Date Name Steam ID Reason Server Expires Banned by 08/24/13 06:11PM GunAndBomb STEAM_0:0:66787251 Multiple RDM and attempted RDM. WEST 08/25/13 06:11PM IamAhnuld The first "offense" the admin said i was shooting some guy named bob but i never shot anyone named bob i shot "asy" because he went into a room and i heard shooting in there and then he came out with a unid body so i had a perfectly good reason to shoot at him, and the second one the admin didnt even let me explain because he was too busy crying (i am talking about "the wolf") my computer was being laggy and somehow i threw the incin instead of dropping it like i was trying to do, so it was a misunderstanding and only deserved a slay as it states in your rules. Multiple RDM= 2 RDM's in this case Thanks
Wolf isnt a mod. You did kill bobby for literally no reason. I didnt ban you, im just stating your 1st offense.
Attempted rdm isn't in the rules so I don't know about that. But I do know that mods can't do anything out of the rules of slaying,banning etc. You shouldn't have been banned unless Highwon clears up the rule about attempting rdm. Oh not attempted in this case but damaging people.
I've talked to Highwon and he said "i would count number of kills or 1 rdm if nobody died". You will be unbanned.
He killed two and severely injured two, blocking them in the bathroom. He does not deserve to be unbanned.
So ruining the round for a total of four people doesn't equal to a mass RDM? This is wrong and he deserves a ban or would not have issued one. Using Highwon's logic above, the two deaths plus the damage would equal four, which is a ban.
He's already been unbanned. He only rdmed two people. That's two slays. You can't go straight to a ban. You have to follow the rules and can't ban someone because YOU think he deserved it.
You're right, we should treat people who blatantly defy rules and ruin not one, not two, not three, but FOUR people's round intentionally. This is not GunandBomb's first encounter with RDM issues either, so I really appreciate your second guessing my judgement when you weren't there and didn't see the four people complaining.
sorry i tried to stay out of this but i have to step in, this guys ignorance annoys me. 1. I DID NOT block them i actually opened the door for wolf so wolf could get out. ( you make it sound like more than one person was in the bathroom when it was really just wolf) 2. I did not do this "intentionally" if you actually read my post you would know that. 3. ONE PERSON was complaining besides you and before i was banned i saw a admin do the right thing and slay me twice BUT you wanted to make your own rules and ban me. seeing that you are a fairly new mod i will cut you some slack but please don't make stuff up.
You can't do anything outside the lines of the rules Arnold. I talked to Highwon before I unbanned him, and he agreed so be mad at him. I wouldn't have unbanned him if he said that in that certain circumstance that's a ban. You are a moderator and have to stay inside the lines of the rules(for example if someone rdms 1 person you can't slay for 2 rounds). An admin would have the authority to make that call but not you.
You have no access to admin chat and you were ignoring (whether intentionally or not) what people were saying in voice chat. You're not telling the truth. That being said, the issue has been resolved. Please be more considerate of other players in the future. What he did was outside of the rules. I will not let people ruin other player's time by skirting around the rules. I stand by my decision and am also okay with the resolution (burning people as an innocent is acceptable).
"attempted rdm" makes no sense. I can go around damaging people for 95 and not get slain for it? as long as they don't die? I generally count it as an rdm when they do a decent bit of damage to a random player.
This is the point of view I took since (if I recall correctly at this point) he did 60+ damage to two other players that weren't killed. I'm discussing the principle now, not actually banning GnB. I'm going to talk to Highwon about having an established policy for things like this.