GHOSTK1LL3R

[Falc]

Why is a staff member required to provide evidence for its actions?
Staff members are handpicked for being trusted in their judgement and actions.
Never have staff been obliged to show evidence for their actions. Especially not ToS related subjects, which means the information gathered in order to take action is too sensitive to be published.

So then how can you expect someone to defend themselves on something they don't know of?

It also makes me laugh that all you reply to is the evidence bit, did you forget to read the other paragraphs on behalf of Ghost's defence? Or is it just as long as you mention the evidence that keeps him banned?

It seems as your reply states, Infernaw. All you care about is the evidence part not being public or even shown to Ghost, and that's very sketchy and almost seems like a cover up. It literally is the only bit you've replied to and you've missed the rest of the arguments given. Especially the bit about your "Perfect" staff members.

It's quite annoying when staff decide to completely block out certain points you make and ignore it, just to get to the bit where you can keep someone banned.

[Infernaw]

-snip-

So then how can you expect someone to defend themselves on something they don't know of?

It also makes me laugh that all you reply to is the evidence bit, did you forget to read the other paragraphs on behalf of Ghost's defence? Or is it just as long as you mention the evidence that keeps him banned?

It seems as your reply states, Infernaw. All you care about is the evidence part not being public or even shown to Ghost, and that's very sketchy and almost seems like a cover up. It literally is the only bit you've replied to and you've missed the rest of the arguments given. Especially the bit about your "Perfect" staff members.

It's quite annoying when staff decide to completely block out certain points you make and ignore it, just to get to the bit where you can keep someone banned.

I understand that keeping on painting up the staff team as the "bad guys" is good for your own gain, but I pointed out something that I had a saying in.
Since I'm not the banning administrator, I rather wait for Avgar's reply regarding the actual ban.

[Falc]

-snip-

So then how can you expect someone to defend themselves on something they don't know of?

It also makes me laugh that all you reply to is the evidence bit, did you forget to read the other paragraphs on behalf of Ghost's defence? Or is it just as long as you mention the evidence that keeps him banned?

It seems as your reply states, Infernaw. All you care about is the evidence part not being public or even shown to Ghost, and that's very sketchy and almost seems like a cover up. It literally is the only bit you've replied to and you've missed the rest of the arguments given. Especially the bit about your "Perfect" staff members.

It's quite annoying when staff decide to completely block out certain points you make and ignore it, just to get to the bit where you can keep someone banned.

I understand that keeping on painting up the staff team as the "bad guys" is good for your own gain, but I pointed out something that I had a saying in.
Since I'm not the banning administrator, I rather wait for Avgar's reply regarding the actual ban.

Infernaw, please stay on topic of this ban request you know better than that being a Super Administrator, ta.

[Infernaw]

I am on topic.

I made a statement regarding staff members being obliged to post evidence for their actions. Leave it there unless you have anything to post from Ghostkiller.

[Avgar]

I've been approached by countless players, including you, Ghostkiller, regarding staff being abusive or players breaking rules, presenting me evidence and asking me to keep it confidential and private.

Every single one of those times I have done exactly that. Falcao can attest to this, as he was an admin at the time, that I never shared recordings you or anyone else showed me when you asked me not to. Some other players even shared recordings with them committing small rule breaks, but I never revealed the evidence, I never punished them for that, because there was a more concerning matter at hand and I wished to keep the trust of the players trusting in me.

How is this situation any different? All you have to do is answer to us:
Did you or did you not make the aforementioned statement of: 'Hopefully if we terrorize them enough they'll start resigning'.

I find it a little hypocritical that you were willing to entrust me with private evidence when it was against someone else, but I can't be trusted if some inaccessible evidence is against you.

[Falc]

Reply on behalf of GHOSTK1LL3R.

You cannot ask me to remember me making a statement of 'Hopefully if we terrorize them enough they'll start resigning'. Do you remember what you said to me Avgar when you were talking to me about me demoting someone from Corleone? Asking such a question like this is something I cannot state in confidence as I could have said it as much as I could have not said it. The statement in question is at-least 2-3 months prior to this and because of this there is no possible way for me to remember myself saying this.
Equally, even if you have or may not have this ‘evidence’ how can you attest that this it towards the Fearless staff? I at that time played multiple games one was Battlecraft (Minecraft server) where the owner Packet was one who bought the server but didn’t care about the community. He never updated the server (Now the server is closed and he is trying to sell it). I could have quite easily said that opinion that you are linking back to against this community and not Fearless.
I would attest to myself saying it more so towards Battlecraft as myself and many others (Barry, Jonh Silverthrone, Prosto, Kula, Cox, Kippsee, and a few others) had all started playing on this server while equally playing Fearless. If you want me to say ‘Yes I did say it’ in truth would be me lying as I do not recall saying it but equally I could have said it.
Link to other server as reference: http://www.battlecraft.us/ (inb4 ban for ‘advertising’ a dead community)

[JackZ]

User has been warned for this post. Reason:

Not involved.
Warned.

Agorith

[Infernaw]

Waiting for response from banning administrator.

Thank you for your patience.

[Avgar]

How do I know you were talking about Garry's Mod and Fearless, rather than some other server? Context.

I regret to inform you, but the unban request is now denied, as the information I was granted is pretty much bulletproof. Furthermore, I have been trusted with anonymous information in the past and not revealed it once. This case is not special and information regarding it will not be revealed either.

If regulations ever change, future cases could be dealt with differently. But not this one.