Chrono

Wait.... people yell at you for calling those who don't understand the rules "faggots" even though they have been explained how the rule works more than a dozen times? There is seriously an issue here...

I'm here to cause hell. :D
 
What is a furry?


Someone who has a fetish for animals.
What is a fetish?


A fetish is defined as erotic or sexual significance being projected onto some nonsexual inanimate object. (What Is a Fetish?)
 
Have fun!
 
Also, a semi-side note pertaining to the issue of disrespect with "furries" is that I have noticed that some (not all) of the individuals who are furries within xG take offense when they get called a "furfag" yet you go around and call yourselves furfags, and each other furfags.

I'm here to cause hell. :D
 
What is a furry?


Someone who has a fetish for animals.
What is a fetish?


A fetish is defined as erotic or sexual significance being projected onto some nonsexual inanimate object. (What Is a Fetish?)
 
Have fun!
 
Also, a semi-side note pertaining to the issue of disrespect with "furries" is that I have noticed that some (not all) of the individuals who are furries within xG take offense when they get called a "furfag" yet you go around and call yourselves furfags, and each other furfags.

Understandable that it's frustrating, but we shouldn't just add onto bans to teach someone a lesson. If they have done something wrong that warrants an extension of time, then so be it. Simply saying that "it doesn't phase them" doesn't exactly warrant a means of extension for a ban. Although, If he had threatened or disrespected while saying it then by all means it could be discussed for a harsher punishment, but looking over what he said earlier doesn't show any sort of aggressive behaviour (passive at best).
 
On another note, MineCrack used to be way worse. Just sayin'.

I'm here to cause hell. :D
 
What is a furry?


Someone who has a fetish for animals.
What is a fetish?


A fetish is defined as erotic or sexual significance being projected onto some nonsexual inanimate object. (What Is a Fetish?)
 
Have fun!
 
Also, a semi-side note pertaining to the issue of disrespect with "furries" is that I have noticed that some (not all) of the individuals who are furries within xG take offense when they get called a "furfag" yet you go around and call yourselves furfags, and each other furfags.

that's what he said. "rare occassion" which means 99999999999/100000000000 times, it will be a legit kill since the door to warday will rarely be directly in front of armory.

"participation is mandatory" by this statement, unless they are actively running with no gun to the armory, they are not participating (if they have no gun, and there are no teleports to war day location) thus, you should kill them anyway and when they complain, call them faggots.

Further development on this story, they seem to have been turned into zombies. They continue to mumble the phrase "League is love... League is life..." You may want to start looking into new "Higher-ups" right about now.

Further development on this story, they seem to have been turned into zombies. They continue to mumble the phrase "League is love... League is life..." You may want to start looking into new "Higher-ups" right about now.

Further development on this story, they seem to have been turned into zombies. They continue to mumble the phrase "League is love... League is life..." You may want to start looking into new "Higher-ups" right about now.

my blood lust has been satisfied. back to calling people faggots.

supposedly, it is fucking awesome

ban all was used dozens of times during Late night JB... noone ever got punished for it then even tho it was "strictly forbidden" and "'NEVER' should be used"
 
He shouldn't get punished for doing something that made one round interesting after doing a vote, at least not any more than someone doing a vote to do something that affects the rest of the map, it's kinda common sense there...
 

^ Fixed

Wait.... people yell at you for calling those who don't understand the rules "faggots" even though they have been explained how the rule works more than a dozen times? There is seriously an issue here...

Which we already do, they literally copy pasted our server because OhStopItYou wanted to play on the pokemon trade center, after his band wagon with rise. They spent no time at all finding plugins and maps to make their server unique, and it most likely will never get near the stable population our pokemon server does.
 
TBH if they can't spend the time making something unique (granted none of the plugins are coded by them etc) but a unique compilation of plugins and map lists, then they will never be better than @@Bleed with server management. he atleast managed to put together a gun game server (pretty basic one) with a unique map list (i never saw the map list we had elsewhere, and he didn't copy Dogz) before I let him touch JB (which he broke anyway, and continues to break gmod. See michael jackson NPC. http://i.imm.io/1hj9H.jpeg )

All those in favour of having the following as a reason to -1?

