[Scrotonium]

For the avoidance of doubt, I was not involved in the second raid and it is not the subject of this PR. 

I will respond further to this tomorrow when I am able to, however I can tell you now you are lying about not throwing a Molotov as there is sufficient evidenced (which will be provided). 

As for that “approval” by Roxas and Dr Internet I am pretty sure that was regarding them setting their job titles to ice cream men as SWAT and not you being a Heinz Beans Worker - whether you’re trying to be fraudulent or misleading I do not know.

Yes it was. Why is it one rule for one and another for another? If the staff cant even follow the rules how can they expect anyone else to?

[Wheatcake]

[Judge Rage]

[Scrotonium]

Those pictures look like the second raid. Cant be bothered argueing over molotovs. Admin can check im sure.

[Wheatcake]

[Judge Rage]

[Scrotonium]

[Wheatcake]

[Judge Rage]

-snip-

-snip-

I do not think you're reading the responses clearly as you're getting misunderstood with a lot of my points. It was a bit confusing at the beginning as I thought this was about both raids which I apologize for. Now that it's sorted I don't understand how you're missing my points so much.

1. Provide sufficient evidence of the ragdoll incident or stop accusing me.
   
2. Provide sufficient evidence of me throwing molotovs.
   
3. Provide sufficient evidence of my props being unfair to attackers.
   

Clearly you've not even read my points, Wheatcake.

1. I have, I have provided screenshots and a reasonable explanation and reasoned conclusion as to why you are involved in the ragdoll incident. I am not accusing you. You have even admitted to dragging the ragdoll with your hands, therefore I am not accusing you, you WERE involved.


2. I did not accuse you of throwing molotovs. One of the points of debate was whether or not one was thrown, which it was, not who actually threw it. If the staff team wish then they can look up the logs and find out but I did not accuse you.

3. I have provided screenshots of your construction which was constructed (by your own admission) to disorientate the attackers (you claimed defenders too, I would have to disagree) therefore giving you an unfair advantage. 

Actually read my points if you are going to claim that I have not provided sufficient evidence.

[Wheatcake]

-snip-

-snip-

Clearly you've not even read my points, Wheatcake.

1. I have, I have provided screenshots and a reasonable explanation and reasoned conclusion as to why you are involved in the ragdoll incident. I am not accusing you. You have even admitted to dragging the ragdoll with your hands, therefore I am not accusing you, you WERE involved.
In your very opening response to creating this PR you involved me in the ragdoll incident. Me trying to get it down once or twice with hands and keys is not involvement. Did I break any rules by doing that? I don't think so, making me not involved with that incident.

2. I did not accuse you of throwing molotovs. One of the points of debate was whether or not one was thrown, which it was, not who actually threw it. If the staff team wish then they can look up the logs and find out but I did not accuse you.

3. I have provided screenshots of your construction which was constructed (by your own admission) to disorientate the attackers (you claimed defenders too, I would have to disagree) therefore giving you an unfair advantage. 
You have still yet to provide any sufficient evidence that my props were only disoritenting attackers. Your word means nothing.

Actually read my points if you are going to claim that I have not provided sufficient evidence.
As far as I am concerned. None of the evidence you've submitted shows me breaking any rules, apart from 8.1 and 3.5.

[Judge Rage]

[Scrotonium]

When is this going to be sorted? And why do I have a warning for "Disrespect towards another user"? I cant recall what I said.

[Judge Rage]

Bump - this has been sitting for nearly a month

[Bambo]

[Judge Rage]