@NanoBob said in [SUGGESTION] Search and Destroy:

@VayraN said in [SUGGESTION] Search and Destroy:

Excuse me, What's C++ ? Is it C bug or smth else ? Serious question

C++ is a (low level) programming language. MTA is written in this programming language.

This programming language however has no relevance to this suggestion.

@Adistar said in [SUGGESTION] Search and Destroy:

It is a programming language that has been used to experiment with a new mta platform on SAES

This is incorrect, there is no amount of C++ code written for SAES specifically, nor is it used to experiment with a "new MTA platform".

This is factually correct. It is C#, not C++. I am sorry for misrepresenting your MTA platform sir.

@VayraN said in [SUGGESTION] Search and Destroy:

@Adistar said in [SUGGESTION] Search and Destroy:

I don't understand why u write an essay for something u need to learn c++ for

Excuse me, What's C++ ? Is it C bug or smth else ? Serious question

It is a programming language that has been used to experiment with a new mta platform on SAES so that DE members can join a gang. Lets keep it on-topic now no essays please.

I don't understand why u write an essay for something u need to learn c++ for

But yes I like your idea +1.

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.

And now another, and for now my final, report unless I would like to add more.

Nanobob completely misuses his position as the lead developer on this server. He thinks it is okay to ‘make deals’ with Desert Eagles group to let SoA gang members stay in DE after leaving the cop side, despite a clear announcement from DE pushed by brophy that it should return to being a cop group.

This is fundamentally unfair - Nanobob is the only person who approves scripts to the server. He made a script for DE with his own conditions that SoA members are excluded from DE’s return to being a cop based group. Various DE HQs have privately said that they disagree with this and one of the reasons of delayed results is how best to please Nanobob with how many SoA should be free invites versus how many cops.

In my own gang, a member of my HQ team was bribed and refused to join SoA - he was offered a script for his Lounge Inc group in return for joining SoA and transferring group control to the gang. Again, a case of the servers lead developer bribing groups with scripts for the benefit of his own gang. Evidence can be sent in private if desired.

The idea that developers work on this server purely out of hobby therefore aren’t required to do anything is bullshit. Nanobob does not do anything on this server as a hobby, any development work on this server he has undertaken in 2020 has been to push the interests of his own gang. It is a huge misuse of his role as lead developer, as a SAES HQ and even as an admin.

On top of this, he has also been quiet about a non-admin member of SoA spawning as PC. This was deal with by Drot himself, and says a lot about his bias.

I have been told by various people that they do not think my report will be taken any seriously. Thus, I am expecting a fair and reasonable response, even if it goes against my reports. I hope we can solve this for good. Understand that this is not just me complaining about his. So IF it is us misunderstanding what Nanobob does, please provide a response with SOUND arguments WITH EVIDENCE and not you again saying that the admin's word is the final word, and that you will warn to mute me whatever your admin power satisfies you to.

Additionally I want to report Nanobob and appeal my own adminjail from a weeks ago.

I was jailed a week ago for violating rule 2 and 4 of the bankrob rules. The scenario is simple - I (a C member) killed another criminal (NavM member) in a bankrob that wasn’t mine (ThC bankrob)

I was told that this violated rule 2 and 4.

Rule 4 does not apply to my adminjail because it was before the bankrob concluded as explained in the beginning of my topic.

I do not believe that rule 2 applies to my case for one simple reason: DESPITE THE RULES, no report was made. Both people, I, the killer, and NavM Nulgath, the person I killed, know each other. No report was made to the admins by Nulgath. He understood why I killed him.

So here comes a simple question - does an admin who witnesses a ‘rulebreak’ not need to speak to both sides to find out whether something is deathmatching or simply friends killing each other?

What makes my kill of Nulgath a rulebreak, but a SoA member killing another SoA member at hospital not a rulebreak? Both of these, to unbiased eyes, are a case of deathmatching.