Left XenoGamers and joined another Clan/Community

"participation is mandatory" by this statement, unless they are actively running with no gun to the armory, they are not participating (if they have no gun, and there are no teleports to war day location) thus, you should kill them anyway and when they complain, call them faggots.

Back to the point, with ban @all you effectively remove knives from all players. CTs still get guns etc from the extras in armory, and Ts MUST escape and rebel to find a gun. imo ban @all does not have a large effect on the flow of the game other than 1 round of it being a bit rough for the Ts to rebel which again imo, is perfectly fine. this is jailbreak, the idea is that it should be rough for Ts to rebel etc, and yet over the years there have been rules added here and there making it 9999999999999999x easier for the Ts (note: now it is rare to see more than 1-2 rounds won by the CTs, and few rounds get to LR. typically all CTs die.) The game mode itself is designed specifically for the CTs to have numerous advantages so that it is a rough spot for the Ts, and they have effectively been removed. So really, I have no clue whatsoever what darkwolf's issue was in the first place with the 1 round of it being slightly harder for the Ts to rebel and win, that was voted for and approved by most of the server. (71% of 7 votes is 5/7) and this truly only affected 1 round.
 
As opposed to the other case where cash was given to all players in the form of 30k (a large bomb) which unless it was done the very last round before map change (which it wasn't) affected every round afterwards.
 
 

 
I completely agree here.
 

 
I'm not quite sure it actually is "forbidden" as it used to be a joke that we would ban @all (when gay boy was around) and he would tell us no balls since you can't actually ban @all, as far as I remember there was never actually a time where it was said "ban @all is a forbidden command, and nobody is allowed to use it whatsoever for any reason at all." and if that were the case, then how come silence or darkwolf never gave it a though to add it in as an override that the phrase "sm_ban @all" could only be accessed by people with flag "z"? Where as with the case of cash you actually did say "it is not allowed at all" granted it wasn't communicated very well, there is still the case of it actually being said.

It's impossible for there to have been 100% yes votes for hella if there was a report abuse, and names were mentioned to testify...
 
Again, I don't see the reason he was demoted if server wide there was atleast like 85% approval of 1 round of it.

Punish John? +1

@@Forest there are seemingly large amounts of different treatments for different people, I am posting here because someone brought up hella, John gave hella permission to use money giving to everyone, if they voted for it. they did, hella did it, he has an abuse report, closed later under "confusion". nothing happened.
There was 1 complaint noted from the people on at the time of hella's "abuse"
 
in this case, the server here agreed to the ban @all via vote as well, he did it. the server agreed. there was (by my understanding) 1 complaint about it, and he was demoted for it.
 
in essence these are the same situation, infact i'd go so far as to say Aaron's situation is much less "server damaging" than john/hella's because Aaron's truly only gives effect to 1 round, where as theirs gives effect to multiple (30k cash can be a bomb per round until map change).
 
IMO Aaron should receive his ORIGINAL admin powers back or John should be demoted (to member like Aaron), based on this conclusion. I say @@John because hella only acted on what John gave him permission to do, he was sort of the middle man. [it would basically be like john doing !cash @all without asking his higher ups, as aaron did ban @all without asking his.] {note this is what should have happened imo prior to john's resignation, as he is a poopy butt and i hate him now.}
 
TL;DR your guys' logic in hella's thread suggests that Aaron should have retained his admin in the first place, otherwise you should find some sort of punishment for John.

@@Forest there are seemingly large amounts of different treatments for different people, I am posting here because someone brought up hella, John gave hella permission to use money giving to everyone, if they voted for it. they did, hella did it, he has an abuse report, closed later under "confusion". nothing happened.
There was 1 complaint noted from the people on at the time of hella's "abuse"
 
in this case, the server here agreed to the ban @all via vote as well, he did it. the server agreed. there was (by my understanding) 1 complaint about it, and he was demoted for it.
 
in essence these are the same situation, infact i'd go so far as to say Aaron's situation is much less "server damaging" than john/hella's because Aaron's truly only gives effect to 1 round, where as theirs gives effect to multiple (30k cash can be a bomb per round until map change).
 
