I find your response to be very disappointing. Not only have you misunderstood this report, you are involving things that have 0 relevance to this report, which is funny because you are accusing me of doing that.
Let me just make one thing clear, the title explicitely states that this is a report to both the adminjails and YOUR unfair approach as an admin. So you do not only have to respond to the adminjails, but also your misacts as an admin. And unfortunately in most of your responses you have just been rephrasing my accusations on you which basically makes you admit to what I am saying.
Furthermore, what on earth does my tone have to do with this report? Are we going to talk about me being aggressive? What about your elitist behaviour in every conversation we get in? Especially when you muted me? Sorry, but if anything you do deserve this tone with the way you treat people when in a conversation.
With that now being cleared up, I shall respond to your responses.
I did not tell you I would mute you for the content of what you were saying, but for where you were saying it. To phrase this as me threatening to silence your opinion/complaint is entirely inaccurate and you are attempting to portray the situation as something it is not. At no point did anyone attempt to bury your complaint, as evidenced by this topic being up and my responding to it.
Okay, let's see what you wrote in my chatlogs:
[2020-08-06 02:15:08] [Output] : SAES>NanoBob: Well then maybe the one who instructed him to do so shouldn't have. Since that person got
[2020-08-06 02:15:10] [Output] : SAES>NanoBob: him adminjailed
[2020-08-06 02:15:15] [Output] : SAES>NanoBob: And no it does not invalidate the punishment.
[2020-08-06 02:15:16] [Output] : C|Adistar: Your reason is not sound
[2020-08-06 02:15:20] [Output] : SAES>NanoBob: It is, Adistar.
[2020-08-06 02:15:29] [Output] : SAES>NanoBob: But I'm gonna say this once again. Same thing I said last time
[2020-08-06 02:15:39] [Output] : SAES>NanoBob: Stop complaining about it in the mainchat, if you have a complaint. Report me to SAES HQ
[2020-08-06 02:15:41] [Output] : C|Killer: mUtE
[2020-08-06 02:15:43] [Output] : C|Adistar: I mUtE YoU iF YoU ConTinUe
[2020-08-06 02:15:45] [Output] : SoA|Exclusive: Adistar why kill me if im banned but not Moley man the disrepect to me bro
[2020-08-06 02:15:46] [Output] : SAES>NanoBob: Otherwise, if you do not stop complaining, I shall mute you again.
[2020-08-06 02:15:50] [Output] : C|Adistar: I am being polite with you Nanobob
[2020-08-06 02:15:57] [Output] : SAES>NanoBob: And I'm telling you the mainchat is not the place for this.
Let me quote you:
To phrase this as me threatening to silence your opinion/complaint is entirely inaccurate
And I quote the chatlogs:
[2020-08-06 02:15:46] [Output] : SAES>NanoBob: Otherwise, if you do not stop complaining, I shall mute you again.
Thank you for contradicting yourself. Not even gonna bother responding further on this quote.
I would disagree with that. According to the following definition of conclude:
bring or come to an end. (Source (https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/conclude))
The last couple seconds of the last safe being cracked definitely counts towards bringing the bankrob to an end. But the fact that there is this room for ambiguity means we might need to to look into rewriting this rule to make its intention clearer.
The intention of the rule is to prevent people from killing themselves / eachother to avoid arrest in a bankrobbery. If we allowed people to do this a couple seconds before the last safe was cracked it would defeat the purpose of the rule.
Have you even been reading the topic? This is EXACTLY how I interpret rule 4:
The intention of the rule is to prevent people from killing themselves / eachother to avoid arrest in a bankrobbery
You confirm exactly what I am saying. Now again, HOW did you apply this intention on the situation? In my admin jail, I clearly told you that Nulgath got killed because he was annoying the cracker. This ALREADY implies that rule 4 could not have been applied to this. In Bob's case, I explained in the first topic why rule 4 could not have been applied. Instead of quoting a source for a word everyone understands but apparently not you, because everyone else sees it as after the final safe. I accept your excuse of the rule being vague, even more so the reason why you have to communicate with the player who is about to be adminjailed by you even though nobody reported is. They can clear it up for you so that you can see whether they understand rule 4 or not, not your own interpretation. Or else you are just admitting to nitpicking to punish people.