The only thing that stops deathmatching being a rulebreak is when both sides consent to being killed. In scenario 2, both SoA members kill each other at hospital because they have fun doing it. In scenario 1, it is identical. Hospital, base, a random spawn, LVX, does it really matter.

The only way what I did could have been a rulebreak was if Nulgath reported me, but he didn’t because he does the same to me, around the map, whenever wherever. People kill each other all the time. It is not the job of an unbiased admin to spectate someone 24/7 then decide to jail without questions on first instance of a vague ‘rulebreak’

If it is the case that I killed Nulgath against the rules, because an admin saw it, and it doesn’t need a report, does this mean any other player from now on can report 2 SoA members killing each other as a case of death matching? And who will look at Nanobob's admin abuse in this snippet?

If not, what makes my case different?

It being in a bank? Sure. But this only applies to rule 4 AFTER the bankrob is done. It was not. Me not being the robbing gang is irrelevant in this scenario.

In conclusion, Nanobob has become overzealous in his administrating and no longer uses his panel in a way that remotely seems like an unbiased mind. He primarily seeks to hunt players who stand against him by spectating them ingame all the time (stalking) and jailing then on first instance of a vague rulebreak without asking the other side if they even intend to report or didn’t want to be killed, etc etc.

It is not the job of an unbiased admin to ignore all the other reports and stalk people ingame just because he doesn’t like them - as told to me in PM by a SoA member. This is pure discrimination and biased administration especially since Nanobob does not even ask the other side of the non-report about their view of what happened.

Nanobob’s general attitude around the server is pure shit, as evidenced by the fact that every single gang except 2 have banned his own from their bankrobs, and a majority of gangs simply refuse to go to another gangs bank rob if they let SoA members participate. His attitude is universally disliked around the server, and now he is hunting people he doesn’t like because he knows it’s hurting his own gang in a way to force them to change and let his gang be accepted as part of life on this server. It will never happen.

Why has Nulgath's post been removed? He has been given permission to post as a witness. To repeat: Witnesses in that safe room AND gangs that are also suddenly seeing Nanobob spectating their BRs are allowed to post.

Hello everyone,

I tried to deal with this case right after one of our members in Clandestine Mob, C|BOB, got adminjailed by Nanobob for alledgedly breaking rule 4 in C bankrob, but once again Nanobob threatened me with a mute for complaining, even though I did my best to discuss the problem in a respectful manner. The chat between me and Nanobob has been sent to Brophy in private, so he is free to look into this if necessary.

Now like I said, C|BOB has been adminjailed for the following:

Information on rule 4:

I have asked various admins about this rule, and so far everyone except for Nanobob has said that the end of a bankrob is after the final safe. For evidence, feel free to open a discussion within the staff and let us know what exactly defines the end of a bankrob, as I will keep them anonymous. But if this is the definition, this also makes my own admin jail partially invalid since the final safe was not cracked yet. And this is the problem with Nanobob’s approach.

So as you may probably know, few gangs have banned SoA from BRs. Nanobob attempted to take this to GMs, but banning a gang from another gang's BR is within the rules. What he is doing now is spawning as admin to spectate our BRs and catch people breaking rules. This has been confirmed by even SoA members to me and evidence has been sent to Brophy privately. I have been told that other gangs see Nanobob suddenly spectating their BRs aswell, so they are free to respond to this topic as a witness if they would like to.

Now I know he's an admin, and not just an admin, a HQ admin. So in a way he is allowed to do this, however, as his motivation has no administration purposes - lets be honest, it is a result of his gang getting banned from some gang BRs because he was not doing it before his gang got mass banned by gangs, or else he would not be asking Gang Managers whether banning a gang from a BR is punish-able or not - this basically makes me wonder to what extent he is even allowed to use his power?

