This staff report is surrounded around the fact that you,
without my prior approval, used an
administrator function reserved for admin situations to force my demotion to align with a role-play that I did not agree to. This is in fact, a role-play scenario that I would have had to agree to.
You made several comments in response and one was in regards to power-gaming, where as you provided a statement that clearly underlines the fact that you misunderstand the definition of what power-gaming is as you did happen to provide an example that WOULD actually be power-gaming. To role-play out beating my legs and the resulting action being something you decided would be power-gaming. In this example you provided you would simply /me (action), which in your example would be beating my legs, whereas it would be my turn to then use /me to continue with how my character would respond to your action. It's pretty disappointing that someone who is an administrator to misunderstand such a simple rule.
Quote:In-Game Rules:
2.6 Powergaming is not allowed (i.e. do not do "/me snaps the man’s neck, killing him" or similar).
Forcing a demotion on me, being that it was not agreed upon by both parties and that it was done through an administrative feature, is a clear violation of powergaming.
You had no other choice in the saying as you were in handcuffs and under watch by officers. A similar situation that would not require your consent would be if in the same scenario I did:
* Soviethooves beats the president's knees, causing him to fall.
As you are in a state that can't retaliate against this action, you have no choice but to deal with the circumstances.
In my scenario, you had me in handcuffs. You
forced my demotion using administrative features. Are you denying that? Are you stating that because I was in handcuffs, you could do away with my character however you please? Could you have killed me too because I had no choice but to
deal with the circumstances?
If the feature doesn't exist, don't override it with using an unfair advantage to supplement your groups role-play scenario. Being an officer of the law and demoting a standing President is not even something that would happen IRL and therefore why would it be something you can simply make-up and enable to happen in-game? There was no role-play of a trial, no lawyers, no actual effort. You simply took the position of Sergeant and decided to be gone with me because you, and your group of friends who were also in the police officer positions, felt like removing me. You happened to take charge once Venom was removed and wrongfully used an administrative tool to remove me from my position. Where in the rules is such an action allowed? I see no exceptions for the demotion of a President by a normal player, where is the exception that says that because you are an administrator you can do whatever you please with
role-play being an excuse if anyone asks? Where is the accountability in that and to what limit could you go with that?
In response to your first statement, I did demote Venom and both you and the following officers were in the wrong for continuing the effort(s) to arrest me. Your statement saying that the police are
judge, juries and executioners seems a bit far fetched for a semi-serious role-play server. I'd expect that response on a typical DarkRP forum but certainly not here.
The entirety of the situation revolves around your response, "
Again, as stated prior, I was assisting in the continued arrest of you and the VP by Sourlemon and Venom. This was not an abuse of my powers against you, but a use of my power to further the situation. Something you had little power (You were in handcuffs in custody of an officer)."
I also find it concerning that one of your witnesses, SourLemon, had stated that for a duration of the time you had been observing me from an
admin standpoint which means that the group of police officers were likely communicating through TeamSpeak or a third-party software (meta-gaming) to discuss how to remove me IC'ly from an OOC'ly perspective and as stated in the actual rules, information learned OOC'ly cannot be used IC'ly and thus if you were discussing means OOC'ly to use IC'ly that would be a direct violation of meta-gaming (Apologies for the tongue twister). Were you all communicating through TeamSpeak? I'd possibly like a response on that as I believe it is pertinent to the investigation and whether or not you were communicating through the proper TeamSpeak channels for use by government members and not communicating through a locked channel for private and/or clan use according to previous staff remarks on TeamSpeak usage and it being obvious as government channels are there for a reason.
Quote:RE: Rules regarding personal teamspeak channel - George - Monday, December 5th, 2016
This generally wouldn't be allowed for the following reasons:
1. It's still meta-gaming - IC information is only allowed to be shared in-game or via the government radio channels on the Limelight Gaming Teamspeak
I've stated the rule being broken, power-gaming, and the list of administrative misconduct which is noted in the Report Instructions section and which I believe fell under these circumstances and I will respectively leave this up to HR and the appropriate staff members to make a decision on.