Evidence that has been held for a long time period will not be admissible and evidence that is "dug up" or held maliciously can lead to punishment on the reporter.
Evidence that deals with more severe issues will be made an exception, however obviously a relevant time limit would still need to be met. We wouldn't go banning people who cheated 3 years ago or something stupid like that, same with metagame.
Evidence that has been held for a long time period will not be admissible and evidence that is "dug up" or held maliciously can lead to punishment on the reporter.
Did not mean to bump this thread however something needs clarifying, specifically regarding the clarification to 3.4. in this post:
3.4 Enforcement
Clarified that when being gun pointed and told not to move from behind you may not pull your gun even if it is in passive stance.
Why is it now even if your gun is in attack stance that this is now being enforced as a violation of 3.4.? If that change was made why wasn't this actually communicated to the community properly, @Tetra (I believe) was the one who lost 70k to this bizarre ruling and without any prior notice.
How do sweaters now safely sell drugs? before you could throw them a PPK they could keep it in passive and they would be on their way, was this considered before making the change?
Was this change even communicated to you as Community Manager or discussed within this exact meeting? @Dom_
As far as I know we have never discussed holding it in actual attack stance, and if this is against 3.4 or not. So if it is being enforced like this there is probably some different views going around. Will clear up.