IMO Aaron should receive his ORIGINAL admin powers back or John should be demoted (to member like Aaron), based on this conclusion. I say @@John because hella only acted on what John gave him permission to do, he was sort of the middle man. [it would basically be like john doing !cash @all without asking his higher ups, as aaron did ban @all without asking his.] {note this is what should have happened imo prior to john's resignation, as he is a poopy butt and i hate him now.}
 
TL;DR your guys' logic in hella's thread suggests that Aaron should have retained his admin in the first place, otherwise you should find some sort of punishment for John.

@@Forest there are seemingly large amounts of different treatments for different people, I am posting here because someone brought up hella, John gave hella permission to use money giving to everyone, if they voted for it. they did, hella did it, he has an abuse report, closed later under "confusion". nothing happened.
There was 1 complaint noted from the people on at the time of hella's "abuse"
 
in this case, the server here agreed to the ban @all via vote as well, he did it. the server agreed. there was (by my understanding) 1 complaint about it, and he was demoted for it.
 
in essence these are the same situation, infact i'd go so far as to say Aaron's situation is much less "server damaging" than john/hella's because Aaron's truly only gives effect to 1 round, where as theirs gives effect to multiple (30k cash can be a bomb per round until map change).
 
IMO Aaron should receive his ORIGINAL admin powers back or John should be demoted (to member like Aaron), based on this conclusion. I say @@John because hella only acted on what John gave him permission to do, he was sort of the middle man. [it would basically be like john doing !cash @all without asking his higher ups, as aaron did ban @all without asking his.] {note this is what should have happened imo prior to john's resignation, as he is a poopy butt and i hate him now.}
 
TL;DR your guys' logic in hella's thread suggests that Aaron should have retained his admin in the first place, otherwise you should find some sort of punishment for John.

@@Forest there are seemingly large amounts of different treatments for different people, I am posting here because someone brought up hella, John gave hella permission to use money giving to everyone, if they voted for it. they did, hella did it, he has an abuse report, closed later under "confusion". nothing happened.
There was 1 complaint noted from the people on at the time of hella's "abuse"
 
in this case, the server here agreed to the ban @all via vote as well, he did it. the server agreed. there was (by my understanding) 1 complaint about it, and he was demoted for it.
 
in essence these are the same situation, infact i'd go so far as to say Aaron's situation is much less "server damaging" than john/hella's because Aaron's truly only gives effect to 1 round, where as theirs gives effect to multiple (30k cash can be a bomb per round until map change).
 
IMO Aaron should receive his ORIGINAL admin powers back or John should be demoted (to member like Aaron), based on this conclusion. I say @@John because hella only acted on what John gave him permission to do, he was sort of the middle man. [it would basically be like john doing !cash @all without asking his higher ups, as aaron did ban @all without asking his.] {note this is what should have happened imo prior to john's resignation, as he is a poopy butt and i hate him now.}
 
TL;DR your guys' logic in hella's thread suggests that Aaron should have retained his admin in the first place, otherwise you should find some sort of punishment for John.

@@Forest there are seemingly large amounts of different treatments for different people, I am posting here because someone brought up hella, John gave hella permission to use money giving to everyone, if they voted for it. they did, hella did it, he has an abuse report, closed later under "confusion". nothing happened.
There was 1 complaint noted from the people on at the time of hella's "abuse"
 
in this case, the server here agreed to the ban @all via vote as well, he did it. the server agreed. there was (by my understanding) 1 complaint about it, and he was demoted for it.
 
in essence these are the same situation, infact i'd go so far as to say Aaron's situation is much less "server damaging" than john/hella's because Aaron's truly only gives effect to 1 round, where as theirs gives effect to multiple (30k cash can be a bomb per round until map change).
 
IMO Aaron should receive his ORIGINAL admin powers back or John should be demoted (to member like Aaron), based on this conclusion. I say @@John because hella only acted on what John gave him permission to do, he was sort of the middle man. [it would basically be like john doing !cash @all without asking his higher ups, as aaron did ban @all without asking his.] {note this is what should have happened imo prior to john's resignation, as he is a poopy butt and i hate him now.}
 
TL;DR your guys' logic in hella's thread suggests that Aaron should have retained his admin in the first place, otherwise you should find some sort of punishment for John.