[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]

-snip-

-snip-

Before I respond to this, I'd like to inform you that you are not allowed to lie in the courthouse.

This PR is on raid #1, I have nothing to do with raid #2. The main issue with this PR is that your dupe was a doomfort and on top of that you committed several failRP offenses during raid #1.
There was a lot of police during the #2 raid and it wasn't long after the #1 raid so I don't know which raid this PR is on, considering you're talking about molotovs which only happened, from what I saw, during the #2 raid.

For your first point, according to @Bambo (who told me to make this PR to present my evidence) the cinema is an obvious shop within the city, therefore it follows that this is a violation of 8.1.
Fairs fair. I won't use it anymore, had know idea this was considered a shop as it is so lightly used anyway.

For your second point you have admitted wrongdoing in raid #2. Even if you did not shoot through those windows in raid #1, you have incriminated yourself by admitting that you did in raid #2, which is a violation.
I don't see the problem as we kept them open. However this is irrelevant now that I know this is all about the #1 raid. I'll let a staff member question me accordingly to this.

For your third point re. Rule 8.5, you have interpreted this rule too literally. The rule states that a base must not have "unfair advantages", and lists some examples of unfair advantages. The list is not exhaustive and anything that gives you an unfair advantage even if not listed as an example can be a violation of 8.5. As I explained in my PR, by having the disorientating, narrow room and the disorientating, strange, angled roof to shoot at us from above, this gave you an unfair advantage. You also try to play the victim by telling us about how we have "unlimited medkits and paramedics outside", yet you said yourself that in raid #2 you managed to kill the whole police force, so clearly we are not that overpowered.
Let me make it clear. I only owned the props outside the cinema room. Both sides of that where pretty much completely black, disorienting both parties and the one-way window was not set up because the buttons were broken prior to me crashing. You insisted to not let me fix the keypads so you can raid. One of the police used a breach on the wall anyway, allowing you access almost immediately, so my props were hardly an issue.

For your fourth point re. Rule 8.6, this is valid as your job title was set to "Heinz Beans - Worker". It is not realistic that Heinz Beans would have a doomfort contrabase and if your job title describes a criminal gang then you should have said "Heinz Beans Gang" as just saying "Heinz Beans" does not give anyone an accurate picture of what you are intending to roleplay. You have also taken the examples literally here; those examples are not the only criteria for a prosecution under 8.6, the main point of 8.6 states that "your base must fit your roleplay".
We probably could of added Gang on the end. That is our bad.

For your next point (rule 3.3) I was rather clear on this. You did failRP. Rule 3.3 states that you should not do unrealistic things out of context. You provided no context when you unrealistically and randomly hung a ragdoll from the roof of the cinema and started beating it with your fists and a baseball bat. I would go so far as to say that trying to deny this would be lying in the courthouse, as there is literal evidence of you doing it.
I did not hang the the doll. Do I have 10 REP? Did I hit the doll? Did I even have a bat out? No. Look at your own evidence.

For your second to last point this, for the avoidance of doubt, was when you, Rollz or Scrotonium threw a molotov in an attempt to get police to go away/suicide to avoid arrest/destroy evidence.
I wasn't even defending in the first raid as I crashed.

When you said you were "crashing" and "tried to tell us that you were trying to replace the keypad" that is a lie. There is evidence (as far as I am aware it may have been recorded) and witnesses of you saying you were building but not that you were crashing and trying to replace the keypad. 
I had just reconnected from crashing, and did /restoreprops. That doesn't save your keypads of buttons.
You blew it open with a breach anyway.

Finally for your last two points before your admission you have lied in the courthouse. Molotovs were thrown during this raid, there is picture + video evidence of molotovs being thrown, fire burning, firefighters putting out the fire once you all died and the aftermath of the fire were props were destroyed. Either speak truthfully or do not speak at all but do not lie or intentionally make misleading statements, Wheatcake. You also lied when you said that you "were not involved" in beating the ragdoll as there is literally pictures including your name and showing your model beating the ragdoll. Do not lie in the courthouse, it is a serious offense.
Once again, I was not apart of the first raid, I was almost immediately arrested mid-fixing the keypads.
I will repeat myself. I did not hang the the doll. Do I have 10 REP? Did I hit the doll? Did I even have a bat out? No. Look at your own evidence.