The only motivation behind this is upholding the server rules, I'm not after a personal vendetta here. The only result of my gang being banned from helping at certain bankrobberies is that I will not be there as admin purely to spectate, instead of being there to help in the defense. Which means I'll likely end up seeing more rulebreaks.
You can dictate my attendance at your bankrobs as a player of the server, you cannot however dictate whether I can or cannot attend as an admin - as much as you may like to. No amount of public complaining will make you immune to punishments.
All I see you saying here is that you are admitting you are taking time out of your game specifically to spectate bank robberies as an admin whenever bank robs begin. No matter how much you attempt to talk yourself out in this professionally and appear calm, all you are doing is showing your true intentions. Knowing that you are banned from bankrobs of almost every single gang, you choose to take time out of your game to spectate bankrobs whenever they happen and look for rulebreak was to jail for instantly. This is not normal behaviour, it is literally stalking. You did not do this before you were banned from bankrobs, as you yourself imply, and only started once you were. Regardless in what way you try to spin this, all you are admitting to here is that you are taking time out of your game to spectate and stalk particular gangs whenever they do a bankrob. That’s the reality in simple terms. Also, go into the details in my first post about C|BOB's adminjail because it clearly suggests your motivation WAS different.
I did not ask the gang management team whether the behaviour was punishable, I asked them for their opinion on the matter.
I don't understand. Do you think we are that stupid not to know what you are implying with that? But knowing you, you like precise numbers and concrete wordings, so lets look at my beautiful chatlogs again shall we.
[2020-08-03 01:52:21] [Output] : (P) SAES>NanoBob: That's literally what you said.
[2020-08-03 01:52:32] [Output] : (P) SAES>NanoBob: Ok, when did I punish 43 innocent people, because I can?
[2020-08-03 01:52:34] [Output] : (P) Adistar: Okay Nanobob, thats your perspective, and I have my perspective
[2020-08-03 01:52:39] [Output] : (P) Adistar: We can move on now
[2020-08-03 01:52:44] [Output] : (P) SAES>NanoBob: No, we most definitely can not.
[2020-08-03 01:52:45] [Output] : (P) Adistar: The conversation isnt any fruitful anymore
[2020-08-03 01:52:48] [Output] : (P) Adistar: We can
[2020-08-03 01:52:53] [Output] : (P) Adistar: I choose to insist on banning your gang
[2020-08-03 01:52:58] [Output] : (P) SAES>NanoBob: Then I will take it up further
[2020-08-03 01:53:03] [Output] : (P) Adistar: Do that
[2020-08-03 01:53:04] [Output] : (P) SAES>NanoBob: I was hoping this could be resolved between the two of us
[2020-08-03 01:53:10] [Output] : (P) SAES>NanoBob: But I don't mind getting GM involved
[2020-08-03 01:53:11] [Output] : (P) Adistar: I have the rights to ban your gang from my BRs
[2020-08-03 01:53:21] [Output] : (P) Adistar: Sure
[2020-08-03 01:53:22] [Output] : (P) SAES>NanoBob: How many people are in "your gang"?
[2020-08-03 01:53:25] [Output] : (P) Adistar: I'm not stopping you
[2020-08-03 01:53:37] [Output] : (P) Adistar: Alright filex
[2020-08-03 01:53:42] [Output] : (P) Adistar: I'm outta here
And I quote EXPLICITELY: [2020-08-03 01:53:10] [Output] : (P) SAES>NanoBob: But I don't mind getting GM involved
Stop deceiving people about your intentions.
