TOPIC: Clear some things up

Edited this because people where not completely understanding me. The reason I'm asking these is just to clarify because no-one seems to love me on steam so this gets everyone talking.
warning without a sit
My question was is it forced to everytime you warn someone bring them into a situation or can you take liberties like if you know they are aware.
E.G. EMP resigns and then I kill him and he breaks NLR to come back and kill me.

I'd expect EMP to know that, although I would respond to queries if he had any. I would not bother explaining why unless he wishes me to.

---

RDM and NLR
Upon being killed what is required for the NLR to be considered void?
My knowledge is that the user must prove it's an RDM (Perhaps the RDMer admits it)
I've heard that Red allows people to break NLR without any need to notify staff (I know now that my source was poor, which is why I didn't trust it)

---

There was a third question that was brought up by me, I thought the rules where being contradictory to what red was saying and was trying to confirm which was correct (I trust Red's decision since it's more recent anyway). Turns out someone had misquoted the rules and my brain almost cached it and every time I read over it I saw what he claimed they where. I just thought they changed, but my mind was fucking with me.

I don't disagree with this thread, but NLR is NLR even if you get RDM'd. You may legally break NLR if a staff member directly tells you that you may, but the staff member has to have a legitimate reason to let a player do so.

I am gonna change a littlebit of what you said about me. I said that, i have done it multiple times with users breaking the same rule, and just punish them without a sit, cause i already talked to them about it, and they've already been punished for the same thing, although i also said that taking them into a sit is the correct way of doing it, i just dont always see its that needed, if the person knows they are doing it wrong. Also. As Fennester said, NLR is NLR no matter if its a valid kill or a invalid kill. Because some one else breaks are rules dosent mean that you can go ahead and break another rule. Its we warn for Revenge killing, wich is the same thing. There is no way around breaking rules no matter what

Keith Cozart wrote: That's what you said.

Kristofferson wrote:

i know i said that, but if you look through the whole chat log, you would see that i also said, that the correct way of doing it is making a sit every single time.

That is an absolutely terrible way to administrate. You should always talk to a player and make sure they understand what they did to break what ever rule you are warning them for. How can you expect a player to learn from his mistakes if he doesn't understand what he did in the first place. If lets say you have a newer player who has just started playing gmod/darkrp, you join ZARP and a couple minutes into playing he break a rule. He is then blindly warned for it, but no admin ever shows up to tell him why, he cannot really know exactly what he did wrong. While he could make an assumption about why he received the warning based off the reason provided, but he will never be 100% certain. Because the admin was to lazy to take two minutes out of his day to make sure he understood what he did and why it was wrong.

Its the same thing has banning without talking to the banee. They will learn nothing via the ban screen and the only way you turn a minge into a regular player is by working with them.

I do however agree with Keith that you can warn someone without a sit if they are doing the exact exact same thing.

As for the rules thing, if something is not stated in the rules you cannot warn for it. That again is a terible way to administrate. How is it fair to punish a player for doing something they could not possibly know was wrong?

EMP wrote:
And now we hope that Soxey finally got it through his thick skull that just because he was an SA a year ago doesn't mean he can still get all the power - especially when he is being a minge on the forums with his "Applications".

Kristofferson wrote:

NLR: If someone gets RDM'ed or its banter between a staff member and I'm there to witness it I will let them break NLR because I'm not going to punish people for something they had no role play factor in.

The last part where you said I told you is completely true and it will always be that way. I will not and will never let someone be punished for something they have no idea about. I'm not sure why this is even a post most of the things you listed are very simple.

Ps: I noticed you mentioned lazy bros post and so I will mention that since KPRO, YOU and LAZYBRO have been role playing together I have heard nothing but shit about you all. Your all trying to twist and bend rules and when things are not going well you all just minge around. I recommend you all just cut the shit and just get back to playing the game. We had ZERO issues with anything of the above until the three of you got together so I'm not sure which one of you are actually causing the issues but it needs to stop!

And in regards to the slam jumping I know it's been made clear that they didn't want you guys doing this and you continued to let them do it so you're in the wrong if you or anyone else had a problem they should of brought it to our attention and stop doing it until further notice. Fighting with Keith or whom ever else said they didn't want you doing it just make you look like as ass.

