Your Name: Quest
Issued by:
Blacklist ID: 69864
Server: CityRP2
Why should you be unblacklisted?: I was an officer and there was this guy in a fire truck trying to CDM me, he clipped me several times and I was low health; I warned him about CDM and made an @ call. The last time he drove at me down from Downtown Road tunnel I shot him. Nacreas picked me up and told me I back seat administrated but I read a rule today called rule 1.8:
![[Image: tBYKDb9.png]](https://i.imgur.com/tBYKDb9.png)
[font=open_sansregular, Arial, sans-serif]Evidence: The rule shown above.[/font]
The staff-members have received your unblacklist-request, Quest.
It will take a while for it to be reviewed.
Same shit happened to me. Got a 18 day ban. Fucking bullshit I don’t care if i get a warning for this, the word has to come out.
Not involved. Warned.
So you admit to backseat administration? Not forgetting this exemption did not exist under a rule set enforced well over a year ago from my understanding.
(Feb 10, 2018, 06:39 PM)Nacreas Wrote: [ -> ]So you admit to backseat administration? Not forgetting this exemption did not exist under a rule set enforced well over a year ago from my understanding.
Yeah and someone today shot a prop killer and
used the 1.8rule to justify what he did. Therefore if I shot a CDMer (after he almost killed me multiple times ) I can also use the same rule.
Why can't I appeal something if there is a new rule in place that would allow me to appeal it?
Also I never admitted to it:
Quote:Nacreas picked me up and told me I back seat administrated but I read a rule today called rule 1.8:
, I didn't exactly say that what he did was justified. I simply stated that the rule existed and that it may be why he killed the prop minge.
(Feb 10, 2018, 09:47 PM)_Cole Wrote: [ -> ], I didn't exactly say that what he did was justified. I simply stated that the rule existed and that it may be why he killed the prop minge.
No he asked you over radio I said "No" you said "Yeah" and then explained me the rule. I see this as justifying it.
, the self-defence addition was only added in September 2017 [1]
Your blacklist was in December 2016, around 9 months prior.
(Feb 11, 2018, 01:24 PM)Doctor Internet Wrote: [ -> ], the self-defence addition was only added in September 2017 [1]
Your blacklist was in December 2016, around 9 months prior.
It seems you haven't read my previous post:
Quote:Why can't I appeal something if there is a new rule in place that would allow me to appeal it?
(Feb 11, 2018, 09:14 PM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ] (Feb 11, 2018, 01:24 PM)Doctor Internet Wrote: [ -> ], the self-defence addition was only added in September 2017 [1]
Your blacklist was in December 2016, around 9 months prior.
It seems you haven't read my previous post:
Quote:Why can't I appeal something if there is a new rule in place that would allow me to appeal it?
Because at the time of your blacklist, it was against the rules. Just because the rules have changed, doesn't mean that you followed the rules when it was in place.
Either way, leaving this for Nac, as it's his case.
But if the rules change after; it would be kinda unfair to not remove the punishments for the rule that doesn't exist anymoree.
(Feb 11, 2018, 09:43 PM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ] But if the rules change after; it would be kinda unfair to not remove the punishments for the rule that doesn't exist anymoree.
Not at all. You still broke the rule at the time, and you got punished for it. I don't see how it getting changed later down the line has anything to do with your punishment or why it would be "fair" to remove it when you've broken the rule at the time.
(Feb 11, 2018, 10:27 PM)Overlewd Wrote: [ -> ] (Feb 11, 2018, 09:43 PM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ] But if the rules change after; it would be kinda unfair to not remove the punishments for the rule that doesn't exist anymoree.
Not at all. You still broke the rule at the time, and you got punished for it. I don't see how it getting changed later down the line has anything to do with your punishment or why it would be "fair" to remove it when you've broken the rule at the time.
Because the rule isn't relevant now and if I broke the newer rule and staff see I have previous history that doesn't exist any more it would be quite unfair. If the blacklist was edited to show that the rule doesn't exist any more I'd appreciate that too.
In my opinion, it doesn't matter whether the rule is relevant now or not. You broke the rules at the time and were punished for it, just because it was decided to implement that rule doesn't grant you the grounds to appeal this now.
But I can ask for some context put into the blacklist then? If the rule is now obsolete then I'd like some context added to it or for the blacklist to be removed.