TOPIC: CodComedyTJ - Exploiting and Terms Of Use

Name - (What is the accused person's name?)
CodComedyTJ

Steam-ID - (What is the accused person's Steam-ID?)
STEAM_0:0:80776871

Evidence of Steam-ID - (Screenshot or video of the accused players Steam-ID)
Not nessecary: the user submitted evidence of their own gameplay footage on the forums.

Server - (What server was this on?)
SSRP

Time and date (CET) - (When did it happend?)
Uncertain.

Other comments - (Anything else you want to add?)
None.

Reason - (What rules did the person break?)


Story - (What happened?)
Within the screenshots of the accused's first-person view herein, he is depicted using the physgun to rotate a chair upside down whilst someone is sat in it.

Proof - (Any proof (video or screenshot) that clearly shows what happened.)
He is accused of violating rule 1.7 as he explicitly mentioned his intentions: to give a 'chair ride'.
cloud-4.steamusercontent.com/ugc/5385191...89B07A20E115CF667FF/

cloud-4.steamusercontent.com/ugc/5385191...BDF431913D5D2F221DD/

I am assuming that it is not an intentional feature that it is allowed to physgun chairs as they are sometimes used in order to gain access to areas in an unrealistic manner. You may feel that this was harmless, however this could have adversely affected the roleplay of the character with the sniper (or, anyone else for that matter) as he may have had the intention of killing the person in the chair for various reasons (e.g. avenging a friend, taking revenge for a failed raid), however is in a slightly awkward position to do so because they are DEFYING GRAVITY.

Additionally, CodComedyTJ could be found to have made an attempt to 'cause trouble' through slander on a recent ban request:


Herein, there are various defamatory statements made with no premise (none of the 'evidence' can be considered to be valid):
puu.sh/h2dBA/b588cd0cba.png

Finally, a screenshot and link to the original ban-request where evidence that he provided has been sourced from:
puu.sh/h2dEF/0b47ac0b5b.png
zarpgaming.com/index.php/forum/report-ab...gaming-watson-darkrp

Additional:
Since initially composing the report, I have gathered further evidence of other instances where the accused has violated the TOU. The evidence is submitted followed by the terms as outlined in the TOU that I feel it is in breach of.

Sustained reference to his intention not to fully take into account my posting - fails to contribute, not civil, impolite, non-constructive, mean-spirited and with intent to cause problems (trouble).






Defamatory posting content



Direct ignorance to full purpose of report - non-constructive



Sarcastic reference to a fabricated 'friendship' through colloquialism - non-constructive, mean-spirited, impolite


Slander - Inappropriate premise for outright accusation


NB: the aforementioned 'direct ignorance' (can be considered direct as he has repeatedly made comments in this manner) is also a pursuit of causing trouble as he has little interest for an outstanding report made against him, thus demonstrating a lack of interest for the fact that he has potentially violated rules.

*clap* *clap*

I think Chris might be taking this rule to seriously it should just be a verbal. As he was not clutching he was lifting the chair.

Zax wrote:
Taking rules serious is daily stuff on SSRP.
So someone should atleast talk to him.

The rules do not namely suggest that you should do any of that; you infer that idea as much as I infer and actually explain mine.



Ignorance to the rules in any form is not an excuse to break them, if an administrator has told you not to repeat your actions, you should follow it as gospel.



This is immaterial and does not cause you to become exempt from the rules.



This is also not pertinent. I am an ex-community manager and wrote the original copy of the current rule revision, and you are found guilty of them based on their contents. It is irrelevant as to whether you wrote a report regarding the member which conducted himself disrespectfully, I am not challenging that; you misunderstand that being a victim of rulebreakers is not an excuse to break them yourself for the purpose of relaxation.



I never accused you directly of this. I stated that from my experience as an administrator on this server, it is a common example of a method of exploiting chairs. You are exploiting chairs in another manner, respectively turning him upside down allowing him to float around in a chair.

Your 'question' is another example of your slanderous attitude, this time posed towards myself.



Your sarcastic attitude is frivolous, and your 'roleplay' is essentially non-existent in this situation for the reasons that follow:
- You carry a chair with a person on it around a city, this is near impossible.
- Enlighten me, did you make any effort to 'strap' him to the chair?
- You are leaving him upside down; fantastic tour.

If you want to roleplay giving someone a tour, a car might do next time. Your duty as a furniture salesman is to provision furniture to people for a fee, you're not a tour-guide and as far as I remember (correct me if I am wrong) you can not create another job other than from the base, citizen job (will have to read up on that one).



If you have already reported it to a moderator, you are either now challenging his discretion, or abusing the report system which doesn't seem to take into account whether someone has already experienced an administrative situation regarding the issue prior to the reporting. You are essentially doing both, as if you are challenging the discretion of this staff member, you are failing to state that this behavior has already been observed by a member of staff but not necessarily to a good enough extent in your own opinion.



