Information about NanoBob
Posts made by NanoBob
[SUGGESTION] Search and Destroy NanoBob replied in Server Script Suggestions & Bug Reporting
@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.
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".
Reporting Nanobob for unfair adminjail and unfair approach as an admin NanoBob replied in Rulebreaker Report Archive
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.
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.
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.
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.
But if this is the definition, this also makes my own admin jail partially invalid since the final safe was not cracked yet.
Irrespective of the definition of the BR rule #4 you still violated rule #2 yourself. So this changes nothing to the validity of that adminjail.
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.
Yes, I go to bankrobberies while spawned as admin, in order to spectate for rulebreakers. I have done this many times in the past and will continue to do so. The only reason you might notice it more now is that when I am not in a bankrob defending / getting arrested I am more likely to observe rulebreaks.
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
My position within the clan has nothing to do with this, any admin is allowed (or rather encouraged to) do administrative work. This includes but is not limited to punishing people for breaking the rules.
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,
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.
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?
I did not ask the gang management team whether the behaviour was punishable, I asked them for their opinion on the matter.
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:
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 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 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.
The members have been instructed to kill Moley in sight because he was found to be annoying the crackers in the bankrob.
How did Nanobob not take this into account?
I can not take into account information that is said on a private channel of a discord server I am not even a member of.
And besides that, the following chat log from right before the bankrob seems to definitely combat the idea that Moley would be killed "on sight" at your bankrobs.
[2020-08-06 01:37:39] [Output] : Local: C|Killer: moley get in
(Context: This was outside the bank, while C were defending their bankrobbery from the outside)
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?
- I attend any bankrob of any gang in the capacity of an admin if I am not pre-occupied or attending as SoA. I am targeting any specific gangs.
- I believe the proof provided, in combination with the explanation of the intention behind the rule is sufficient.
- The purpose of the server rules is to set some boundaries to what is and isn't allowed in the game.
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:
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
I 100% agree that an admin should not be motivated by personal dislike to someone with their punishments. But I assure you that's not the case here, I have no personal issues with you, or C|BOB.
What the SoA member in question said was that it was more likely for me to be at bankrobs now as an administrator, as opposed to as someone trying to help defend the bankrob.
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.
Yes, SoA did make a deal with DE to allowed a subset of existing DE members to join SoA without being removed from DE.
This is fundamentally unfair - Nanobob is the only person who approves scripts to the server.
The approval of scripts to the server has nothing to do with this. Anyone is welcome to come forth with scripts they have written for the server, and if they pass technical review (and SAES HQ is fine with adding it) then there is no problem with them being added.
I would not have disallowed this script if it was made by someone else, I am in charge of approving scripts that is true. I only approve them from a technical level, not if they actually have a place on the server. My approving of a script on a technical level has nothing to do with the wider HQ team agreeing to the addition of the functionality of the script.
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.
This is factually incorrect. SoA members are not allowed to join DE, just like every other criminal.
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.
I do not recall the exact details of this, but what I believe happened here is that Desolator offered to create some system for Lounge's betting odds to make more sense, and more-or-less guarantee profit. For this Desolator joined Lounge.
Nothing was said about transferring control of the group to SoA.
Furthermore, anything to do with Lounge is in the hands of Group Management. Neither myself or Desolator have any sway in whether or not Lounge get rewards through Group Management. There is no abuse of power here. Desolator could have made a script for them, but he cannot approve them having it. Much like I could not approve DE having a script on my own. I fail to see how the position of developer was leveraged here. You are confusing using our skills as developers with to our position in the clan.
The idea that developers work on this server purely out of hobby therefore aren’t required to do anything is bullshit.
Why would that be bullshit? As long as I am not employed by you I am not required to do anything for you. I choose to spend my time writing / reviewing code for SAES because I enjoy doing so.
Nanobob does not do anything on this server as a hobby
I'm afraid you are mistaken, all code I write for SAES is as a hobby.
any development work on this server he has undertaken in 2020 has been to push the interests of his own gang.
This is factually incorrect, look no further than my adding of /oldnametags (something I do not even use) or the fact that I have reviewed the majority of code added to the server this year, which takes quite some time.
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'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.
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.
The only reason I told you ingame to drop the issue, is because the main chat is not the place for this. There is no problem with you bringing this to the forums. With this being said, the wording of your request here is extremely aggressive in nature. I'm unsure where you got the impression wording things like "please provide a response with SOUND arguments WITH EVIDENCE" is an acceptable way to approach these issues. I understand your temper can get the best of you, but ultimately I am not answerable to you, so I believe the tone in which you have made this request is misplaced. That being said, I have indeed responded to you with sound arguments supported by examples and/or evidence where applicable.
Overall your complaint boils down to 2 punishments, both adminjails. You have managed to drag out a couple hundred words and many hours out of these punishments which I believe to be valid. I would not have given them if I did not believe they were valid, and I have outlined my reasoning behind this belief above. I am certainly not targeting any individuals and there is no evidence to support this claim. I have attended many BR's historically as an admin and will continue to do so. Just because I enforce the rules as they are written, does not give you justification to be upset by those rules being enforced. The simple way out of this is not to break rules or even stray into a grey area, but this appears to be too difficult. For what is is worth also, you are not in a position to appeal someone's punishments on their behalf. If you are not the punished party you cannot appeal the punishment as you have done here on behalf of others. Whilst you may believe you wield this power or influence, you do not.
As mentioned though, I believe this entire situation has been blown out of proportion over 2 adminjails. Further to this, you have attempted to bring in a lot of events which do not at all pertain to your complaint. (eg. DE script, PC issue etc.) I think this alone has shown how truly minor your issue is when it boils down to it, and frankly how wishy washy the "facts" surrounding it are.
Ultimately the person who decides the validity of your complaint is not me, it is Brophy as the clan leader. However I did deem this topic worthy of a response.
I hope the above has shed some light on the concerns you raised.
Gangs alliance chat NanoBob replied in Server Script Suggestions & Bug Reporting
So how would this work?
Imagine the following scenario:
Gang A is allied with gang C
Gang B is allied with gang C
Gang C is allied with gang A and B
When someone in gang A speaks in alliance chat, people from gang C can see it.
But what happens when someone from gang C responds to it? Who gets to see it?
This would mean you would need a chat per allied gang.
Now I also see some people mentioning more than 2 gangs being in a group of alliances, how would that work then?
You would have an alliance chat between those 3 (or more) gangs, besides the individual alliance chats?
You'd end up with something like
/allianceChat GangA Hey Gang A guys
/allianceChat GangB Hey Gang B guys
/allianceChat GangA&GangB Hey guys from both other gangs
That just seems like a very shitty solution. Not to mention how to actually keep track of alliances.
Fix the Custom Modshop Vehicles NanoBob replied in Server Script Suggestions & Bug Reporting
This is intentional behaviour.
The reasoning for it has been mentioned on the forums several times in the past. Due to how MTA works with client sided vehicles in a very large amount of cases it would be impossible to enter your custom vehicle, due to it being obstructed by the other component vehicles.
The fact that cops can wrap into it as well comes from the same issue, otherwise you would not be able to be arrested while in a custom vehicle.
SAES Daryl & SAES NanoBob NanoBob replied in Comments & Feedback
Just to add some information to this topic:
The organisation in question did not give SheraP permission to access the organisation bank account. This was the result of a bug, this bug has since been fixed.
I think we could all agree that if we were to stumble upon access to the organisation bank account, while you know you're not supposed to have access to it, it's not morally right to take all of this for yourself.
So no, this was not the "fault" of ICE members for trusting him, this was the result of a bug.