This is even more so confirmed with C|BOB’s adminjail, because this adminjail seems to suggest he has other motives than keeping order in the server, which is what rules are made for. Not only did Moley not report C|BOB for anything at all as he knew he was banned, Nanobob also seems to have been waiting for a mistake to happen so that he can punish, which is not what admins should be doing at all. The screenshot that Nanobob has given me during the conversation I had with him, is:

The question now is what exactly made Nanobob conclude that C|BOB did break rule 4, other than Nanobob interpreting it this way with no grounds. The evidence he gave is not concrete enough, and I will prove this by using the players in this screenshot as witnesses. They are also welcome to respond. But before I do that, I would like to make clear what Clandestine Mob’s perspective is on Moley in the bankrob. The members have been instructed to kill Moley in sight because he was found to be annoying the crackers in the bankrob. As evidence I will show you a chat snippet from Clandestine Mob’s discord channel, in which a HQ announces this:

This is even more so evidenced with kill logs, as Moley was killed earlier in the BR, but came back again, and got killed again:

[2020-08-06 01:38:18] [Output] : * C*|Sou killed moley. (Combat Shotgun)
This was the chat before this kill:

[2020-08-06 01:38:05] [Output] : (CC) C|Blue: DONT KILL MOLEY
[2020-08-06 01:38:08] [Output] : (CC) C*|Sou: i got it
[2020-08-06 01:38:08] [Output] : (CC) C|Noizi: kiill him
[2020-08-06 01:38:09] [Output] : (CC) C|Noizi: now
[2020-08-06 01:38:12] [Output] : (TEAM) M|MarksMan: who are SoMA
[2020-08-06 01:38:12] [Output] : (CC) C|Adistar: no need noiz
[2020-08-06 01:38:13] [Output] : (CC) C|Adistar: leth im
[2020-08-06 01:38:14] [Output] : (CC) C|Noizi: kill
[2020-08-06 01:38:15] [Output] : (TEAM) moley: navm
[2020-08-06 01:38:16] [Output] : Local: KaNoX: hello
[2020-08-06 01:38:16] [Output] : (TEAM) moley: helpers
[2020-08-06 01:38:16] [Output] : (CC) C|Blue: kill yourself noizi

How did Nanobob not take this into account? Furthermore, there is even a dispute as to whether the BR concluded or not, hence why I explicitely defined what I have been told by other admins, after the final safe. Unfortunately, MTA time logs are inaccurate. I collected the logs from Moley, myself, and Wendo, and these are the kill logs I see:

[2020-08-06 01:40:59] [Output] : * C|BOB killed moley. (Combat Shotgun) <- my log
[2020-08-06 01:41:00] [Output] : * C|BOB killed moley. (Combat Shotgun) <- Moley’s log
[2020-08-06 01:41:01] [Output] : * C|BOB killed moley. (Combat Shotgun) <- Wendo’s log
The last cracked safe happened at:
[00:41] * BR Log * Clandestine_Mob The bank: BC | Door: BCsafe006 was cracked by: C|ViTO | Time: 40 seconds.

This clearly means that they all happened at the same time, how could C|BOB have guessed that C|ViTO would crack the safe at exactly that moment? Is this how you approach people potentially breaking rules as an admin?

However, and this is where I would like to come back to people writing ‘done’ in chat, because not only did people say it is done a bit later than when BOB killed Moley, BOB HIMSELF was the first person to say that the BR is done in our clanchat. This is the chat after that kill:

My log:

