Limelight Forums

(Jul 19, 2018, 11:20 PM)Cole_ Wrote: [ -> ]You say we were against the President.. we were not at all. We hostage roped him for the sake of our safety and preventing him from calling in any units, and not once did we point a gun directly in his face. We went in there for the sole intention of getting you two in a private place, which was successfully achieved.

You say private place... we were not at all. You shot us there in the office, infront of the President (if I recall correctly). You pointed weapons at him and told him to stay out of the way, ushering him over to the other wall like shown in the screenshots. You may have not been against the President, that is bad wording on my part, but it doesn't change the fact that the raid was conducted on the President's floor and him and his employees were tied up, pretty much being taken hostage.

But The President wasn't taken hostage. He wasn't held as security or fulfilment of a condition. 



He was held to prevent a radio call being made.

(Jul 19, 2018, 11:27 PM)ForceGhost Wrote: [ -> ]But The President wasn't taken hostage.

"a person seized or held"
the president

"as security"
he was the security that you could get your job done without being harmed. If the police force knew you have the President tied up, you could've used that against them for your own advantage very easily.

"for the fulfilment of a condition."
to kill/kidnap/hostage myself and Judge.


It's like if you took hostages in a bank robbery:
The person siezed is the hostage, in this case, the President, for the security of the escape away from the bank, in this case, for the security that no other officers can arrive on scene through the President's distress calls, for the fulfilment of a condition. The bank example would be to take money, in this case, it was to kill me and Judge.

12.1 - You need a valid reason to raid the President (or anyone else). Do not raid the president for money, because of high taxes, because you don’t like certain laws (unless they drastically impact your character), or as retaliation for being arrested by the police due to your own actions. Before raiding the president, you need to show that you have attempted and exhausted the possibility of a peaceful resolution. You need to have an appropriate underground job set via /job before raiding anyone – don’t raid as the default “Citizen” job without using /job first. 

Let me express how in that it says Do not raid the president for money, because of high taxes, because you don't like certain laws (unless they drastically impact your character), or as a retaliation for being arrested by the police due to your own actions. We didn't raid the Presidential office for any reasons stated above, but rather to retaliate against your corruption. Now before you start throwing round anymore "rule bending" or "loopholing" accusations, I am literally reading from the rule.

Looking at this rule.

Quote:12.1 - You need a valid reason to raid the President (or anyone else). Do not raid the president for money, because of high taxes, because you don’t like certain laws (unless they drastically impact your character), or as retaliation for being arrested by the police due to your own actions. Before raiding the president, you need to show that you have attempted and exhausted the possibility of a peaceful resolution. You need to have an appropriate underground job set via /job before raiding anyone – don’t raid as the default “Citizen” job without using /job first. 

We didn't "Raid" The President for any of those things. We raided the President because the targets we wish to execute was on his floor. Not "as retaliation for being arrested by the police due to your own actions."

Our arrests were false, they were not due "to our own action", but due to a corrupt Police Force. The reason for raiding, if you wish to go down that route, is because two of the corrupt officers that falsely arrested us multiple times were present on the Presidential Floor. 

Surely that would be a valid reason under "You need a valid reason to raid the President (or anyone else).". Nor does this situation fall under any of the exceptions listed.

(Jul 19, 2018, 11:33 PM)Cole_ Wrote: [ -> ]"or as a retaliation for being arrested by the police due to your own actions."  We didn't raid the Presidential office for any reasons stated above, but rather to retaliate against your corruption.

Retaliate against our "corruption" which stemmed from the arrested, therefore a retaliation for being arrested by police due to your own actions. If that rule even has to be written in the first place, it obviously means people are gonna think the Government is corrupt when they are wrongfully arrested, which is why that rule is in place.

Tying up the President against his will, holding him where you want him against his will, preventing him from contacting anyone. That's hostaging. You raided the government HQ and tied up the President against his will? That's a raid. You guys escalated it quite a lot when you capture the highest head of a government in a country. You all should know a lot better.

(Jul 19, 2018, 11:37 PM)Enzyme Wrote: [ -> ]Tying up the President against his will, holding him where you want him against his will, preventing him from contacting anyone. That's hostaging. 

You raided the government HQ and tied up the President against his will. That's a raid. You all should know a lot better.

I did clear it with online staff at the time. They were also present throughout the whole situation and didn't intervene at any point.

Who were the staffmembers?

(Jul 19, 2018, 11:40 PM)Enzyme Wrote: [ -> ]Who were the staffmembers?

Was it only Internet, or anyone else? Considering the fact that you used "they" as in plural staffmembers.

(Jul 19, 2018, 11:43 PM)Enzyme Wrote: [ -> ]Was it only Internet, or anyone else? Considering the fact that you used "they" as in plural staffmembers.

I believe he cleared with with Bambo and Overlewd too? You'd have to speak to him about it. I think he was the only one online.

What I have to question is, you bypassed a member of staff's decision in-game to speak to another member of staff about the situation.. someone of who had no context on what happened at all. Why?

Did you clear the situation with a staffmember (Doctor Internet) before you attacked Nexus and started to hostage the President, or did you attack Nexus and hostage the President and Doctor Internet did nothing to prevent the RP from taking place?

(Jul 19, 2018, 11:50 PM)Enzyme Wrote: [ -> ]Did you clear the situation with a staffmember (Doctor Internet) before you attacked Nexus and started to hostage the President, or did you attack Nexus and hostage the President and Doctor Internet did nothing to prevent the RP from taking place?

I asked specifically, "If we go inside and execute those people, is that raiding The President?"

Internet was also present through the whole situation.