[FL] Tomo, [FL] Shadow, [FL] Agorith

[User 12049]

My reply was not intended to report the Player, Awestruck, so I apologize if it came across that way. My point in stating that in my reply was simply to point out that it happened. 

If it was intended for the player report, why are you still replying? This is an admin abuse case and if you're not going to add any additional information why are you still replying?

Now, Ghostkiller, correct me if I'm wrong but in the video, Tomo had told you to leave several times, you refused, and then he banned you for "Failure to comply with admins decision". 

You have JUST said your reply was for the player report, so why are you still asking questions?

Your point on the matter Reebs is that I didn't '...comply with admins decision.'. The reason for this matter is admins are expected to know and understand the rules and enforce those rules that are set in place for everyone to follow. However, the main admin in question, Tomo had lack of understanding of the rules and even commented on it when I was talking to him next to the BMW. Tomo stated that I was not allowed to take them hostage as their was no RP reason when in fact there was multiple reasons in regard to RP that allowed me to and equally the rules backed up my statement of which Tomo had no understand that the rule was even in the rule book.

Due to this admin's lack of understanding of the rules led to their situation occurring which is something that shouldn't of resulted in my punishment but of the punishment of the admin for not knowing the rules. Due to the admin not knowing this rules, it leads me to believe that this admin is ill-fit for duty as a staff member of the Fearless Community. If this admin is unable to know the rules himself, how can he be trusted to know other rules? Equally, when confronted by myself and told that the rules allow this rule and I explicitly put the rule into the @ chat so he could see it he then decided to ban us for not listening to his incorrect judgement.

If this is the case, then that is a violation of rule 1.5 (1.5 *UPDATED* Respect the staff’s decisions. You may discuss about it privately as long as you stick to the server rules.) , which just confirms the validity of the punishment that you all received. This should not be considered as a lack of knowledge of the rules. 

Thanks Reebs once again for your opinion but yet again you're not involved. Unless teacher ranks gives you admin powers to post on this your statement is not needed and should be left to those accused to reply.

Hoping that you are well,

You just said this a few hours ago, why are you saying it again? It's getting real creepy now Reebs, please stop.

[User 12049]

My reply was not intended to report the Player, Awestruck, so I apologize if it came across that way. My point in stating that in my reply was simply to point out that it happened. 

If it was intended for the player report, why are you still replying? This is an admin abuse case and if you're not going to add any additional information that is relevant from your side why are you still replying?

Now, Ghostkiller, correct me if I'm wrong but in the video, Tomo had told you to leave several times, you refused, and then he banned you for "Failure to comply with admins decision". 

You have JUST said your reply was for the player report, so why are you still asking questions?

Your point on the matter Reebs is that I didn't '...comply with admins decision.'. The reason for this matter is admins are expected to know and understand the rules and enforce those rules that are set in place for everyone to follow. However, the main admin in question, Tomo had lack of understanding of the rules and even commented on it when I was talking to him next to the BMW. Tomo stated that I was not allowed to take them hostage as their was no RP reason when in fact there was multiple reasons in regard to RP that allowed me to and equally the rules backed up my statement of which Tomo had no understand that the rule was even in the rule book.

Due to this admin's lack of understanding of the rules led to their situation occurring which is something that shouldn't of resulted in my punishment but of the punishment of the admin for not knowing the rules. Due to the admin not knowing this rules, it leads me to believe that this admin is ill-fit for duty as a staff member of the Fearless Community. If this admin is unable to know the rules himself, how can he be trusted to know other rules? Equally, when confronted by myself and told that the rules allow this rule and I explicitly put the rule into the @ chat so he could see it he then decided to ban us for not listening to his incorrect judgement.

If this is the case, then that is a violation of rule 1.5 (1.5 *UPDATED* Respect the staff’s decisions. You may discuss about it privately as long as you stick to the server rules.) , which just confirms the validity of the punishment that you all received. This should not be considered as a lack of knowledge of the rules. 

