Dramn wrote: I don't know if I'm interpreting this wrong, but when you write:To me, this makes me think that you simply just won't follow up the situation if you are not given any proof (as you used the word "if" which suggested that you will not follow it up as it is you requiring a condition to be met to require player Y for a sit). And I think that it will simply disregard quite a lot of rule breaks, as from experience, not many people will go through the effort to provide proof. Also the fact that a lot of people either admit to their wrongdoing, or slip up on lying in their story.

[quote="Dramn" post=1000439][quote="Kyber" post=1000433]I personally think that the way you would handle an f1 would disregard the majority of f1s. Even if they do not have proof, the majority of players will admit what they did, and if the sides disagree, it is then that you need to ask for proof.[/quote] I would disregard other F1's? If some one RDM's some one else and admits that they RDM'd them, then what's the problem? ;p I want to use what you said to help improve my Application but I'm confused. ;L EDIT: Thank you for your feedback regardless! [color=#ff00ff]<3[/color][/quote] I don't know if I'm interpreting this wrong, but when you write: [quote] [b]4. [/b]If there is proof, TP to player Y and tell him/her that I need them for a sit.[/quote] To me, this makes me think that you simply just won't follow up the situation if you are not given any proof (as you used the word "if" which suggested that you will not follow it up as it is you requiring a condition to be met to require player Y for a sit). And I think that it will simply disregard quite a lot of rule breaks, as from experience, not many people will go through the effort to provide proof. Also the fact that a lot of people either admit to their wrongdoing, or slip up on lying in their story.