from the video, he ran across Unid's. The thing is, he was also fully, 100% aware of them, as he said "Yooo, it wasn't me, it wasn't me"

Whilst, yes, staff can still go after reports despite them being forgiven, in this case ESPECIALLY, the staff member shouldn't have done that.

1. The "Ran past an unid'd body" reports are difficult to deal with. The staff member who issued out the warning couldn't possibly know weather or not he ran past the unid'd body, unless he was spectating howaboutthat11.

2. The case was in itself forgiven, and despite the forgiving reasons, it was still forgiven.

Much like in consent cases, if you give consent, and then say "I take back my consent" after the act has been done, that'd doesn't apply.

Case closed, if its any different then riot

from the video, he ran across Unid's. The thing is, he was also fully, 100% aware of them, as he said "Yooo, it wasn't me, it wasn't me" Whilst, yes, staff can still go after reports despite them being forgiven, in this case ESPECIALLY, the staff member shouldn't have done that. 1. The "Ran past an unid'd body" reports are difficult to deal with. The staff member who issued out the warning couldn't possibly know weather or not he ran past the unid'd body, unless he was spectating howaboutthat11. 2. The case was in itself forgiven, and despite the forgiving reasons, it was still forgiven. Much like in consent cases, if you give consent, and then say "I take back my consent" after the act has been done, that'd doesn't apply. Case closed, if its any different then riot