TOPIC: [WARN APPEAL] Getzco

Ashur. wrote: Clarky wants to speak to Chute about it apparently.

Raeker wrote: Trying to see if this rule was even a thing in the first place because quite a few of us thought it existed but must've got removed from the rules for some reason without a meeting, by tonight there should be a verdict I hope

Clarky wrote: I don't see why that matters. If it isn't in the rules now than it was clearly removed when the rules were changed. Either way it makes no sense to keep a punishment for a rule that nobody could have known about before this point and I cannot understand why you're making a big deal out of it.

Raeker wrote: Because I'd rather check it out first then decide what to do? I'm not making a 'big' deal out of this especially when you don't know most of the backstory as to Getzco's attitude towards me over this, he can wait until then.

Clarky wrote: I don't see how the attitude matters when the rule isn't even there. There isn't a rule for it at this point so nobody should be punished for it. It's really that simple, so you not following that means that you're making a bigger deal out of this than you have to.

Clarky wrote:
Shift + Tab go to the server rules CTRL + F and search radio??? The rule is clear and doesn't specify any certain type of building so it could've been settled super quickly rather than go through this process which just makes it seem like a grudge towards Getzco to annoy him. You can't really punish someone when a rule can be clearly taken such a different way and the next meeting you could've had it changed.

Clarky wrote:
I dont see a reason why you should talk to chute about this since what he did was allowed and the rules clearly explained that he is allowed to. If it was changed in the past then it should've been edited right away and there shouldnt be any consenquences for getzco since he just followed the rules. Now i find it really unprofessional off you to tell him to appeal it since it is an unvalid warning in the first place and that you can remove it right away and accept that you made a simple mistake, but instead you make a big deal out if it to tell him to appeal it.

1.2. It doesnt state that the building should be owned by the person playing music which outrules the fact that it was in PD (which wont make a difference)
3. This should be accepted under no circumstances since the rule clearly states he's allowed to play music in any building

additional notes; it's really unprofessional off you to keep the warning since it's proved unvalid.

I have spoken to Clarky about this and although I don't fully agree, this will be looked into by the CM team before a resolution will be made.

Took some time to think about it and had more of a in-depth discussion about this with Raeker, I'll lift the warning but I do hope that we can turn a different page than have a grudge held, also I'll be sure to inform you if the rule was actually a thing and if it never was then I'll apologise to you for it.