** VIEW ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IF HANDLING **
Punishment Type: Warning
Appeal Type: Dispute
Which staff member issued the punishment?: SamSN & Hayden
How long were you banned/blacklisted for?: Not Applicable
Your Steam Name: Sorle
Your Roleplay Name: Alfa Ross
Your SteamID: STEAM_0:0:51990442
Why were you banned/blacklisted?: "Raiding the same property twice within one hour"
Why should this appeal be considered?: I never initially raided - I ATTEMPTED to raid which is vastly different to actually making entry - the definition of a raid. I bobby pinned a door, it broke, and I was apprehended by police and subsequently let go. Raiding is, to my understanding, defined as actively breaking & entering on someone's property, of which I did not do as my attempt was unsuccessful.
The justification was given to me that this means I could just come back after NLR if I get wallbanged and killed and try again - however attempts in which you are killed are directly covered under the rule, whereas unsuccessful attempts where you live are not.
Additional Information: I thought this had been the consistent interpretation of what a raid is for years now - if this has suddenly changed clarification needs to be made to the rule, as the definition of a raid is very vague and as a result the rule misses out a lot of cases which are then left completely open for interpretation from person to person, so no consensus is reached.
Even in the condition that I am wrong according to general consensus, there is no condition in which I am wrong under the specified rules due to the vague nature of them and as such any punishment is inherently unfounded.
Under what SamSN has said, you could claim that you need to wait an hour to attempt to bobby pin again if one breaks, regardless of circumstance, which is naturally a fictitious claim and shines light on the poor nature of his claims.
I had 47 Cannabis falsely removed from my possession as a result of this report, which I would like returned to me from the hands of IC name Peng Ling-Ling should this be accepted.
If someone who has been active in the community for over 4 years, has consistently had greater knowledge of the rules than many members of administration, and been a staff member himself is able to make an error in presumption due to the vagueness of the rules, then something is inherently wrong at the root and as such any punishment as a result of the error at the root should not be considered.
Punishment Type: Warning
Appeal Type: Dispute
Which staff member issued the punishment?: SamSN & Hayden
How long were you banned/blacklisted for?: Not Applicable
Your Steam Name: Sorle
Your Roleplay Name: Alfa Ross
Your SteamID: STEAM_0:0:51990442
Why were you banned/blacklisted?: "Raiding the same property twice within one hour"
Why should this appeal be considered?: I never initially raided - I ATTEMPTED to raid which is vastly different to actually making entry - the definition of a raid. I bobby pinned a door, it broke, and I was apprehended by police and subsequently let go. Raiding is, to my understanding, defined as actively breaking & entering on someone's property, of which I did not do as my attempt was unsuccessful.
The justification was given to me that this means I could just come back after NLR if I get wallbanged and killed and try again - however attempts in which you are killed are directly covered under the rule, whereas unsuccessful attempts where you live are not.
Additional Information: I thought this had been the consistent interpretation of what a raid is for years now - if this has suddenly changed clarification needs to be made to the rule, as the definition of a raid is very vague and as a result the rule misses out a lot of cases which are then left completely open for interpretation from person to person, so no consensus is reached.
Even in the condition that I am wrong according to general consensus, there is no condition in which I am wrong under the specified rules due to the vague nature of them and as such any punishment is inherently unfounded.
Under what SamSN has said, you could claim that you need to wait an hour to attempt to bobby pin again if one breaks, regardless of circumstance, which is naturally a fictitious claim and shines light on the poor nature of his claims.
I had 47 Cannabis falsely removed from my possession as a result of this report, which I would like returned to me from the hands of IC name Peng Ling-Ling should this be accepted.
If someone who has been active in the community for over 4 years, has consistently had greater knowledge of the rules than many members of administration, and been a staff member himself is able to make an error in presumption due to the vagueness of the rules, then something is inherently wrong at the root and as such any punishment as a result of the error at the root should not be considered.
Last edited:
