[Enzyme]

To my knowledge, this incident has not been dealt with in-game properly, and I will, therefore, allow that this PR will remain up as is so it can be evaluated properly.

But we took the Administrators word as we received it, how can we break a rule by following the administrators guidance?

I'll ask the same question (slightly reworded) I asked previously, and I'd like for you to elaborate a lot more:
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 then took Doctor Internet lack of involvement as approval? What did you say/ask Internet, and what did Internet say/do? 

[ForceGhost]

To my knowledge, this incident has not been dealt with in-game properly, and I will, therefore, allow that this PR will remain up as is so it can be evaluated properly.

But we took the Administrators word as we received it, how can we break a rule by following the administrators guidance?

I'll ask the same question (slightly reworded) I asked previously, and I'd like for you to elaborate a lot more:
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 then took Doctor Internet lack of involvement as approval? What did you say/ask Internet, and what did Internet say/do? 

I asked specifically, "If we go inside and execute those people, is that raiding The President?" I also asked "Do we have a valid reason to kill the two officers who have arrested falsely us multiple times."

I was answered with  "I don't believe it is" and "I would say so" considering Internet had seen one of the arrests.

Internet was also present through the whole situation and could have intervened at any time if he believed a rule breakage occured.

[Kvatch]

But we took the Administrators word as we received it, how can we break a rule by following the administrators guidance?

I'll ask the same question (slightly reworded) I asked previously, and I'd like for you to elaborate a lot more:
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 then took Doctor Internet lack of involvement as approval? What did you say/ask Internet, and what did Internet say/do? 

I asked specifically, "If we go inside and execute those people, is that raiding The President?" I also asked "Do we have a valid reason to kill the two officers who have arrested falsely us multiple times."

I was answered with  "I don't believe it is" and "I would say so" considering Internet had seen one of the arrests.

Internet was also present through the whole situation and could have intervened at any time if he believed a rule breakage occured.

If you were answered with facts from an administrator then why have you expressed your objection to this case with an opinion rather than "Internet told us it was okay so we went along with it". At the moment, it seems like you just made that up so you can cover yourself, since you didn't previously mentioned Internet's approval at the start, but instead only told us that you believe yourself that it is allowed and you don't think any punishment should come of it. If this was also the case, and Internet did approve of it, why hasn't he said so in the PR so far?

Can I also mention that I doubt Internet would've intervened with the situation considering how close he is with all of you, which is probably why Enzyme is investigating this extensively, because this is a well known fact that he's heavily associated with you guys.

[Vadar]

I'll ask the same question (slightly reworded) I asked previously, and I'd like for you to elaborate a lot more:
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 then took Doctor Internet lack of involvement as approval? What did you say/ask Internet, and what did Internet say/do? 

I asked specifically, "If we go inside and execute those people, is that raiding The President?" I also asked "Do we have a valid reason to kill the two officers who have arrested falsely us multiple times."

I was answered with  "I don't believe it is" and "I would say so" considering Internet had seen one of the arrests.

Internet was also present through the whole situation and could have intervened at any time if he believed a rule breakage occured.

If you were answered with facts from an administrator then why have you expressed your objection to this case with an opinion rather than "Internet told us it was okay so we went along with it". At the moment, it seems like you just made that up so you can cover yourself, since you didn't previously mentioned Internet's approval at the start, but instead only told us that you believe yourself that it is allowed and you don't think any punishment should come of it. If this was also the case, and Internet did approve of it, why hasn't he said so in the PR so far?

Can I also mention that I doubt Internet would've intervened with the situation considering how close he is with all of you, which is probably why Enzyme is investigating this extensively, because this is a well known fact that he's heavily associated with you guys.

A staff member shouldn't be influenced with his "Relations" or they are not fit to be staff. Don't think this has happened in the past and doubt it would start now. Seems like your digging in the sand with a stick for reasoning.

[Doctor Internet]

I'll ask the same question (slightly reworded) I asked previously, and I'd like for you to elaborate a lot more:
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 then took Doctor Internet lack of involvement as approval? What did you say/ask Internet, and what did Internet say/do? 

I asked specifically, "If we go inside and execute those people, is that raiding The President?" I also asked "Do we have a valid reason to kill the two officers who have arrested falsely us multiple times."

I was answered with  "I don't believe it is" and "I would say so" considering Internet had seen one of the arrests.