I think I didn't communicate myself here because I do notify the player what they have done wrong (Depends on different factors like if they're mass RDMing, or a long time player who I know knows that rule. I usually notify them through PM, OOC or if need by voice)
The question arose when I saw lazy bro breaking NLR after telling him not to earlier. The warn was a total miscommunication between me and Kpro as I assumed it was crossfire but it was an intentional RDM.
Anyway the issue arose because Lazy thought I had to give him a sit based on the post red made and I wasn't sure because Keith said it was almost up to my discretion (Keep in mind I miss-understood what he said).
Considering lazy was a long standing member who knows the rules and had just told not to break NLR (Which I shouldn't have) I warned him without a sit.

This being said I usually use descriptive warns, and explain if it's not obvious. E.G. A gun dealer RDMing me in spawn while I just spawned ain't gonna get a explanation into why it's RDM unless he explicitly asks for one. Because it's self-explanatory. On the other hand a mutant RDMing outside of the designated districts would get an explanation.

---

RedPowder wrote: I've heard different things and wanted to clarify, that's how I act as well.
RedPowder wrote:
I think I didn't communicate that properly. See above, but again I will explain if need be based on context. I was just questioning if I was forced to on every warn or if it's up to my discretion.
RedPowder wrote:
I don't understand where you're getting this from. I'm trying to keep an eye on them while having a bit of fun (RPing with them). I didn't bend the rules or allowed them to. I tried to get them to stop and minging and even had to warn them.
RedPowder wrote:
The reasons I brought this up was because lazy bro was confused as what I had gathered is that I could within my discretion warn without a situation, he considered it necessary. The second one was just because of thing I'd heard and wanted to clear up aswell.
RedPowder wrote:
Now this was confusing. I asked red if using them to boost your jump is fine, he replied with It ain't in the rules so yes. Then Jordan asked you if they could be used for Flying and I was unsure if you where talking about the same thing. I attempted to alert you but to no avail. Since your previous comment on it's not in the rules so no. I kept to it until you replied, which you never did.
RedPowder wrote: That was me failing to convey what I meant correctly.

---

EMP wrote: I do. I was just asking whether it's forced upon me to do no-matter what or can I wave it depending on various contextual variables (I couldn't think of another way of putting it)

---

ScorpionOnAcid wrote: What applications are you referring to? My mod application? That was part of a joke.
If you're referring to my admin application I was trying to squeeze an extra week to get SA faster then tea-leaf.

They say there's no harm in trying. Apparently not when scorps on the case.

The slam jumping very easily could be labeled as an exploit because thats not how they were intended to be used. Anything used to gain an advantage in a way that was not intended that way is exploiting. This is where the loopholing rule comes into effect as the development team decides what is classes as an exploit and what is not.

Overall you seem to be confused about alot of things. One thing I forgot to point out was how to claimed the Loophole rule contradicts the idea that you can't punish for rules that are not listed. It doesn't contradict it at all and you should take careful note in what it says at the end: "An admins word on a rule is final". The key term is rule. There is a big difference between deciding what a player did falls under a preexisting rule and making up a brand new one. If you can justify a link between what they did and what ever rule it is, then by all means you can punish them. You just need to make sure to explain to the player how what they did links back to the rule. I wrote the loopholing rule to replace
Chris's idiotic common sense rule because as I stated before no player should be punished for something they would have no idea is wrong.

As for the NLR thing. The bottom line is you are the one who is going to be issuing the player the punishment. If you feel they have a valid enough reason to come back then you are not forced to issue them a punishment. This is not however the same as letting your friends break NLR just because. Its like anything on the server you must be able to provide a valid reason and as long as you can give me one should I ask about it(and as long as you aren't doing something else wrong). I would back your decision.

EMP wrote: Yeah, I missread that, I thought it changed but I was just being an idiot.
I was only confused due to miss-information given to me that I needed verify.
and two conflicting ideas from Keith and Red where Keith had given me some ability to decide whether a sit is entirely necessary but red's post says I must ALWAYS do so. Didn't want to have any issues so again, just wanted to clarify as Lazy was expecting a situation and I was not going to give him one as he should know the rules.

The NLR I was just double checking, because if someone tells me that red allows it I can't just ignore that just incase it has changed and I'm unaware.