Hidingmaster

jesus, I play payday 2 for 1 night and it gets almost as fun as my thread! lol
 
Not writing a response to everything (I just skimmed!) but from my understanding, darkwolf claims that he had typed out the gag, and it didn't go through. great, semi-believeable, but then you still missed a step where you tell them why you gagged them which makes your statement lose all credibility, considering you have been warned how many times now? (i lost track) of how to follow the admin handbook as it is clearly written out for you to tell people why you gag them. [i highly recommend you don't try the "I pressed A and my gag reason got deleted too" excuse.]
 
#addingflametothefire
#yolo
#presentinginfo
#youmighthaveoverlookedthis
 
@@Hidingmaster @@DarkWolf6052 @@Gkoo @@Forest

Why are you refusing the fact Jacob spams, trolls, and breaks general rules of the server constantly? He shouldn't be warned at this point. 
Yes dark wolf let his emotions get the beßt of him but let's not forget who Jacob is. Acorn new day is not a fresh start on jailbreak. He knows exactly what he's doi.
 
But you're ignoring the fact he did not spam. Show me what rule he broke.

That isn't really an excuse to skip the necessary steps in punishing someone.
 
Also, what was seen here can't really be considered spam. Every time Jacob put the fake bind in (except for one time) there was sufficient space in-between. I'll repost the screenshot I took just to clarify this further.
Entries 1 and 2 were nearly a minute apart, so that's clearly not spam. Entries 3 and 4 were only 1 second apart and could have been considered spam if Jacob had posted it 1 or more times, but since he only typed it out twice, it can't be considered spam. Lastly, entries 5 and 6 were also just about a minute apart, which cannot be considered spam.

 
This made me laugh. +1 that was pretty good :D
 
Needless to say, just because he forgot one simple step should not mean his demotion. If someone was constantly saying something like "Oh you fuck children you pedo" would you be pissed if you were going to get demoted from a high rank just because you accidentally missed a step? As I said, this should only be a warning and not his last strike.
 
Yet he had been warned before, several times actually.
 
You all are looking at this as either a personal dislike for him as the reason for the abuse thread, or an isolated issue.
 
It is neither.
 
1) I posted the proof, because I'm not going to lie for a friend. He abused, and he did it clearly in the proof. But he has been warned already and failed to follow the warning. I have no dislike for him, I'm just not afraid to point out wrongdoings.
 
2) Already been warned, let's emotions get in the way and kicks people without reason. He then lied to me about it.

That isn't really an excuse to skip the necessary steps in punishing someone.
 
Also, what was seen here can't really be considered spam. Every time Jacob put the fake bind in (except for one time) there was sufficient space in-between. I'll repost the screenshot I took just to clarify this further.
Entries 1 and 2 were nearly a minute apart, so that's clearly not spam. Entries 3 and 4 were only 1 second apart and could have been considered spam if Jacob had posted it 1 or more times, but since he only typed it out twice, it can't be considered spam. Lastly, entries 5 and 6 were also just about a minute apart, which cannot be considered spam.

 
This made me laugh. +1 that was pretty good :D
 
Needless to say, just because he forgot one simple step should not mean his demotion. If someone was constantly saying something like "Oh you fuck children you pedo" would you be pissed if you were going to get demoted from a high rank just because you accidentally missed a step? As I said, this should only be a warning and not his last strike.
 
Yet he had been warned before, several times actually.
 
You all are looking at this as either a personal dislike for him as the reason for the abuse thread, or an isolated issue.
 
It is neither.
 
1) I posted the proof, because I'm not going to lie for a friend. He abused, and he did it clearly in the proof. But he has been warned already and failed to follow the warning. I have no dislike for him, I'm just not afraid to point out wrongdoings.
 
2) Already been warned, let's emotions get in the way and kicks people without reason. He then lied to me about it.

So it's pretty obvious that dark didn't follow the set procedure for spam, which I would assume everyone can agree with that.
 
Not a huge deal... normally. But dark has been warned numerous times, as well as forest telling all staff members last month to make sure they follow the set procedures.
 
Also, I confronted him shortly after Jacob posted this thread and asked dark if he was sure he warned him. He said yes, and I let him know I went through the demo and didn't see him warn or gag Jacob. He then tried to say he must have typed it and it didn't work... But if he was gagged how would he have continued spamming? That would involve dark typing !ungag at some point. In other words its an excuse and dark knows that. It wouldn't have bothered me had he told me the truth, but lying to another DM isn't right, nor is lying on this thread right either.

Warrior.. I think you should look at the evidence again, or maybe for the first time.

btw you guys need to be giving reasons for your +1 and -1 s. not just "LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL -1"

Because Jesus cannot lie, I was recording the entire time and went through both the demo and console for chat to see if there were any warning given prior to his kick.
 
The follow 7 picutres show where he posted the bind, and #6 shows Dark saying "Nice fake bind Jacob", which unfortunately is not a warning. They go in numerical order with relationship to progressing time.
 
