ItsAaron - Counter-Strike: Source

[ItsAaron 1]

@@Bleed We tried that. Silence looked too and couldn't find it even though we pretty much found out exactly when it was done by what people were saying. I'd rather have found out for definite if it was me which i kept saying i was pretty certain it was, but meh. That's in the past now and I just want people to vote on this app for me :p

[Matsi 35]

+1 He did it vote first, it's kinda like when Hellafun gave everyone money for large bombs... except less abusive and it only effected a single round... ggnore

 

Why do you have a bind to slay @all? That doesn't even make sense.

It's ban @all and it was because of late night JB, calm your tits before your milk sprays out all over the place...

[MineCrack 62]

 

 

It's ban @all and it was because of late night JB

That doesn't change darkwolf's claims. I also forgot since it's late at night and you're on jailbreak you can abuse your powers, sorry!

 

 

 

calm your tits before your milk sprays out all over the place...

I don't think you know what calm is.

[xGShadowSpy 108]

By the logic some are using with the vote thing, thats like if I made a vote to ban Jubens(Using him since hes on atm) and people voted yes, that I could do it.

@@Matsi So what if he had the bind for late night JB? It's be common sense to remove it for normal days.

[DarkWolf6052 0]

There was video proof of you doing the vote and then doing the command. I don't know why you are saying no one knows who did it when we clearly know who did. Silence and I at the least know.

[ItsAaron 1]

@@DarkWolf6052 I'm not on about that time. I admit to doing that. I'm on about the time none of us could figure out who did it and gkoo thought he had and i thought i had. I think it was wrong to demote me to member for the voted one, but such is the decision of my superiors.

[Forest 309]

I'm starting to think everyone's starting to mix up what really happened, lel. The only occurrence that Aaron was proven guilty was the time he did the vote before the ban @ all, which he was then demoted for. Every other time we couldn't find out who did it (as there were a handful of Staff on at the times such as during canyon_dam or electric_razor_v6).

 

Ask Higher-Ups outside of this thread for a clear-up or somethin', there are enough posts regarding it on this Submission. Just sayin'

[Chrono 372]

@@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.

[Vector 138]

@@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.

Fucking this. Chrono put it perfectly even if he is autistic.

Love you chronononono

[MineCrack 62]

Punish John? +1

[DarkWolf6052 0]

@@Rhododendron @@serbiansnaga

I'm just letting you know, his actual demotion reason was abuse, because of creating a vote to do ban @all. I was talking with Silence after reviewing the video recorded by another player of him doing it, and Silence asked what Serbian wanted to do, I went to him, asked him, and he said demote.

So.

Just pointing that out, I'm neutral on giving Aaron moderator at the moment.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8b7YvdqBAI

Thanks to @@SonicRainbow for the video

[Rhododendron 994]

Same as DarkWolf, I'm neutral.

[Forest 309]

@@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.

Unless John was covering his ass, my understanding is that he said he was okay with it if the votes received were 100% in agreement. However, the reason the two situations are different are simply because of the commands used, not because of the vote. Ban @ all was strictly forbidden and was never to be used under any circumstances, as it has been for a long time (correct me if I'm wrong). Cash @ all was something that was recently put out, and was never completely determined it's "terms of use" so to speak.

 

Again, my understanding is that it was allowed by CS:S Higher-Ups (for whatever reason), however I deemed it unfit to be used at all as there is currently no max bomb cap for the server (again, correct me if I'm wrong) and it would result in far too many bombs used, giving the Ts a ridiculously unfair advantage, however; I will admit that I should have stated it on forums afterwards that it would be strictly prohibited until discussed, but as far as I know, they were given permission to use it(?) by CS:S Divs. If anything, I take responsibility for Hella's misuse of the cash @ all since John was not aware that I had restricted it's use earlier on the Servers.

[Chrono 372]

Unless John was covering his ass, my understanding is that he said he was okay with it if the votes received were 100% in agreement. However, the reason the two situations are different are simply because of the commands used, not because of the vote. Ban @ all was strictly forbidden and was never to be used under any circumstances, as it has been for a long time (correct me if I'm wrong). Cash @ all was something that was recently put out, and was never completely determined it's "terms of use" so to speak.

 

Again, my understanding is that it was allowed by CS:S Higher-Ups (for whatever reason), however I deemed it unfit to be used at all as there is currently no max bomb cap for the server (again, correct me if I'm wrong) and it would result in far too many bombs used, giving the Ts a ridiculously unfair advantage, however; I will admit that I should have stated it on forums afterwards that it would be strictly prohibited until discussed, but as far as I know, they were given permission to use it(?) by CS:S Divs. If anything, I take responsibility for Hella's misuse of the cash @ all since John was not aware that I had restricted it's use earlier on the Servers.

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.

[Forest 309]

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.

No no, what I'm saying is that John had said it had to be 100% in agreement for Hella to use the command (which it wasn't[?]). I'm defending what John had said, but Hella is still in the wrong for doing it as it wasn't 100% in agreement.