Name: Raff
SteamID64: STEAM_0:1:166979807
Date of warning issue: 4/23/24
Member of staff: Jakey/Gatesway?
Warning reason (screenshot): Why should we remove the warning?: The warning in and of itself makes little to no sense based on the way the Player Report was made. Potato explicitily told me and the staff member called at the time, lewis sayed about whether we can raid the checkpoint or not. After lewis couldnt grab another admin Potato said can I bring it to forums for community input and lewis said yes. Potato then made a report not accusing me or saying anything was done incorrectly, but rather restating points during the staff sit and from himself that left lewis to end the staff sit inconclusive and no disciplinary measures being ruled out. At the end of the report Potato says and I quote: "We also believe that there should be no new rule supporting these type of raids: they allow organisations to wreak further havoc to car traffic by gaining another broad way to immobilise checkpoints. Terrorists already have bombings to disrupt checkpoints which we think is a fun and fair tool." So if potato makes a report for further judgement wanting confirmation, and it required the Server Owner to reinstate what his staff member couldnt in a staff sit reinforce as a rule break or not, I shouldnt be warned over something that wasnt made 100% apparent or clear besides being told to use common sense, when there is valid points as to how it could be possible. Its a first time offence for me anyway raiding checkpoints and I havent done since so I truly dont believe this should be a warn for a player restating my points were valid and agreeing with the ones that left the staff sit inconclusive.
Accepted - T Co-leader Raff Report | Riverside Roleplay (riverside-roleplay.com)
SteamID64: STEAM_0:1:166979807
Date of warning issue: 4/23/24
Member of staff: Jakey/Gatesway?
Warning reason (screenshot): Why should we remove the warning?: The warning in and of itself makes little to no sense based on the way the Player Report was made. Potato explicitily told me and the staff member called at the time, lewis sayed about whether we can raid the checkpoint or not. After lewis couldnt grab another admin Potato said can I bring it to forums for community input and lewis said yes. Potato then made a report not accusing me or saying anything was done incorrectly, but rather restating points during the staff sit and from himself that left lewis to end the staff sit inconclusive and no disciplinary measures being ruled out. At the end of the report Potato says and I quote: "We also believe that there should be no new rule supporting these type of raids: they allow organisations to wreak further havoc to car traffic by gaining another broad way to immobilise checkpoints. Terrorists already have bombings to disrupt checkpoints which we think is a fun and fair tool." So if potato makes a report for further judgement wanting confirmation, and it required the Server Owner to reinstate what his staff member couldnt in a staff sit reinforce as a rule break or not, I shouldnt be warned over something that wasnt made 100% apparent or clear besides being told to use common sense, when there is valid points as to how it could be possible. Its a first time offence for me anyway raiding checkpoints and I havent done since so I truly dont believe this should be a warn for a player restating my points were valid and agreeing with the ones that left the staff sit inconclusive.
Accepted - T Co-leader Raff Report | Riverside Roleplay (riverside-roleplay.com)