TOPIC: being super admin means you can kill people?

EMP properly explained why Onion did not break a rule. If you were warned for a similar reason, just appeal it.

Raeker wrote:

"Raiding or not he had keys out and he posed 0/10 threat"
That seems awfully similar to what Onion did... and that report abuse was denied but Aspects warn appeal was denied, So what other conclusion would you come to?

We added the crossfire rule to stop abusive individuals from using it as an excuse to Mass RDM, not to protect people like you from running around in an active raid and not getting murdered. I mean for fucks sake its an active raid clearly if you stick around inside one your gonna have a bad time. Also seeing as it was the Flashes base and he had already died once considering he was under NLR in that district. Now he might not have done something right at that moment how ever NLR ends affter 3 minutes and at that point he would have been free to do what ever he wanted and you can be damn sure his first response would have been to gun down any cop he could see from behind. So why on earth would you let someone like that live? Being the smart individual that Onion was he was not going to let you just chill around while hes gonna raid your base. I mean come on thats just common sense. Because I saw someone mention it this same principle could have been applied to the cops who were running in, any player whos base that was once the raid had began could have killed any cop running into the district until such time as the raid ended as long as they didn't have NLR. If they have not started activitly raid and lets say are just checking around the district you would be on a much less valid reason to kill them until they made actual atempts on your base. Basically the rules are not here for you to scrutinize and look for every little loophole to abuse to get someone in trouble they are to protect the server from people like you.

The crossfire rule is put it in place to prevent people RDMing and then just saying "Oh it was a raid" when it obviously wasn't, for example: Orbing Spawn to destroy a topaz.

EMP properly explained why Onion did not break a rule. If you were warned for a similar reason, just appeal it.

For the record he didn't have keys out he had a physgun just like Flash did in the other case.

Grand Wizowd wrote:
He was in the same district coming towards me, i saw him as a threat cause he was coming from a similar angle to the base i was raiding in where i believed he was acting innocent. If i'm raiding he has no reason to interupt unless he's apart of the base hence why i shot him.

Raeker wrote:
he did appeal it and it was denied even though its basically the exact same situation

Aspect wrote: The difference here is onion knew who he was shooting and knew who it was. You did not, you shot someone who was in the same district further away without knowing who it was because he was "coming from a similar angle"?? Why are you bringing something like that up when it's completely different. There's a huge difference shooting someone you 100% know who was defending and was IN the active raid site and someone who was only in the same district far away without even seeing their name. Like come on, it's a given you should at least know who you're shooting before you shoot in that kind of situation.

Plankton wrote: Then he should reappeal and link to EMP's comment on Onion's demote request. Are you seriously thinking that different rules apply to SA's? If Onion wasn't punished for it, then users can't be punished for it either. Simple.

The difference here is onion knew who he was shooting and knew who it was. You did not, you shot someone who was in the same district further away without knowing who it was because he was "coming from a similar angle"?? Why are you bringing something like that up when it's completely different. There's a huge difference shooting someone you 100% know who was defending and was IN the active raid site and someone who was only in the same district far away without even seeing their name. Like come on, it's a given you should at least know who you're shooting before you shoot in that kind of situation.

What you're writing is absurd, there is no way Onion would have known who Flash was from a RP perspective. And what makes you think I didn't know? I was quite certain especially since he interupted me during a raid. And did I mention I killed Kitty in the same district that i was raiding in? Well that's the only difference to this and the other case, making it even more valid in my favour.

Raeker wrote:
he did appeal it and it was denied even though its basically the exact same situation

Aspect wrote:
Meta gaming was removed a while
Ago he could have just looked at his name ooc and used
It For Ic purposes