone that he changed something is missing, hence the minor infraction of adding an S to Permission is a moot point.
Now in your Sum Up area
7: If Soul already ensured that no actual editing took place and you accepted that in your own words, what is the relevance of him making the edit? If no text was changed, and this is confirmed by the Owner, where is the basis of this point? You accept that no text was edited, but was to go on about how he edited. As for him making an edit in proximity to your ban, that's just an opinion. Do you have any actual fact to support that the edit impacts you in any way? No, because Soul already checked and said no actual text editing happened that day.
8: Fact being the thread says an edit happened. And as I explained, you can confirm finishing an edit with no changes and it will still add the edit stamp. Don't believe me, go make a post, click edit, change nothing, add a reasoning, and see. You will gain an edit stamp. Then I can make a huge case about how you made an edit, weather or not you actually changed anything, and continue to try to pass that edit stamp off as evidence, even though the highest level investigator already checked and told me NO EDIT HAPPENED.
9: I'm not the one making the case. I am not required to post evidence but I have requested it be investigated already. Again, really wondering if you've taken the time to review the replies to your own case. You will see the moment I stepped into the case I requested that it be proven by staff.
10: Again. He never said, at any point, he didn't have insufficent right, just that he didn't have permissions, which should have said permission to avoid this level of confusion.
11: So because he altered a thread, that the owner clearly stated nothing changed in, whom also spoke with him about said edit, you have grounds for a case of abuse? First off, the rules about which posts admins are ALLOWED to edit isn't all that clear, second off, the point you seem to be repeatedly missing, Soul already stated nothing changed. Him making an edit to a section but not changing anything, then getting talked to and instructed by his boss not enough for you? I'm not understanding where you are going with this, if he changed nothing, who cares if there is an edit stamp? At this point your arguement is "He lied about having the ability to edit that post." And that's pretty flimsy, not really abuse either, as administrators are not supposed to reveal what all they do or even can do to the general public. If you knew what I know about what all they can do or have, you'd understand why it's not public information.
12: Exactly what I've been saying. If Soul said no edit took place, he's not saying that an edit wasn't saved. He's saying no text or content was altered. So yes, it's a blind edit for reasons unknown beyond his comment on it.
13: This is very correct. If you start and edit and hit CANCEL that would be the case. As I stated already, he started the edit and instead hit finish and also was required to add a reasoning. Waiting for something was the reasoning. Considering the Owner has already been involved with Nighthawkd on this specific issue, I'm pretty sure whatever "waiting for something" meant was already investigated.
14: SO what you are telling me is I could take a picture of one spot of the forums, then take a picture of a completely different spot on the forums and it's conclusive? Again, each thread must be edited individually. Just because there is a slight difference in text from one to another doesn't automatically mean the last editor is responsible. As for me lying about anything, you have yet to debunk one thing I have said and your suggestions to offer "proof" were requested before your forum ban ended and you got back in this case. I haven't lied and that shows. You haven't lied either. What you have done is thrown up misleading evidence of two different posts, then initially attempted to pass it off as a before and after. If I wouldn't have spoken up at all, no one would have noticed, as several staff had already commented on the case and not noted it.
As for my ability to post here, you don't control that. I've stated very clearly for them to do the check, they haven't said one way or another. So if you want to try to get me off this thread, tell them to hurry up and check, because till you have a way to prove I'm not involved, I'll remain. You'll never find it, because I made the edit in question.
P.S. Before you reply to me, please take the time to review this thread in detail, so I can stop having to repeat myself over and over. I've show everyone I've spoken to in this case the same respect.
Cliffs version:
His pictures are still inconclusive, he's repeatedly avoided throwing up a before an after, Soul already confirmed no text edit took place. The only point this man has left is that Nighthawkd lied because he used the word permissions. He lied because he put that instead of the word permission. The original post was about him editing, with screens, how he lied about it. Now all that's left is how he added an S so he lied so please demote him? Get real.