MediaFire
 
Here is the demo that was taken and shows the entire situation. The relevant stuff begins right around the 15000 tick and lasts until 32000.
 
august12.dem
 
Pay attention to a couple things in the demo:
1) No gag or warning was issued.
2) There was in fact no part where he did "spam", I believe all instances had sufficient time between them.
3) Dark did not ask him at any point to stop, nor did he say in anyway that he did not appreciate the bind.
4) There is 1 time he said it prior to 15000, but for some reason I can't find it, but it is included as the #1 photo.
 
 
Chat log on rank.xenogamers.com showing the times he said it:
 
jacob8.png
 
Notice that there is no set of 3+ consecutive times of him saying it. There is more than enough time between most of them.
 
 
Now, in no way am I saying that what Jacob said was perfectly fine and respectful because obviously it was in bad taste; but as we all know, there is a very strict set of procedures we have for punishing people and Darkwolf did not follow this. I hate to have to post this, but I don't think its fair to everyone if I hide stuff because I want to protect friends. And if for some reason I am missing something by all means tell me, but as far as I saw everything I stated it the truth.
 
@@Rhoukar @@Superkiller67 @@Jacob @@IAmLegend @@John @@DarkWolf6052 @@Forest

GG AMERICA, GG.
 
FBI

It's for a perm, it's been going on long enough and it's obvious that he doesn't treat bans as a warning. Baiting wasnt what I considered trolling, but that he followed me the next round taunting me.
The only ban lengths he has are day bans and a 6 hr ban, Its not his fault that you guys didn't make his bans longer, to jump from a day to perm isn't really right. You should week server ban, and if it is kept up then perm him, some people don't take day bans serious, when you extend the length they know they're in trouble.
 
I like giving people chances and normally don't resorts to bans longer than 1 day, unless necessary. He was warned to stop complaining/arguing or he would get server banned, I probably should have but I was occupied with more than just him. And how do you consider 5 bans not enough warning already. These demos show a clearly lack of care for the rules. Why do we need to keep a him around?

Might wanna hurry it up, Some admins have already been enforcing it before it has even been added. Dunno why.
Eh. I'll do you guys a favour (since Darkwolf isn't on) and throw it in there.

It's for a perm, it's been going on long enough and it's obvious that he doesn't treat bans as a warning. Baiting wasnt what I considered trolling, but that he followed me the next round taunting me.
The only ban lengths he has are day bans and a 6 hr ban, Its not his fault that you guys didn't make his bans longer, to jump from a day to perm isn't really right. You should week server ban, and if it is kept up then perm him, some people don't take day bans serious, when you extend the length they know they're in trouble.
 
I like giving people chances and normally don't resorts to bans longer than 1 day, unless necessary. He was warned to stop complaining/arguing or he would get server banned, I probably should have but I was occupied with more than just him. And how do you consider 5 bans not enough warning already. These demos show a clearly lack of care for the rules. Why do we need to keep a him around?

Soon as it's edited into the MoTD, I'll make sure to notify all Staff Members of the CS:S Division.

Just don't go.

Here's what it should be changed to, things in italics are the changes to the original rule in the motd:
 
 
Last Requests
The T who has Last Request is allowed to move around after they type in !lr, but any action that would normally make a T a "rebel" still applies in this situation, such as breaking vents or entering armory. During a Last Request, the CTs that are not playing against the last T cannot interfere with the current game but must be in the area at all times (Failure to do so will result in a slay/teamban). When a CT wins, the winning CT is the only person allowed to kill the losing T. NO CHEATING IS IMPLIED (Advantage to either T or CT/Rocket Toss).
 
Rebelling on Last Request
A T may choose to rebel on LR, but the choice to rebel means another !lr option may not be chosen. A T can only rebel if an !lr has not already been chosen, and under no circumstances may the T choose an !lr after they have already started to rebel. The T does not have to announce that they have chosen to rebel, and may do so at anytime as long as another !lr option has not been chosen.
 
@@Forest

Current rule:
Last Requests
You can't use First Reaction/Last reaction to decide LR (this includes last one to spray or first one to spray etc). The T who has Last Request is allowed to move around after they type in !lr. During a Last Request, the CTs that are not playing against the last T cannot interfere with the current game but must be in the area at all times (Failure to do so will result in a slay/teamban). When a CT wins, the winning CT is the only person allowed to kill the losing T. NO CHEATING IS IMPLIED (Advantage to either T or CT/Rocket Toss). A T cannot rebel when he is the last T. If either player does they will be slain/teambanned.
 
