+- Limelight Forums (https://limelightgaming.net/forums)
+-- Forum: The Courthouse (https://limelightgaming.net/forums/forum-198.html)
+--- Forum: Warning Appeals (https://limelightgaming.net/forums/forum-328.html)
+---- Forum: Denied (https://limelightgaming.net/forums/forum-434.html)
+---- Thread: Remove warning from the history - request (/thread-18401.html)
Remove warning from the history - request - yutgjctguc - Nov 24, 2017
Your Name: [font=open_sansregular, Arial, sans-serif][L²:RP] Vatipää[/font]
Warning ID: [font=open_sansregular, Arial, sans-serif]3025[/font]
[font=open_sansregular, Arial, sans-serif]Issued by: [L²] [/font]Bambo (He has now resigned)
Reason: [font=open_sansregular, Arial, sans-serif]Powergaming as President | Making a law to grant an arrest[/font]
Why should it be removed?: I never meant to powergame. And the person could been arrested even if I didnt make the law. I just made the law to avoid that happening again, as I thought it's common sense to not lie to an officer.
Evidence:
![[Image: KDtcUEK.png]](https://i.imgur.com/KDtcUEK.png)
![[Image: EgX8hAR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/EgX8hAR.png)
RE: Remove warning from the history - request - Bambo - Nov 24, 2017
As the person issuing the warning,
From common sense yes, it would not be right and would in theory be obstructing an investigation however, if you believe that it would have already led to an arrest just because he lied and that it's already illegal why did you make that law?
You wrote that law, and then wrote /radio so you can warrant him after that message as far as I remember leading into the powergaming warning.
I'd like to emphasize for the SA's or the dealing administrator that "so you can warrant him" was written after the broadcast of the law.
I'm against the removal of the warning as I believe I even went easy when it was clear powergaming.
RE: Remove warning from the history - request - yutgjctguc - Nov 24, 2017
(Nov 24, 2017, 08:45 PM)Bambo Wrote: As the person issuing the warning,
From common sense yes, it would not be right and would in theory be obstructing an investigation however, if you believe that it would have already led to an arrest just because he lied and that it's already illegal why did you make that law?
To prevent that happening again. He was already about to get arrested.
You wrote that law, and then wrote /radio so you can warrant him after that message as far as I remember leading into the powergaming warning.
It went like someone asked in the radio: Is it illegal to lie to an officer? I said: "Yes it is, it's common sense to not lie to an officer." Then I made the law. And then I said "So you can warrant him". I dont see the issue here.
I'd like to emphasize for the SA's or the dealing administrator that "so you can warrant him" was written after the broadcast of the law.
I'm against the removal of the warning as I believe I even went easy when it was clear powergaming.
Do you know that feeling when someone doesn't trust you? Why do I even make this if no-one doesn't believe me? Powergaming wasn't even in my mind when I made the law. He would already get arrested. I even said in our discussions that. And you were like "yeah I just give you the warning".
RE: Remove warning from the history - request - yutgjctguc - Nov 24, 2017
And just because I say "so" instead of "incase this happens in the future" is powergaming? I dont get the point. That is just lack of my own english skills. Like I have stated 100 times now, I never meant to powergame.
RE: Remove warning from the history - request - Bambo - Nov 24, 2017
"So you can arrest him" means,
In order for you to arrest him.
In no version of that sentence and structure does that mean and would that mean in case it happens in the future, I'm sorry but "so" would not mean "incase this happens in the future" especially with "you can arrest him" after it. You made it in that moment, and then said that. Nothing about the future was said and you said "him". How can it be about the future when you were talking about him?
That case was a clear powergaming from my eyes, and we were going around in circles as you were not seeing my point countless times.
RE: Remove warning from the history - request - yutgjctguc - Nov 25, 2017
(Nov 24, 2017, 11:32 PM)Bambo Wrote: "So you can arrest him" means,
In order for you to arrest him.
In no version of that sentence and structure does that mean and would that mean in case it happens in the future, I'm sorry but "so" would not mean "incase this happens in the future" especially with "you can arrest him" after it. You made it in that moment, and then said that. Nothing about the future was said and you said "him". How can it be about the future when you were talking about him?
That case was a clear powergaming from my eyes, and we were going around in circles as you were not seeing my point countless times.
From my eyes this wasn't powergaming in any way because he was about to get arrested already. Ofc I know what does powergaming mean. But in this case I swear the god powergaming wasn't even in my mind. And I saw your point in our messages, but it was just confusing because he was already about to get arrested.
RE: Remove warning from the history - request - Vadar - Nov 26, 2017
My question is why has it taken you until now to appeal this ?
My point of view (I was the one arrested at the time that contacted Bambo) is that it was blatant Powergame and If i remember correctly the attending officer that requested the warrant did say something along the lines of "That law now allows me to arrest you". Now for proof of that I dont have it, however, I don't understand why it has took you this long to appeal it since you believe it is a false warning and I take it have believed it since it was issued.
Regards,
Vadar.
RE: Remove warning from the history - request - yutgjctguc - Nov 26, 2017
(Nov 26, 2017, 04:06 PM)Vadar Wrote: My question is why has it taken you until now to appeal this ?
"Save this discussion to appeal it in the future"
My point of view (I was the one arrested at the time that contacted Bambo) is that it was blatant Powergame and If i remember correctly the attending officer that requested the warrant did say something along the lines of "That law now allows me to arrest you"
I dont know about that
. Now for proof of that I dont have it, however, I don't understand why it has took you this long to appeal it since you believe it is a false warning and I take it have believed it since it was issued.
Bambo told me that appeal it in months, not in weeks
Regards,
Vadar.
RE: Remove warning from the history - request - yutgjctguc - Dec 2, 2017
*bump*
@Bambo
RE: Remove warning from the history - request - Bambo - Dec 3, 2017
I did tell you that you'd have a better chance of an appeal if you do not do it after a week, that is true. This was mainly due to the warning giving you something to think about and learn from your mistakes. However, from what I can see here is that you still haven't learnt the major problem in that case.
If you believed it was common sense, you did not have to make the law.
If you meant for the law to be used in the future, you should have noted it was meant for the future use of it.
You saying "So you can arrest him" immediately after the law being broadcasted suggests that that law was put in place to legalize the arrest and put it in the boundries of the laws. Even the officer believed that.
English is also not my native tongue although I am comfortable with it and know it as if it is however, I have studied English with people who are new to it all, I have also studied teaching English to a certain level. One of the first things we learn is the usage of because, so and such. I don't mean to give a crash course in english here but in the context you used "so" in meant "in order for you to".
I do not believe this was a simple English mistake, I don't mean to judge your english knowledge but I have my doubts and would be against the removal of this warnings as I feel you still have not understood what it was for, what it meant.
RE: Remove warning from the history - request - Enzyme - Dec 3, 2017
Denied as the ex-staffmember in question feels that the warning should remain on record.
I see no reason to overrule this decision.