Thanks Reebs once again for your opinion but yet again you're not involved. Unless teacher ranks gives you admin powers to post on this your statement is not needed and should be left to those accused to reply.

Hoping that you are well,

You just said this a few hours ago, why are you saying it again? It's getting real creepy now Reebs, please stop.

[Awestruck]

Your point on the matter Reebs is that I didn't '...comply with admins decision.'. The reason for this matter is admins are expected to know and understand the rules and enforce those rules that are set in place for everyone to follow. However, the main admin in question, Tomo had lack of understanding of the rules and even commented on it when I was talking to him next to the BMW. Tomo stated that I was not allowed to take them hostage as their was no RP reason when in fact there was multiple reasons in regard to RP that allowed me to and equally the rules backed up my statement of which Tomo had no understand that the rule was even in the rule book.

Due to this admin's lack of understanding of the rules led to their situation occurring which is something that shouldn't of resulted in my punishment but of the punishment of the admin for not knowing the rules. Due to the admin not knowing this rules, it leads me to believe that this admin is ill-fit for duty as a staff member of the Fearless Community. If this admin is unable to know the rules himself, how can he be trusted to know other rules? Equally, when confronted by myself and told that the rules allow this rule and I explicitly put the rule into the @ chat so he could see it he then decided to ban us for not listening to his incorrect judgement.

Let's stick to this point in the upcoming posts. It seems to be going off topic.

[User 12049]

Your point on the matter Reebs is that I didn't '...comply with admins decision.'. The reason for this matter is admins are expected to know and understand the rules and enforce those rules that are set in place for everyone to follow. However, the main admin in question, Tomo had lack of understanding of the rules and even commented on it when I was talking to him next to the BMW. Tomo stated that I was not allowed to take them hostage as their was no RP reason when in fact there was multiple reasons in regard to RP that allowed me to and equally the rules backed up my statement of which Tomo had no understand that the rule was even in the rule book.

Due to this admin's lack of understanding of the rules led to their situation occurring which is something that shouldn't of resulted in my punishment but of the punishment of the admin for not knowing the rules. Due to the admin not knowing this rules, it leads me to believe that this admin is ill-fit for duty as a staff member of the Fearless Community. If this admin is unable to know the rules himself, how can he be trusted to know other rules? Equally, when confronted by myself and told that the rules allow this rule and I explicitly put the rule into the @ chat so he could see it he then decided to ban us for not listening to his incorrect judgement.

Let's stick to this point in the upcoming posts. It seems to be going off topic.

My intentions and equally my reply was on-topic. The reply simply stated what had occurred in the situation backed up with claims by myself of what would are the re-percussions of keeping a staff member who is unable to comprehend the rules and what this could lead to in the future. Additionally, with my reply it gave insight into what specifically happened and equally addressed a key issue which could be claimed so I decided to go into detailed regarding what Reebs had claimed.

[Awestruck]

You appear to have misread my statement. I was guiding others to stay on topic with the statements you had made which I quoted from you.

[Reebs]

My reply was not intended to report the Player, Awestruck, so I apologize if it came across that way. My point in stating that in my reply was simply to point out that it happened. 

If it was intended for the player report, why are you still replying? This is an admin abuse case and if you're not going to add any additional information why are you still replying?

I said that the reply was not intended to report the player. 

Now, Ghostkiller, correct me if I'm wrong but in the video, Tomo had told you to leave several times, you refused, and then he banned you for "Failure to comply with admins decision". 

You have JUST said your reply was for the player report, so why are you still asking questions?

Your point on the matter Reebs is that I didn't '...comply with admins decision.'. The reason for this matter is admins are expected to know and understand the rules and enforce those rules that are set in place for everyone to follow. However, the main admin in question, Tomo had lack of understanding of the rules and even commented on it when I was talking to him next to the BMW. Tomo stated that I was not allowed to take them hostage as their was no RP reason when in fact there was multiple reasons in regard to RP that allowed me to and equally the rules backed up my statement of which Tomo had no understand that the rule was even in the rule book.