Updated rule:
The T who has Last Request is allowed to move around after they type in !lr. During a Last Request, the CTs that are not playing against the last T cannot interfere with the current game but must be in the area at all times (Failure to do so will result in a slay/teamban). When a CT wins, the winning CT is the only person allowed to kill the losing T. NO CHEATING IS IMPLIED (Advantage to either T or CT/Rocket Toss). A T may choose to rebel on LR, but the choice to rebel means another !lr option may not be chosen. Doing any action that would normally make a T a rebel still applies in this situation. The T does not have to announce that they have chosen to rebel, and may do so at anytime as long as other !lr option has not been chosen. If a T rebels and then choses another !lr, they will be slain.
 
or so its a little easier to follow:
 
Updated rule:
Last Requests
The T who has Last Request is allowed to move around after they type in !lr. During a Last Request, the CTs that are not playing against the last T cannot interfere with the current game but must be in the area at all times (Failure to do so will result in a slay/teamban). When a CT wins, the winning CT is the only person allowed to kill the losing T. NO CHEATING IS IMPLIED (Advantage to either T or CT/Rocket Toss).

Rebelling on Last Request
A T may choose to rebel on LR, but the choice to rebel means another !lr option may not be chosen. Doing any action that would normally make a T a rebel still applies in this situation. The T does not have to announce that they have chosen to rebel, and may do so at anytime as long as other !lr option has not been chosen. If a T rebels and then choses another !lr, they will be slain.
 
Thoughts?

Current rule:
Last Requests
You can't use First Reaction/Last reaction to decide LR (this includes last one to spray or first one to spray etc). The T who has Last Request is allowed to move around after they type in !lr. During a Last Request, the CTs that are not playing against the last T cannot interfere with the current game but must be in the area at all times (Failure to do so will result in a slay/teamban). When a CT wins, the winning CT is the only person allowed to kill the losing T. NO CHEATING IS IMPLIED (Advantage to either T or CT/Rocket Toss). A T cannot rebel when he is the last T. If either player does they will be slain/teambanned.
 
Updated rule:
The T who has Last Request is allowed to move around after they type in !lr. During a Last Request, the CTs that are not playing against the last T cannot interfere with the current game but must be in the area at all times (Failure to do so will result in a slay/teamban). When a CT wins, the winning CT is the only person allowed to kill the losing T. NO CHEATING IS IMPLIED (Advantage to either T or CT/Rocket Toss). A T may choose to rebel on LR, but the choice to rebel means another !lr option may not be chosen. Doing any action that would normally make a T a rebel still applies in this situation. The T does not have to announce that they have chosen to rebel, and may do so at anytime as long as other !lr option has not been chosen. If a T rebels and then choses another !lr, they will be slain.
 
or so its a little easier to follow:
 
Updated rule:
Last Requests
The T who has Last Request is allowed to move around after they type in !lr. During a Last Request, the CTs that are not playing against the last T cannot interfere with the current game but must be in the area at all times (Failure to do so will result in a slay/teamban). When a CT wins, the winning CT is the only person allowed to kill the losing T. NO CHEATING IS IMPLIED (Advantage to either T or CT/Rocket Toss).

Rebelling on Last Request
A T may choose to rebel on LR, but the choice to rebel means another !lr option may not be chosen. Doing any action that would normally make a T a rebel still applies in this situation. The T does not have to announce that they have chosen to rebel, and may do so at anytime as long as other !lr option has not been chosen. If a T rebels and then choses another !lr, they will be slain.
 
Thoughts?

We really need hub. I've played on other Jailbreak servers to look around and see how they get so populated. The top 3 other ones I went to had a store system with hats, models, trails, ect. Our Jailbreak, as of right now without hub, is Counter Strike Source with a Jailbreak map and a warden plugin. I really hate rushing something but we've been waiting for so long and sooner or later we'll lose a huge amount of players, which would lose potential money. Hub would get us to earning money a whole lot faster. @@Rhododendron

Wait..if he left after the CT ban...

Might have been more, remember, Lifeline is the one that said 2-3, it could be more.
 
I say a +1 for a server unban, but I agree he should be CT banned. If it was 2-3, maybe a 2 week teamban minimum; if not, permanent.
@@Hidingmaster @@Gkoo
 
-Dat furfag DarkWolf6052

+1. Should any problems arise with this player, notify me. By tomorrow this time, if no one gives a legitimate negative vouch (that lowers the requirement of 20 positive vouches to 19) then accept this player and close this thread @@DarkWolf6052 @@Gkoo @@Hidingmaster

@@Forest show us your piano covers

SteamID: STEAM_0:1:54009319
Ban list: Xeno Gamers
 
@@Nub1234
 
Alright, I generally don't mind letting people back on the servers after they mass.. assuming it has been a sufficient amount of time and they seem sincere in their apology. The issue I have is that you constantly trolled with michael on the server, I got numerous complaints about both of you being immature and rude to members and staff. Now, after our discussion I honestly believe that you mean good by submitting this and will be a lot better person. Being dedicated to the servers it helps everyone to have people like you populate our servers.
 
I think the big problem you have is that your name is always associated with michael, so people think you troll just as bad. You got to either separate yourself from each other for a while or realize that trolling is highly frowned upon.
 
You were server banned for leaving after mass freekilling, but I think due to the circumstances a reduction to a perm CT would be a good idea. Give him a chance to show that he is respectful, and then maybe in the future remove/reduce the CT ban.
 
 
 
 
+1 for reduction to perm CT ban.

i honestly hate every single one of you.

hi