I avidly await the response of a staff member to deal with this report and possibly the lies contained within your response.
I have lied about nothing. Some of my comments were based on the #2 raid and I apologise for making this PR all the more confusing. My responses will be a lot easier now that I know this is all about the first raid.

I thought this was about the #2 raid as I knew molotovs were thrown in that raid but did not see nor hear any in the #1 raid from the outside. Even if molotovs were thrown, I had nothing to do with it.
I'd like to make it completely clear. I only owned the front lobby props, which the police immediately used a breach on and the windows were not set up prior to me crashing and using /restoreprops, so they were definitely not shot out of.
Secondly, I did not create the ragdoll and hang it from the ceiling, I do not have the ability. Nor did I hit it with anything or interact with it at all. I was merely standing there. Your evidence is a screenshot of me standing in front of the cinema, in front of a hanging ragdoll. Good job.

Now that I think about it.

1. Noboody shot out of my one-way windows or even opened them.
   
2. My props were only the front lobby. Both sides of the hallway were black, giving both parties that same advantage.
   
3. I was not even apart of the raid.
   
4. Therefore, everything you've said is practically irrelevant to me.
   

[Judge Rage]

I will now respond to both parties above, starting with Scrotonium. 

I am replying to Scrotonium's post in which he replied to my statements made to Wheatcake (Yesterday, 10:57pm) in which Scrotonium lists his points in red. 

1. Molotovs were thrown for the thousandth time. In evidence I will provide in reply to Wheatcake, I will show the aftermath of the molotovs to prove that molotovs were in fact thrown.

2. Irregardless of whether or not you agree with whether or not the cinema is an "obvious shop" @Bambo says it is, and therefore unless you want to argue with an admin it is. Furthermore, I don't see how the cinema is not an "obvious shop" as it clearly says "cinema" on it, it is decorated inside like a cinema would be and there is a cinema room. Unless there is not more definition added to "obvious shop" then indeed I believe it would be reasonable to assume that the cinema is an "obvious shop".

3. That's still opening the windows to shoot through them.

4.  We did not get in easily in the first raid. We would have been sitting fighting until you ran out of ammo if that molotov had not been thrown by yourselves as you had an unfair advantage given the fact that there was absolutely no cover to get into your base.

5. In the "approval" that you provided, Roxas states that there may be a violation of 3.5. It's important to describe the context of the screenshot that you provided, given that that screenshot is from a staff report (https://limelightgaming.net/forums/thread-21333.html) which has not yet been responded to by HR. As it is a staff report we cannot yet assume that anything that Roxas states in his replies to the report are an official staff ruling as he is defending himself as part of the staff report, thus we cannot use that screenshot you provided as evidence that you did not break rule 3.5. As that staff report has not been replied to by HR we cannot assume guilt and so it would be unwise to comment further on the report, however Roxas's defense in that staff report centres around the idea that him and Doctor Internet were the only staff members online at the time, and the idea that rule 3.5 is intended for staff members so that they can guess your intentions whilst roleplaying - the clear difference here is that Roxas is a staff member and you are not, and so it would be a reasonable suggestion for him to be able to guess the intentions behind his own roleplay, whereas with your roleplay in which your job title was set to "Heinz Beans - Dealer", a reasonable member of staff or user may not be able to guess the intentions behind your roleplay as you have set your name to that of a Heinz Beans worker, and as I have said before Heinz Beans are a food company, not a criminal organisation. 

6. Will respond to this below in my response to Wheatcake.

7. Unless you can provide me with evidence of me "crying in OOC" then I'd have to say that's a lie as I was not online at the time of raid 2, which @"RyanF" can confirm. You did throw a molotov, evidence of which will be provided below.



Stop lying in the courthouse. A molotov was thrown during raid one, which unless I'm mistaken took place around the time of this PR. I cannot comment on raid 2, as I was not there when it happened.

