TOPIC: [SSRP] Staff Report - Jack Bushross

Butterman wrote: Wasn't aware you had any input into the base apart from owning the "shop ent". As I told you I didn't remove it and change any type of rp you had I just moved the location of the shop a few meeters. Since the owner that I asked was afk at the time.

Admins like a month ago or so were forcing people to use a house or their shop would be removed

Red_ wrote: Its funny how you receive a warning and instantly come to a report and +support it lol.

jack bushrsos wrote:
Posted this before btw

Wrecking wrote:
This policy is applicable to the house owner only and not other people that choose to store their stores in someone else's building. And even then, let's say they do apply to other members, my point still stands because Blue wasn't actively using the building, and as you stated, was only playing on the server - which is two completely different things. The only scenario I wouldn't remove the doors is if I saw players inside the base actively using it. There were none, hence why Jack Bushross clearly did what he did.

To put things plainly, Jack is in no way necessitated to check for every person who stores passive entities in the building. Blue has all the power in the world to buy his own house to store his Shop instead of using someone else's building. I'm sorry but saying that someone can't have their doors removed on the basis that some other person has chosen to store their Shop entity inside it just isn't a strong enough argument.

Jack Bushross wouldn't have removed the doors had the base displayed any semblance of active usage, but clearly, there was none and as such it is completely valid to remove the doors. He did everything he was supposed to do; teleport to the doors' owner to see whether or not they're AFK - and/or have a valid purpose for the base. In this case, it was already established that the owner had been inactive for an extensive period of time so how can you disagree with the validity of his actions?

Bro this is just pathetic, just quit it

I remove doors all the time if the owners aren't there? Don't see how you can get reported for this

I'll handle this I guess

DEADMONSTOR wrote:
You were going around saying you need to move a shop to a house. If you are going to tell people they can’t put a shop their but also say they have to you seem really confused

Red_ wrote:
I have never said this

DEADMONSTOR wrote:
You and Nafe were saying shop owners must occupy a house with their shop

Red_ wrote:
I have never done that lmao, maybe that was Clarky? I really don't care where you put your shop unless it is in my face when I am walking on the road

DEADMONSTOR wrote:
zarpgaming.com/index.php/forum/10-announ...g-outcome-01-03-2019

This thread says you need to occupy a house

DEADMONSTOR wrote: I personally just stated the rule about "you should use a shop building if possible".

Red_ wrote:
You should read it again then.

Red_ wrote:
No it doesn't say you "need" to
- You should use a shop location if possible.

if someone wants to use the base for something else than that is okay and thus it wouldn't be "possible"

DEADMONSTOR wrote:
I’ve watched my shop get removed while it’s just in spawn and was told to move to a house. So if it isn’t needed why was this said to me????

Red_ wrote:
You should put it in a house if possible but people basing in that base would take priority

DEADMONSTOR wrote:
So you are saying if people have shops in a house but you want to base their you can just get a staff member to remove their stuff?

Red_ wrote:


Just move it outside the house? it really doesn't matter where it is aslong as it isn't in the middle of the road. I cannot believe you guys are still arguing over your little gang drama