I do not see why you are trying to say that you merely ‘’asked’’ GMs for their opinion, here’s a chat log from our party chat where you quite clearly threatened to take it up with the GMs. This is not ‘asking for an opinion’. What can you even possibly ask? The rules are right there in front of you. Again, this is a case of you trying to talk yourself out professionally on the forums after fucking up. The rules are in f1 and they are clear, yet here you are saying you went to ask GMs for their opinion. Opinion on what? Have you had a look at the rules you love to enforce? They clearly say the robbing gang can kill anyone they want. Your tone in the chat was threatening, certainly not implying you went to GMs to ask for an opinion.
An action does not need to be reported in order for an admin to enforce the rules. If I see someone break the rules they will be punished accordingly. This goes for any rule, a very clear example of this would be the English in mainchat rule.
The reason I concluded that rule 4 was violated was the being there, seeing the kill happen, looking up, and seeing all safes were cracked. This is also when the screenshot was taken.
And this is why I prepared a topic with witnesses and a lot of other evidence that prove that your approach in C|BOB's adminjail is incorrect. I repeat, respond to that instead. Also listen to what other people have to say about this incident, I've told you this repeatedly: you like to insist on what you think.
(Context: This was outside the bank, while C were defending their bankrobbery from the outside)
Which a robbing gang is allowed to do. I was outside defending yes. If you are talking about moley, show me evidence that he has been defending outside. Otherwise I refer you to your favourite BR rule 2:
I think you misinterpreted Brophy's post here.
What Brophy said is that an admin only punishes if he had sufficient grounds to do so and unless you have proof to the contrary the word of an admin would be believed.
But to further elborate on proof
In the case of a report the proof (logs & screenshots) is automatically deleted when a report is deleted / resolved.
In the case of an admin witnessing the situation first hand, the admin's word is enough.
What have I been doing in this topic all the time? This is exactly how I understood Brophy's post. I gave my arguments and evidence as to why your evidence is not strong enough to lead to your conclusion.
For some rules that is indeed the case, but these rules are few and far between. The majority of the server rules will be enforced, regardless of whether someone reports it or not.
Irrespective if someone wants to be killed at the end of a BR or not, or if they want to be killed during a jailbreak to respawn - it doesn't make it okay. The rule is clearly written to disallow it entirely, irrespective of if consented to by both parties.
Thanks for admitting to your bias and discrimination in ruling. Once again, who will review your admin abuse I have shown in the same post?
You are mixing up several different rules here. The general "no deathmatching" rule is one that indeed is only punished for if the victim wishes to report it. The bankrob rules however are not the same in that aspect.
The bankrob rules supersede death match rules to allow people inside banks who are the robbing gang to kill anyone who they want. It’s a rule of PERMISSION (‘allowed’) and not a rule of DENIAL - it does not say that ONLY members of the robbing gang can kill anyone inside the bank. It simply says that those people can kill anyone, therefore superseding server rules about deathmatching. In cases where it is the non-robbing gang killing someone inside a bank not with the intention of helping to avoid arrest, like mine then any scenario simply reverts to server rules about death matching. And since Nulgath didn’t and wouldn’t report me, it is not valid under deathmatching.
Or are you saying there is another vague rule in F1?
Now regarding your role as a developer. I have decided to leave it at your admission about DE, because you probably (I assume the best) keep forgetting your responsibility as the head developer as SAES. This is once again seen in this quote. Though, I am kinda disappointed about your oldnametags example honestly. But let me quote one part of my post that should give you another clear perspective of your responsibility:
despite a clear announcement from DE pushed by brophy that it should return to being a cop group.
I'm not PC HQ, I don't see how people being in PC has anything to do with me. This again is you trying to merge things that have nothing to do with me in an effort to expand upon what is very visibly a thin argument. I do not, nor have I ever, been involved with the inner workings of SAPD HQ.
So when does this enforcing thing work now? You are aware of PC rules, yet you choose to ignore him being PC (You were online when he spawned). Or do you just want to play with your gangmembers as PC?
Aight that is the last long post I'm gonna write in the next weeks till university starts.
Removed responses I consider irrelevant to the case, to shorten the response.