[Quest]

My friend PrisonDad was asked indirectly OOCly by BlackDog to take the "hellcase.com" out of his name. I informed him about this and he was changing it whilst he got a warning. I appealed it for him but it got denied.



Today, Gungranny had the exact same thing - a gambling site in his name on LL. But this time it was dealt via TS quite unprofessionally 
after is was "dealt with": 
https://limelightgaming.net/forums/thread-20233.html 
Gungrannys "dealing": 

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: https://streamable.com/uiknr Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://streamable.com/uiknr
BlackDogs response: 

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: https://clips.twitch.tv/SillyManlySalmonRitzMitz Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://clips.twitch.tv/SillyManlySalmonRitzMitz



Disclaimer: D.I streamed this to twitch meaning he consented to uploading this.



So my question is ( mainly asking @Overlewd and @Enzyme ) is why the same thing gets different punishments?

[Vadar]

From my knowledge its up to the deciding staff member for what punishments or not are given. There are no "set in stone" punishments for various things due to no two situations being identical.

Just what I know, Someone will be able to confirm if so.
-Vadar

[Quest]

From my knowledge its up to the deciding staff member for what punishments or not are given. There are no "set in stone" punishments for various things due to no two situations being identical.

Just what I know, Someone will be able to confirm if so.
-Vadar

But that's not fair.

[Cole]

The rule regarding advertisement was recently changed and made more clear, hence before it didn't state whether it was specifically other Garry's Mod communities or advertising services in general.

@Quest.

[Quest]

The rule regarding advertisement was recently changed and made more clear, hence before it didn't state whether it was specifically other Garry's Mod communities or advertising services in general.

@Quest.

Well why was he asked to change it and also when was the rule change?

[Night]

Honestly I don't see why this is a major issue that's being brought up and in my eyes, blown out of proportion. Staff punishments are issued at the discretion of the staff member involved. This is how it is and always has been since inception.

[Quest]

Honestly I don't see why this is a major issue that's being brought up and in my eyes, blown out of proportion. Staff punishments are issued at the discretion of the staff member involved. This is how it is and always has been since inception.

Why isn't it the same then? I mean BD was in the ts with them when it happened.

[Night]

As you heard Blackdog say, not all staff members are the same in the enforcement. We're human. That's just not possible to be on the same level as everyone on the team consistently, 100% of the time. It's completely unrealistic.

[Quest]

As you heard Blackdog say, not all staff members are the same in the enforcement. We're human. That's just not possible to be on the same level as everyone on the team consistently, 100% of the time. It's completely unrealistic.

How can that be fair tho? 
So it's essentially the "staff lottery"

[Night]

Not really. Again, I feel your completely blowing this out of proportion. You cannot serious expect everyone on the team, 17 people, to all agree on everything.

It's human nature that you won't agree with everyone you meet. This includes those on the staff team. No, we don't all agree each other. Yes, we all, for the most part, enforce the rules differently in regards to punishments, however this is at our discretion. Something we're trusted to do as staff.

[Doctor Internet]

It was dealt with by me, not BlackDog.

---

Okay, misread your argument.

I can't speak for Blackdog, since the team isn't a hive-mind.
In my case, I hadn't recieved an @ call, despite there being at least two staff members on.

I told him to remove it. He did, then started the debate after removing it.

He did as he was asked, and then challenged the rule after. I see no issue with my actions?

[Overlewd]

Staff have quite a bit of freedom when it comes to issuing punishments, because largely it depends on the context and prior history a lot of the time, and it's impossible to account for all possibilities and somehow end up with exactly 100% perfectly calculated punishments for each offense. 

For something like this, without any context at all, both a verbal warning and a written warning are completely reasonable outcomes. And then further context can be achieved. Gungranny edited his name as asked, when asked. If he were to start complaining and arguing, delaying the removal, he could have well gotten the perm warning. I don't know exactly the situation with your friend but regardless both perm and verbal warnings for this are fair.

Hell even IRL they have a range of possible sentences, something ridiculous like 10-40 years for the same crime depending on multiple factors. And on the server we don't have a 10 page flowchart to calculating exact punishments, taking everything into account, nor do we have the time to do so even if we had something like that.

[Dick]

Do you have anymore questions, @Quest?

[Soviethooves]

I was asked to remove it and did. No reason to punish someone if they understand what they did wrong and follow instructions.

[Quest]

It was dealt with by me, not BlackDog.

---

Okay, misread your argument.

I can't speak for Blackdog, since the team isn't a hive-mind.
In my case, I hadn't recieved an @ call, despite there being at least two staff members on.

I told him to remove it. He did, then started the debate after removing it.

He did as he was asked, and then challenged the rule after. I see no issue with my actions?

Well I did call in an @ call on Monday and I think also yesterday atleast once.
PrisonDad also didn’t challenge the rules he just changed it when he was asked to.
I see no difference in the actions between gungranny and prisondad about from the hour and rank gap. ( not that that’s why he got more of a punishment )

---

Staff have quite a bit of freedom when it comes to issuing punishments, because largely it depends on the context and prior history a lot of the time, and it's impossible to account for all possibilities and somehow end up with exactly 100% perfectly calculated punishments for each offense. 

For something like this, without any context at all, both a verbal warning and a written warning are completely reasonable outcomes. And then further context can be achieved. Gungranny edited his name as asked, when asked. If he were to start complaining and arguing, delaying the removal, he could have well gotten the perm warning. I don't know exactly the situation with your friend but regardless both perm and verbal warnings for this are fair.

Hell even IRL they have a range of possible sentences, something ridiculous like 10-40 years for the same crime depending on multiple factors. And on the server we don't have a 10 page flowchart to calculating exact punishments, taking everything into account, nor do we have the time to do so even if we had something like that.

Yeah I understand that but in IRL you can atleast appeal a sentence and have a chance of it actually get accepted rather than it just getting skim read and denied.

PrisonDad didn’t fight he just saw the message oocly and changed his steam name, just like gungranny yet he got punished