Regardless of the intention, whether or not it trapped us or bought you time it is still silly and unrealistic to throw a molotov in order to escape us. It's a gamble at best and suicide at worst. Regardless of if it was intentional or not, you still attempted suicide to avoid police by throwing that molotov.

8. Again, this is a he-said-she-said situation, but you should not have had contraband and meth equipment in a base whilst there was no keypad, regardless of if you crashed or not.

9. Again, we did not breach your prop the fire removed it after a molotov was thrown. 

10. I am not speculating nor am I causing drama. There were some lies/misleading statements in the response and I was pointing that out. I do still avidly await for staff to deal with this PR so I can stop having to tell you what you did wrong.

Wheatcake

I will now respond to Wheatcake's statement from an hour ago.

You did in fact hit the ragdoll, which I will prove from the motion of the ragdoll and the orientation of your character model from this.

Sounds a little far out, but look at the screenshots;



Here we see your character and your name. As we can see your model is the male_07 model with a leather jacket. Keep this model in mind as we will see it again. 



I do apologise for my shaky MS Paint editing.

As we can see here, Wheatcake is stood on the left of the ragdoll whereas Rollz and Scrotonium are stood on the right of the ragdoll.

The ragdoll is moving upwards and towards the right, as the arrow in the picture shows. Scrotonium and Rollz are on the left and so could not have caused this movement as if they hit the ragdoll it would be going to the left, not the right.

Furthermore, given the angle of the ragdoll's legs it would be reasonable to assume that the hit would have come from the lower rear end of the ragdoll, possibly the upper legs or rear-end of the ragdoll itself. The only person that reasonably could have caused the ragdoll to move in the way shown in the picture is Wheatcake, given his orientation to the ragdoll itself and the way that the ragdoll is moving.

Let me make myself clear, there is no way in hell that ragdoll could have been moving the way that it is moving in that screenshot if Wheatcake had not punched or pushed that ragdoll, causing it to move upwards and to the right.

There are also other screenshots which I will not re-provide (they are in my evidence for my PR) for the sake of simplicity unless requested that show the ragdoll moving in ways that would not have been possible if it had not been touched by Wheatcake.

Furthermore, @Ryan has told me that he warranted you for beating the ragdoll, logs would show this plus he himself and whoever was the President at the time would be a witness to this.

As for Wheatcake's denial of anyone shooting through the windows this is an accusation for raid 2 and as such @"RyanF" and @Ninja can answer to that.

For your point 2 and 3 I can disprove this with two screenshots.

For point 3, "I was not even apart of the raid" here is a screenshot of you being arrested, proving that you are in fact part of the raid; 



Do not lie in the courthouse. You were part of the raid and you know it - even if briefly.

As you can see on the left of the picture is the regular cinema wall, which also had a white prop beside it. Due to this, it would, I think, be reasonable to assume that the wall behind (the defender's area) was not in fact covered by the black texture so both sides did not have the same disadvantage. You created the black area in order to disorientate raiders into not being able to find a keypad and being unable to percieve depth, and also created the windows so that you and friends would have the ability to shoot at officers and covertly watch them through them, therefore giving you an unfair advantage over the raiders, which is a violation of 8.5. It is also important to consider in 8.5 that it could not just be the police that could be raiding you - other criminals intent on stealing your contraband could raid you, thus them having the same limited ammunition and medical supplies that you have. 

If that is not enough, let me provide you with this screenshot;



After some time had passed, and I was sure that Scrotonium had passed away, I escorted firefighters into the building to put out the fire and allow myself to advance into the building. As you can see here, the back wall (to the left) did not have any black texture on it. Now, you may be thinking "but judge, you can see it is on fire" - this is correct, however notice that above the wall is a narrowing, encircled; 



As you can see, this is where the black texture wall would have extended down to the ground/windows if there had not been a fire. This proves that there was no black texture behind this wall as that narrowing would have been the limit of the black texture, where it ended. 

I have already proved you were part of the raid, and therefore my points are relevant to you as you have broken the rules.

Wheatcake, I must now warn you that if you continue to lie and change your story in the courthouse then I will be forced to open a seperate player report regarding your misleading conduct within this player report.

