TOPIC: Request to take another look at a report

I believe the following report was handled improperly because of a misintepretation of the rules:
zarpgaming.com/index.php/forum/report-ab...-speaking-to-request

In this report, the staff member was reported for building three props in a base. All three props were placed down to block a camera. He placed it one prop at a time, as his prop kept getting destroyed.

In the end, the user decided to report he staff member to clarify the rule. The report was denied by Ace as, according to him, no rule was broken.

Personally, I disagree.

Now allow me to firstly explain why Ace denied it: according to him, the rule doesn't say that you aren't allowed to place another prop if it has been removed.

However, that is extremely abusable. For example, say I raid a base that has three cameras in three different areas. Where these areas are doesn't really matter, just understand that all three cameras are part of the base.

As I start the raid I first block the first camera. When I pass that area, I quickly undo my prop and place a new one down for the next area. Then after that I undo it again and place another prop down to block the third and final camera.

According to Ace's - and many others' - logic I did not break any rules, as the props weren't down at the same time.

I believe rule 5.6 should not be intepreted as "You're allowed to have one prop down at the same time to block a camera" but as "You are only allowed to place down a single prop to block a camera". To clarify, this is what the rule states:

The prop was already placed down, but destroyed. The rule only states that you may place a single prop. That single prop was already placed, so a rule was definitely broken if you place another two.

If a community manager or any lead team in general could look at this, that would be great. Thank you for your time.

The rule can be viewed in different ways, the HA sees it in that way of only allowing to place one prop at a time, nothing stopping you if the prop got destroyed and had none placed down.

Clarky wrote: But you already placed a prop down in a raid. I says only a single prop may be placed down, and it already was - I do not believe that the other way of viewing it is the right one.

Because of this I ask another Lead Team member, and/or possibly Para or Tyler, to take another look at the report and at the rule.

Raeker wrote: That's where the confusion kicks in and how other people sees the rule in its different perspectives.

Clarky wrote: I understand that people might see it differently, but what I'm saying is that the rule specifically states only a single prop may be placed down in that raid.

Such a prop was already placed down, even if it were to be destroyed. The present does not nullify the past.

i think that SSRP is bad doods and that TTT is cool doods

The Winged Dragon of Raa wrote: rather not sit on a server and have obnoxious kids screaming and running around a minecraft map rdming

The rule states that it is only allowed to place ONE prop and since the prop got destroyed there was none. So he could try and place ONE again

Clarky wrote: it is the same with SSRP, just that you can't here them accros the map xD

The Winged Dragon of Raa wrote: which is a great benefit
haha actually imagine if TTT had the same voice chat system, that would be so weird

Clarky wrote: Agreed

Rule is stated pretty clearly. Nowhere does it specifically state that placing a prop to block a camera and removing it to place another is not allowed. It says you must only have ONE prop so by deleting the previous one and replacing it still counts as ONE.

RFlex wrote: That would count as two, not one, as those are two seperate props.

Building during a raid is not allowed for either party so the rule itself is a little stupid as the prop should be placed before and initiate a raid rather than during.

The Winged Dragon of Raa wrote:
No one fucking cares, if you have nothing to cintribute to the post then simply don't post at all

Sally wrote:

The wording of the rule stipulates that the action of placing a prop is only exempt from the rule if it occurs once per raid. No where does it mention that the removal of said prop is valid grounds for a replacement.


The word "during" here defines the timeframe in which only one prop may be placed as being the entire raid. Therefore it is heavily implied that the original intention was only allowing a raider one prop.

That'll be $30,000 in legal feels thank you.

exrobite wrote: Thank you. I tried to explain it like how you did it, that the action of placing a prop is the rule and not the prop itself, but I didn't manage to word it as clearly as you did.

What Exrobite said is correct, the rule allows for a player to at one single point in the raid place down a prop to block a camera. Removing that prop and placing down another one during the same rule is not allowed.

I've unlocked the report and I'll inform Ace of how the rule works.

Tyler Durden wrote: Thank you. This thread can now be locked.