Administrators should not be more lenient on you because you are trying to make a change, for the simple reason that if you are trying to make a change but are breaking the rules, you are both still as capable of breaking the rules as anyone else is and should, for courtesy, out of respect and in fairness be punished in the same manner that anyone else would; and also not doing a very good job of it (and thus should receive a punishment as an incentive not to do it again on your recovery).



I am simply not obligated (<3 EMP) to do so, you submitted evidence; I noticed a discrepancy. At this point, I do not contact the entire staff team to verify this, but use the report system to do such a thing as this is where it will be brought up if this is indeed the case. Also, your word should not be taken for this matter as you are not a member of staff and therefor your account of events requires evidence; alternatively, the member of staff that supposedly punished you already should post here detailing their account of events.

Furthermore, there is still an outstanding accusation of slander that is to be investigated before this is closed: it's not a wrap yet.

You have a very bad past record in my experience of you, and therefor punishment should not be lenient because you claim to be 'trying to change', but the complete converse as you regularly break the rules and actually don't learn - it's against all logic to appease you with that reason since you clearly don't stick to it.

Chris is an official lawyer for ZARP.

hahaha true true

You're contradicting yourself. You claimed that you have abused the ability to physgun chairs prior to this incident:




In this instance, I was commenting on the fact that you are questioning my morality. You, by reporting other players, are indeed attempting to help the community (at least, this view would be warranted under most circumstances); you fail to understand that because you spend time doing this it doesn't mean that people are bad for pointing out your wrongdoings that you document in the process.



If you were not ignorant to the rest of my post (which is really r00d, by the way), you would realize that you are still accused as the perpetrator of slander. I also feel that you are guilty of such offenses within the post I am responding to at present. Additionally, as also mentioned in my post, you are not an administrator and therefore I do not take your account as evidence - this report will not be pardoned simply because you claim to have already been punished: rather, it must be verified.

This also serves as a prelude to more severe consequences: you are potentially not being truthful regarding the claim that you have already been in a discussion with an administrator regarding these issues, and consequently if it is found that you have indeed not been dealt with initially, you are also a perpetrator of perjury and further violating the Terms of Use.




That is not my problem. I chose to further-debate this issue as I feel that you have broken the rules and terms at ZARP and it is only respectful of the community that this is acknowledged. If you chose not to reply, you are simply worsening the problem that you foresee by failing to defend yourself.

Additional:

You can be true of a 'regular' perpetrator of rule violations despite this slightly lengthened interval between your latest recorded warning/ban: the definition of 'regular' in this context denotes 'especially' with the same intervals, thus not limited to the same intervals.

Essentially, by breaking rules in the past and having broken another rule (including the TOU's 'causing trouble' clause which you seem to disregard), it is an acceptable term to use.



This is another non-factual inference, as 'regular' has no connotations of magnitude.

Also, by saying:


'trying' is in the present tense and thus true of this moment; the times that are successive of it, and precede it. Therefore, by stating in this timeframe that an administrator has been lenient towards you for this justification, which is in the present tense, it suggests that it is a recurring occasion and thus furthering my point that you can be described as someone who 'regularly' violates the rules.

I don't fully understand your motive for the post ID #119285. Let me know if I'm on the right track.

You argued previously that I am ignorant to your point where you feel that you are not a repeat offender of the aforementioned accusation.

I pointed out that you have broken rule 1.7 on two occasions.


You then attempt to justify your actions on both occasions:


...but as expressed earlier, ignorance - in all forms - to the rules is not an acceptable reason for violation of them as such.

Also, I don't see why you keep adding these futile clauses into your argument, they are really of no pertinence and you don't seem to be able to upkeep the promises that you make in them, for example:



If you are demonstrating your ignorance by unsubscribing, please maintain that ignorance by not responding anymore because your comment looses all of its pre-acquired sass






Please, make your mind up!

Chris wrote: +Support

Not being funny or anything Cod, but you are pestering people for breaking rules, when you do it yourself? Bit hypocritical don't ya think?

I'm sorry Cod but Donuts does have a point here.

Mr big man chris.

Perhaps the fact that you said:



In the context of comparing the act to physgunning somebody on a chair into 'the sky to make people laugh'.



That is not pertinent. I can spend as much of my time as I want documenting things that I see as wrongdoings, and yours has proven to be an interesting and amusing dedication of such resources.

You are also - let's remind you again - not the administrator, and you do not dictate the punishment that you would receive if found to be guilty.



This is an outright lie, I said:


(OP)





Irrespective of this, you are still not roleplaying in a realistic manner because you had the chair stationary in the air in an upside-down position. Personally, I feel that you have fabricated this excuse based upon the fact that your previous responses do not seem to correlate with it and that it has cropped up so late in this investigation.

Chris, I bloody missed you.

Has this been investigated yet?

Hes community banned