[Scrotonium]

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

[Wheatcake]

I will now respond to both parties above, starting with Scrotonium. 

I am replying to Scrotonium's post in which he replied to my statements made to Wheatcake (Yesterday, 10:57pm) in which Scrotonium lists his points in red. 

1. Molotovs were thrown for the thousandth time. In evidence I will provide in reply to Wheatcake, I will show the aftermath of the molotovs to prove that molotovs were in fact thrown.

2. Irregardless of whether or not you agree with whether or not the cinema is an "obvious shop" @Bambo says it is, and therefore unless you want to argue with an admin it is. Furthermore, I don't see how the cinema is not an "obvious shop" as it clearly says "cinema" on it, it is decorated inside like a cinema would be and there is a cinema room. Unless there is not more definition added to "obvious shop" then indeed I believe it would be reasonable to assume that the cinema is an "obvious shop".

3. That's still opening the windows to shoot through them.

4.  We did not get in easily in the first raid. We would have been sitting fighting until you ran out of ammo if that molotov had not been thrown by yourselves as you had an unfair advantage given the fact that there was absolutely no cover to get into your base.

5. In the "approval" that you provided, Roxas states that there may be a violation of 3.5. It's important to describe the context of the screenshot that you provided, given that that screenshot is from a staff report (https://limelightgaming.net/forums/thread-21333.html) which has not yet been responded to by HR. As it is a staff report we cannot yet assume that anything that Roxas states in his replies to the report are an official staff ruling as he is defending himself as part of the staff report, thus we cannot use that screenshot you provided as evidence that you did not break rule 3.5. As that staff report has not been replied to by HR we cannot assume guilt and so it would be unwise to comment further on the report, however Roxas's defense in that staff report centres around the idea that him and Doctor Internet were the only staff members online at the time, and the idea that rule 3.5 is intended for staff members so that they can guess your intentions whilst roleplaying - the clear difference here is that Roxas is a staff member and you are not, and so it would be a reasonable suggestion for him to be able to guess the intentions behind his own roleplay, whereas with your roleplay in which your job title was set to "Heinz Beans - Dealer", a reasonable member of staff or user may not be able to guess the intentions behind your roleplay as you have set your name to that of a Heinz Beans worker, and as I have said before Heinz Beans are a food company, not a criminal organisation. 

6. Will respond to this below in my response to Wheatcake.

7. Unless you can provide me with evidence of me "crying in OOC" then I'd have to say that's a lie as I was not online at the time of raid 2, which @"RyanF" can confirm. You did throw a molotov, evidence of which will be provided below.



Stop lying in the courthouse. A molotov was thrown during raid one, which unless I'm mistaken took place around the time of this PR. I cannot comment on raid 2, as I was not there when it happened.

Regardless of the intention, whether or not it trapped us or bought you time it is still silly and unrealistic to throw a molotov in order to escape us. It's a gamble at best and suicide at worst. Regardless of if it was intentional or not, you still attempted suicide to avoid police by throwing that molotov.

8. Again, this is a he-said-she-said situation, but you should not have had contraband and meth equipment in a base whilst there was no keypad, regardless of if you crashed or not.

9. Again, we did not breach your prop the fire removed it after a molotov was thrown. 

10. I am not speculating nor am I causing drama. There were some lies/misleading statements in the response and I was pointing that out. I do still avidly await for staff to deal with this PR so I can stop having to tell you what you did wrong.

Wheatcake

I will now respond to Wheatcake's statement from an hour ago.

You did in fact hit the ragdoll, which I will prove from the motion of the ragdoll and the orientation of your character model from this.

Sounds a little far out, but look at the screenshots;



Here we see your character and your name. As we can see your model is the male_07 model with a leather jacket. Keep this model in mind as we will see it again. 



I do apologise for my shaky MS Paint editing.

As we can see here, Wheatcake is stood on the left of the ragdoll whereas Rollz and Scrotonium are stood on the right of the ragdoll.

The ragdoll is moving upwards and towards the right, as the arrow in the picture shows. Scrotonium and Rollz are on the left and so could not have caused this movement as if they hit the ragdoll it would be going to the left, not the right.