Internet was also present through the whole situation and could have intervened at any time if he believed a rule breakage occured.

If you were answered with facts from an administrator then why have you expressed your objection to this case with an opinion rather than "Internet told us it was okay so we went along with it". At the moment, it seems like you just made that up so you can cover yourself, since you didn't previously mentioned Internet's approval at the start, but instead only told us that you believe yourself that it is allowed and you don't think any punishment should come of it. If this was also the case, and Internet did approve of it, why hasn't he said so in the PR so far?

Because, at the time, I was understanding that was allowed.

Can I also mention that I doubt Internet would've intervened with the situation considering how close he is with all of you, which is probably why Enzyme is investigating this extensively, because this is a well known fact that he's heavily associated with you guys.

Considering I have issued bans on these players before, I highly doubt that.

[Jono]

Irrefutably is a raid on the president in my opinion.

If one were to break into the PD with the intention of breaking out prisoners, it would be a class as a raid on the police department.

If one were to break into a clan's base with the intention of killing a worker there, situationally I'd class that as a raid presuming they were armed. 

I appreciate your intention wasn't to kill the president, but murder isn't the same as a raid. Tying up the president, against his will to avoid any government reinforcements coming (and if they did would be in the position to leverage the president AS A HOSTAGE) is the same as keeping someone hostage in my books.



This would then mean you raided the president/government for corruption. If that's the case then what passiveRP actions were taken prior to escalation.

[Vadar]

If one were to break into the PD with the intention of breaking out prisoners, it would be a class as a raid on the police department.

How do you commence Jailbreaks then ?  Majority of Jailbreaks have no intention or reasoning for police at all ??

[ForceGhost]

Irrefutably is a raid on the president in my opinion.

If one were to break into the PD with the intention of breaking out prisoners, it would be a class as a raid on the police department.

If one were to break into a clan's base with the intention of killing a worker there, situationally I'd class that as a raid presuming they were armed. 

I appreciate your intention wasn't to kill the president, but murder isn't the same as a raid. Tying up the president, against his will to avoid any government reinforcements coming (and if they did would be in the position to leverage the president AS A HOSTAGE) is the same as keeping someone hostage in my books.



This would then mean you raided the president/government for corruption. If that's the case then what passiveRP actions were taken prior to escalation.

I was told by staff online at the time that our actions were perfectly valid. I had no reason to believe that a staff member would misinform me of the actions we could take. Had that staff member not approved our actions then we wouldn't have gone through with it.

[Kvatch]

@Enzyme at this point we're going round in circles. I think everything that needs to be said has been said and a conclusion can be drawn from it.

[Enzyme]

Seeing how this is more than just an ordinary PR, due to everyone that's involved and what positions they hold; I will wait until @Overlewd has gotten a chance to add something here.

It is without a doubt in my mind though that I view this as a hostage-taking of the President and that it should not have taken place.
What I'm trying to determine is who is in the wrong here, if you guys should have known better, if Internet should have known better, if Internet was not given sufficient information in order to make a fair and valid verdict on the case by giving approval or if several people are to blame. There are a few things that needs to be established, and I, therefore, need to discuss this case with Overlewd. 

What is not under discussion though is the fact that this was indeed a hostage-taking, and that it will be viewed and regarded as such.

[Overlewd]

So yeah it wasn't cleared with me and Bambo, we only got involved after the sit and shortly before the PR was made.

I do think this counts as a pres raid. Even if it did not, I don't like how this option was taken instead of an ambush outside, which should have been the safer and less intrusive action.

I also think it is silly to bust in and hostage everyone when you know your associate is inside and trying for a peaceful resolution.

[Overlewd]

Concluded.

The raid should not have happened the way it did, and it still counts as a presidential raid in this case which would make this in violation of president raid rules. Much better options would consist of ambushing the cops in another location or waiting for your colleague (doc in this case) to finish the peaceful negotiations and then consider future actions based on the outcome of that.

However, an administrator was asked for his opinion on the case and the response suggested to the accused that their actions would fall within the rules. In addition, that administrator was present throughout the situation and did not choose to intervene during or after the situation took place.

Due to this, we think it would not be fair to issue any punishments to the accused, as we always advocate asking staff when unsure if something is allowed or not. The misinterpretation of the presidential raid rules in this case will be discussed further internally.

Player report will be set as approved, as a violation was found, however no punishments to the accused will be issued.