Due to this admin's lack of understanding of the rules led to their situation occurring which is something that shouldn't of resulted in my punishment but of the punishment of the admin for not knowing the rules. Due to the admin not knowing this rules, it leads me to believe that this admin is ill-fit for duty as a staff member of the Fearless Community. If this admin is unable to know the rules himself, how can he be trusted to know other rules? Equally, when confronted by myself and told that the rules allow this rule and I explicitly put the rule into the @ chat so he could see it he then decided to ban us for not listening to his incorrect judgement.

Have you considered the possibility that your ban was valid and his judgement was correct? 

If this is the case, then that is a violation of rule 1.5 (1.5 *UPDATED* Respect the staff’s decisions. You may discuss about it privately as long as you stick to the server rules.) , which just confirms the validity of the punishment that you all received. This should not be considered as a lack of knowledge of the rules. 

Thanks Reebs once again for your opinion but yet again you're not involved. Unless teacher ranks gives you admin powers to post on this your statement is not needed and should be left to those accused to reply.

No, the rank does not give me admin permissions to reply, and I am clearly involved. I was clearly in the evidence video and was clearly killed by one of your accomplices. Furthermore, this is not an opinion, it is cold hard facts. The rule is right there in black and white and you still disregard it. Whether you had a valid RP reason to do it or not, you were told not to by a Staff Member, and you did it anyway. 

[Awestruck]

From now on, I'd suggest only posting if you're adding vital points to the case as all I'm seeing here are back and forth posts that tag no relevance to the case. Please only post if it is a vital point to the case. This goes for both parties.

[Avgar]

See: http://www.fearlessrp.net/showthread.php?tid=70521 as it includes relevant information to this admin abuse case.

When faced by an administrator's decision you do not simply ignore it, even if you think it is wrong. If that happens you respect the decision as dictated by rule 1.5 and reach out via forum or otherwise to figure out why exactly the decision was made.

The following is exactly what is wrong with what you have done:

So, I decide that the best way to do this situation is to pull a car up to jump over and then we were going to keypad crack into the back of the house.

The validity of you wanting to mug or hostage the people inside the house also becomes questionable as you have adjusted what you said and have began to deny going there to rob them as soon as Tomo pointed out that you had no location to store stolen items. Saying 'When I said robbing I meant hostaging' does not make it the same principle.

Agorith:
Just because Agorith did not take punishing action against the alleged FearRP is not grounds for abuse. As I said in my reply to the UBR (link above) it's hardly FearRP when the person just stands still for 5 seconds and tries to use mic, but doesn't resist or run away and is then gunned down.

Shadow:
Making large dupes is not admin abuse. We understand your concerns for lag, however no evidence is provided of having worse frame rates or anything due to the house. Yes, it is there to enhance the roleplay of the people roleplaying there. I'm sure you don't complain when an administrator spawns in a large ClanRP dupe for you to enhance your roleplay. Just because a lesser amount of people get to enjoy the benefit of a detailed dupe does not somehow make it admin abuse. The administrative team is discussing the limitations and such of how they use their proplimits, so we appreciate the concern. However, the point still stands, it is not abuse.

Tomo:
You claim to have powergamed and changed your job to 'Criminal' in order to fit the situation at hand.
You have also changed your story as for why you have come there in the first place. Robbing and hostaging is not the same, even though you have claimed it is.

A situation such as this (hostaging people inside a luxurious home, just to get money) has not happened before, at least not to my knowledge, and will be adhered to in the future. Had you made a post or thread asking to discuss this issue instead of completely ignoring the administator's decision to disallow the roleplay from occurring the situation may be very different. I tend to not ban player's for vague and/or nonexistant rules, so it would be inconsistent to enact punishment on an administrator due to a vague rule and a rare situation. We will discuss this internally and adjust the rules as needed, because there's a clear misunderstanding there.

Thank you for your report.
No abuse has been noted.
I suggest respecting administrator's decisions in the future and going the civilized route of discussing instead of ignoring.

Case closed.