Furthermore, given the angle of the ragdoll's legs it would be reasonable to assume that the hit would have come from the lower rear end of the ragdoll, possibly the upper legs or rear-end of the ragdoll itself. The only person that reasonably could have caused the ragdoll to move in the way shown in the picture is Wheatcake, given his orientation to the ragdoll itself and the way that the ragdoll is moving.
If I had punched the ragdoll my fists would be out. Or at least some kind of melee weapon.

Let me make myself clear, there is no way in hell that ragdoll could have been moving the way that it is moving in that screenshot if Wheatcake had not punched or pushed that ragdoll, causing it to move upwards and to the right.
I grabbed the doll with 'hands and keys' to see if it would come down.

I didn't hit it, punch it or even take a bat/weapon out of my inventory, like I stated.

There are also other screenshots which I will not re-provide (they are in my evidence for my PR) for the sake of simplicity unless requested that show the ragdoll moving in ways that would not have been possible if it had not been touched by Wheatcake.

Furthermore, @Ryan has told me that he warranted you for beating the ragdoll, logs would show this plus he himself and whoever was the President at the time would be a witness to this.
Could be my memory, but I do not recall ever being warranted for beating a ragdoll.

As for Wheatcake's denial of anyone shooting through the windows this is an accusation for raid 2 and as such @"RyanF" and @Ninja can answer to that.

For your point 2 and 3 I can disprove this with two screenshots.

For point 3, "I was not even apart of the raid" here is a screenshot of you being arrested, proving that you are in fact part of the raid; 
The quote below and the explanation clears this up:

Wheatcake

---

Finally for your last two points before your admission you have lied in the courthouse. Molotovs were thrown during this raid, there is picture + video evidence of molotovs being thrown, fire burning, firefighters putting out the fire once you all died and the aftermath of the fire were props were destroyed. Either speak truthfully or do not speak at all but do not lie or intentionally make misleading statements, Wheatcake. You also lied when you said that you "were not involved" in beating the ragdoll as there is literally pictures including your name and showing your model beating the ragdoll. Do not lie in the courthouse, it is a serious offense.
[b]Once again, I was not apart of the first raid, I was almost immediately arrested mid-fixing the keypads.
I will repeat myself. I did not hang the the doll. Do I have 10 REP? Did I hit the doll? Did I even have a bat out? No. Look at your own evidence.[/b]

By part of the raid I mean't I was not shooting any police. I did admit that I got arrested at the begining of the raid and that was the end of me. As you can see from the quote, that is what I said the first time. All I did was be inside the Cinema when the police showed up.



Do not lie in the courthouse. You were part of the raid and you know it - even if briefly.
You have reminded me that lying in the courthouse is not allowed. I have not lied in the Courthouse and in the quote of my other response you can clearly see that I admitted to being arrested at the begining.

As you can see on the left of the picture is the regular cinema wall, which also had a white prop beside it. Due to this, it would, I think, be reasonable to assume that the wall behind (the defender's area) was not in fact covered by the black texture so both sides did not have the same disadvantage. You created the black area in order to disorientate raiders into not being able to find a keypad and being unable to percieve depth, and also created the windows so that you and friends would have the ability to shoot at officers and covertly watch them through them, therefore giving you an unfair advantage over the raiders, which is a violation of 8.5. It is also important to consider in 8.5 that it could not just be the police that could be raiding you - other criminals intent on stealing your contraband could raid you, thus them having the same limited ammunition and medical supplies that you have. 

If that is not enough, let me provide you with this screenshot;



After some time had passed, and I was sure that Scrotonium had passed away, I escorted firefighters into the building to put out the fire and allow myself to advance into the building. As you can see here, the back wall (to the left) did not have any black texture on it. Now, you may be thinking "but judge, you can see it is on fire" - this is correct, however notice that above the wall is a narrowing, encircled; 



As you can see, this is where the black texture wall would have extended down to the ground/windows if there had not been a fire. This proves that there was no black texture behind this wall as that narrowing would have been the limit of the black texture, where it ended.
Not sure what to tell you. Both sides were as black as  I could possibly make them, causing both parties to be disoriented. However, the defender side obviously wasn't as black around the doorway because I couldn't find any props that fit, but the walls, etc were black like the attacker side. That white pillar you were talking about just wasn't materialized because I had just crashed and done /restoreprops. But before I could even put the keypads down or materialize it I was arrested and accused of doing it on purpose in LOOC, just like in this PR.