[2020-08-06 01:40:56] [Output] : (CC) C|Noizi: FAST
[2020-08-06 01:40:57] [Output] : (CC) C|Noizi: FAAAAAAAAAAAST
[2020-08-06 01:40:59] [Output] : * C|BOB killed moley. (Combat Shotgun)
[2020-08-06 01:40:59] [Output] : (TEAM) C|Noizi: no
[2020-08-06 01:41:00] [Output] : (TEAM) M|WenDo: no
[2020-08-06 01:41:02] [Output] : (TEAM) C|Blue: HAHAHHA
[2020-08-06 01:41:03] [Output] : (CC) C|BOB: Done
[2020-08-06 01:41:03] [Output] : (TEAM) C|Noizi: COPS GOT IN
[2020-08-06 01:41:03] [Output] : (TEAM) X|Latinooo: im coming
[2020-08-06 01:41:04] [Output] : (TEAM) M|WenDo: its perfectly
[2020-08-06 01:41:12] [Output] : M|WenDo: 8/8 COPS THANKS FOR COMING LOVE YOU
[2020-08-06 01:41:15] [Output] : * [FOX]Albie killed M|MarksMan. (Combat Shotgun)
[2020-08-06 01:41:15] [Output] : (TEAM) X|Latinooo: almost arriving to BC
[2020-08-06 01:41:18] [Output] : * [ThC]Checo||| killed Z742. (Combat Shotgun)
[2020-08-06 01:41:19] [Output] : (CC) C|Noizi: gg on def killer
[2020-08-06 01:41:19] [Output] : (TEAM) [ThC]Joaco: gj

Moley’s log:

[2020-08-06 01:41:00] [Output] : * C|BOB killed moley. (Combat Shotgun)
[2020-08-06 01:41:00] [Output] : (TEAM) C|Noizi: no
[2020-08-06 01:41:01] [Output] : (TEAM) M|WenDo: no
[2020-08-06 01:41:02] [Output] : Local: [ThC]Viktor: u dont?
[2020-08-06 01:41:03] [Output] : (TEAM) C|Blue: HAHAHHA
[2020-08-06 01:41:04] [Output] : (TEAM) C|Noizi: COPS GOT IN
[2020-08-06 01:41:04] [Output] : (TEAM) X|Latinooo: im coming
[2020-08-06 01:41:04] [Output] : Local: [ThC]Maksim: girl color
[2020-08-06 01:41:05] [Output] : (TEAM) M|WenDo: its perfectly
[2020-08-06 01:41:05] [Output] : Local: moley: I literally don't
[2020-08-06 01:41:06] [Output] : Local: [INKAS]Alessio: xddd
[2020-08-06 01:41:06] [Output] : Local: [AA]Avanger: cv
[2020-08-06 01:41:08] [Output] : Local: [AA]Avanger: fraise
[2020-08-06 01:41:11] [Output] : Local: M|Diesel: ay w entt
[2020-08-06 01:41:12] [Output] : * PM from C|Blue: noizi telling them to kill you hhhhhhhh
[2020-08-06 01:41:13] [Output] : Local: [ThC]Viktor: u said you hoped my dad crashed in a gas station
[2020-08-06 01:41:13] [Output] : M|WenDo: 8/8 COPS THANKS FOR COMING LOVE YOU
[2020-08-06 01:41:14] [Output] : Local: [AA]Avanger: hmdlh

The chatlogs suggests that the BR was not finished during the time of the kill. I took this even further by asking the people I could see in the screenshot what they saw during that BR. Even these witnesses suggest that it did not happen after the BR was finished, giving the possibility of C|BOB having killed Moley to break rule 4, especially since we as a gang had banned Moley and can kill him according to rule 2:

Below are the chat snippets of the witnesses that can be seen in Nanobob's own screenshot. They are also welcome to post in this topic.

@Blue

@Moley - says he was not killed after the last safe was cracked

@Maksim

@nulgath

@M7mDGr7

I had to quote this bonobo aswell because he was literally next to what was going on and still thinks Nanobob is the one who killed Moley
@Filex

So with all that being said, I would like to sum up:

• To what extent can Nanobob even use his power to stalk other gang BRs, which is a consequence of gangs banning SoA as established before?
• How is Nanobob going to prove, as clearly his screenshot is not enough, that C|BOB did kill Moley so that he could avoid the cops?
• What is even the purpose of rules? To keep order, or to just nitpick and punish players to satisfy your desires?

Nanobob is welcome to post on this with clear evidence that C|BOB did kill Moley in the context of rule 4, as his screenshot clearly is not enough. I would like to refer to Brophy's post for this:

Happy birthday bro!!! Another year of animal planet coming from you!!