I have already proved you were part of the raid, and therefore my points are relevant to you as you have broken the rules.
These screenshots of props on fire proves nothing. I did not throw any molotovs as I was not there.

Wheatcake, I must now warn you that if you continue to lie and change your story in the courthouse then I will be forced to open a seperate player report regarding your misleading conduct within this player report.
Don't threaten me. Open a seperrate player report by all means. All it will do is create more backlog the PR forum, even more than it already is, and make you look like a pretencious fool. I haven't lied in the Courthouse.

To be frank, I've had enough with this now. After the staff finally respond to the Player Reports that are weeks old maybe this will finally get handled. Until then this will be my last response, I have better things to do.

[Judge Rage]

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

Which part of "I was not online during the second raid" which I have said several times now do you not understand?

There is physically no way that I was on during the second raid as @"RyanF" took my slot as police chief when I left the server after the first and was police chief during the second raid, during which I was physically not on the server. An admin doesn't need to check it was the second raid because I wasn't on the damn server and could not have taken the pictures.

You can also prove that it is me because my character (as you see in the screenshots) is called Sebastian Kruger, and I believe Ryan's is Christopher Johnson.

As for Wheatcake's response;

1. There is physically no way on earth you did not touch that ragdoll, not with the way that ragdoll is moving. Do not even try to, for a second, suggest that you did not touch the ragdoll as there is literally several screenshots of that ragdoll moving in ways that it only could if you had hit/touched it. 

2. So you did touch the ragdoll then? Why did you lie before and say that you did not? You claimed before that you "did not interact with it at all" and yet here you say that "grabbed the doll with my hands and keys to see if it would come down" - so you did interact with it. Why did you not say this before?

3. Again, @"RyanF" says he did and can probably easily get witnesses on this, I wasn't there so it's down to him but I wouldn't lie about it.

4. Possibly a misunderstanding there so if so I apologise for that but it depends on how you define it I suppose - I'd say you were part of the raid, even though you did not play much of a meaningful raid but you might beg to differ as you were arrested.

5. Ditto, although I will be taking advice and looking into all your posts as I've mentioned possible lies a few times and want to be exactly clear on what you have said and what happened. If there was no misleading statements or lies then I will apologise, if not I will inform you and look towards possibly taking action for these. Again though, that non-involement issue centres around whether or not you and me would define you as being "involved in the raid".

6. Nothing to say here. You stated they were supposed to make it disorientating - however why would you intentionally make it disorientating for your party? You wouldn't - it's not logical. 8.5, you gave yourselves an unfair advantage by disorientating your enemies.

7. The props on fire were the closest I had to the wall behind the window. 

8. Read point 5. 

Hopefully we can get staff to deal with this PR in a timely manner. There does appear to be a backlog and hopefully it gets cleared up soon-ish. 

I also await for staff to deal with this PR. I've laid out my case and justified my evidence. Godspeed.

[Scrotonium]

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

Which part of "I was not online during the second raid" which I have said several times now do you not understand?


There is physically no way that I was on during the second raid as @"RyanF" took my slot as police chief when I left the server after the first and was police chief during the second raid, during which I was physically not on the server. An admin doesn't need to check it was the second raid because I wasn't on the damn server and could not have taken the pictures.

You can also prove that it is me because my character (as you see in the screenshots) is called Sebastian Kruger, and I believe Ryan's is Christopher Johnson.


I also await for staff to deal with this PR. I've laid out my case and justified my evidence.

Okay good. This is effort and I can't be bothered. Be nice just to get this over and done with.

[Wheatcake]

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

Which part of "I was not online during the second raid" which I have said several times now do you not understand?

There is physically no way that I was on during the second raid as @"RyanF" took my slot as police chief when I left the server after the first and was police chief during the second raid, during which I was physically not on the server. An admin doesn't need to check it was the second raid because I wasn't on the damn server and could not have taken the pictures.

You can also prove that it is me because my character (as you see in the screenshots) is called Sebastian Kruger, and I believe Ryan's is Christopher Johnson.

As for Wheatcake's response;

1. There is physically no way on earth you did not touch that ragdoll, not with the way that ragdoll is moving. Do not even try to, for a second, suggest that you did not touch the ragdoll as there is literally several screenshots of that ragdoll moving in ways that it only could if you had hit/touched it. 

2. So you did touch the ragdoll then? Why did you lie before and say that you did not? You claimed before that you "did not interact with it at all" and yet here you say that "grabbed the doll with my hands and keys to see if it would come down" - so you did interact with it. Why did you not say this before?
Last time I checked, picking up a ragdoll with hands and keys is not against the rules. That is why I didn't mention it. If I had been the one hitting it with a bat or punching it, then I would've said so.
You're accusing the wrong person completely for the ragdoll.

3. Again, @"RyanF" says he did and can probably easily get witnesses on this, I wasn't there so it's down to him but I wouldn't lie about it.

4. Possibly a misunderstanding there so if so I apologise for that but it depends on how you define it I suppose - I'd say you were part of the raid, even though you did not play much of a meaningful raid but you might beg to differ as you were arrested.

5. Ditto, although I will be taking advice and looking into all your posts as I've mentioned possible lies a few times and want to be exactly clear on what you have said and what happened. If there was no misleading statements or lies then I will apologise, if not I will inform you and look towards possibly taking action for these. Again though, that non-involement issue centres around whether or not you and me would define you as being "involved in the raid".

6. Nothing to say here. You stated they were supposed to make it disorientating - however why would you intentionally make it disorientating for your party? You wouldn't - it's not logical. 8.5, you gave yourselves an unfair advantage by disorientating your enemies.
I made it to disorient attackers but then the defenders would have an unfair advantage so I disoriented both parties, making it legal within the rules. You might say it is not logical, but to me it was. As defenders we know the base layout better than anyone, a little bit of black won't mess us up too much. And don't make a point about that being unfair. Are you going to say that its unfair for the defenders to know their own base? And its layout? Please.

7. The props on fire were the closest I had to the wall behind the window. 

8. Read point 5. 

Hopefully we can get staff to deal with this PR in a timely manner. There does appear to be a backlog and hopefully it gets cleared up soon-ish. 

I also await for staff to deal with this PR. I've laid out my case and justified my evidence. Godspeed.

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.
   

[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]

-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.

Okay Wheatcake I'm done with you. You don't want to listen to my accusations or evidence against you so that's fine - we can wait for staff to deliberate on this. I have provided sufficient evidence to prove your involvement and in my opinion and the opinion of the other people who raided your base such as @"RyanF" your props were disorientating us.

[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]

From what I can summarize the wrong doing were;

Blocked entrance that required a keypad even though they had contraband set up which should mean the base is ready for a potential raid

They were basing at the Cinema which is reserved for a passive roleplay and count as obvious shops.

Their jobs were not fitting with their roleplay.

Anything else I've missed? Apologies as the PR is long and one might miss things. Also apologies for it taking so long.

@Wheatcake @Judge Rage @Scrotonium @Rollz

[Judge Rage]

From what I can summarize the wrong doing were;

Blocked entrance that required a keypad even though they had contraband set up which should mean the base is ready for a potential raid

They were basing at the Cinema which is reserved for a passive roleplay and count as obvious shops.

Their jobs were not fitting with their roleplay.

Anything else I've missed? Apologies as the PR is long and one might miss things. Also apologies for it taking so long.

@Wheatcake @Judge Rage @Scrotonium @Rollz

Intentionally disorientating entrance area, shooting at people from above with a more or less one-sided texture, no cover for cracking the keypad in that area, and also randomly spawning a ragdoll and beating the shit out of it (which I proved Wheatcake did as well as Scrotonium)