PapaKrabbe

Denied The evidence for the ban provided by @Atheol is sufficient, and you have admitted to Mass RDM in your appeal ("Only 3 people died") @Clicher @ajbedhead Please lock and move.

Accepted Since the evidence has apparently been lost to a power outage, your ban will be lifted within the hour (There will be no formal action taken against Xavier) @ajbedhead @Shin_Tsukimi @Clicher Please lock and move.

In-game name: Papa Krabbe SteamID (https://steamid.io/): STEAM_0:0:153848304 In-game rank: S. Admin Timezone: PST Length of LOA: 5-6 days Reason: Been inactive for the past two days because of a recent birthday, I need a break from Gmod, and it would be nice to spend some more time with my family during the holidays, so I won't be able to staff until the day after Christmas or around then. Setting my sights on coming back more motivated than I am now. Best of luck everyone.

The removal of the ability to purchase VIPMod is not a good idea. Not only does this take away a somewhat commonly bought item from the store, but it would have also, had it not existed before, robbed us of some great staff members, and could do so in the future. Saying it "needs a rework" and not providing an example of how it could be reworked is not very helpful. I however will play devil's advocate for a second and provide a couple examples for you that might actually be helpful : 1. Allow VIPMods to be failed on the test, instead of giving them unlimited chances to pass (Instead give 3 or more, above the normal two because they did pay $50) 2. (I believe the training doc is already being altered) Change or add questions onto the test to make it a bit more extensive and cover a bit more ground than it does already (without covering every single rule painstakingly) Not only would this first suggestion save people's time, but both of these would also hold VIPMods to the same standard as staff that have applied (with giving them a few more tries) This point however leads into my next talking point: It seems like there's a misunderstanding here of what purchasing VIPMod does. Purchasing VIPMod does not change the training that you go through or the thoroughness of it. Bought-in VIPMods and T.Mods go through the same training, off the same document, and have the same answer key for each of their tests. The only difference in their trainings is the number of chances they have to pass the test. Shankie, considering I'm the one who told you that VIPMods cannot fail the test, it's only fair I should be the one to clarify, so I will. VIPMods can still "fail" the test, in a sense. If they get enough answers wrong, they fail just as a normal staff member would. The difference here is that when a normal staff fails, they have one more chance to pass. When a VIPMod who bought staff fails, they must keep retaking it until they either A. Get bored and no longer want to be trained(unlikely, as they spent $50) or the more common answer, B. they continue to take the test over and over again until they understand the rules and pass it. In this way, staff who apply have it easier. In my trainings specifically and the trainings I have supervised, I tend to go a bit easier on staff who have applied over staff who have bought mod. This is not to say I don't mark them wrong when they’re wrong, but I tend to be more strict and specific with their answers when they have less experience on the server and have bought mod. I cannot speak for all staff, but this often leads to longer trainings. Of course this does not always lead to them understanding more (as recent events will show), but a trainer can only repeat something so much and if a trainee doesn't understand something or chooses not to follow a rule after having it clarified multiple times, I'll put that on them. Most of the time these misunderstandings come from staff-related things, but quite a few people, regardless of rank, have made questionable or wrong decisions as staff at some point, so no matter at what point it happens, whether it be as a VIPMod or, unfortunately, all the way up to Admin, other staff will be there to correct or point out when an incorrect decision is made, and they are, unfortunately again, made a bit too often. A note as well - obviously if a trainer does not train a trainee correctly, that would be on the trainer and not the trainee. In the end there have been good VIPMods and there have been bad. I don't think we can accurately judge whether VIPMods normally turn out good or don't for a few reasons : 1. Out of the last maybe 20 VIPMods we've had, 5 or 6 have gotten on to play, bought it, did not get trained because no one was available, and left never coming back to the server. 2. Most of them will buy it, get trained, be inactive, and get demoted 3. The ones who do stay active eventually learn from their mistakes and become good staff, or don't and get demoted. To address the "community involvement" aspect, yes community input is great, but if a person is trained well input from the community is unnecessary. Also, don't get the illusion that everyone in the communities' opinions are held to the same standard. It might have been obvious but I'll state it anyways, a well-known player with a good reputation or a high ranking staff member's opinions will be held to a higher esteem than a player with bad/no rep in the community or a low ranking staff member's opinions. This is because, as the past has shown, players with less playtime or worse attitudes (bad rep) are often more biased and/or petty than their counterparts. Sorry for typing out so much but I guess I had a lot to say on this topic. The gist is this: No don't remove it, maybe rework it if it's deemed necessary, but as of right now my opinion is that the issue isn't with the actual purchasing of mod, but more the execution of the training that occurs afterwards.

Grats to everyone, especially @AnthonyHBTL with that insane sit count. Also congrats to @Shin_Tsukimi and @GameClicher for getting to L.Admin, you deserve it

Although I've seen you on the server once or twice and can't say I've had any bad interactions, I'm not sure that you're fit for staff. I'm going to put what I think based solely off of this app below and hopefully help others make a decision if they are still on the edge of a plus or minus. I'm Neutral for now (Also considering I haven't had any real interactions with you) Pros: From this app I can tell you can take criticism and you have changed your app a bit based off of people's reactions. I like the points you made about how you'll explain to the person being punished what they're being punished for so misunderstandings can be prevented, as I think many members of the staff team could do this a bit better, even if it is what they should be doing anyways. It seems like you've got a lot of time to dedicate to the role and want to put in the effort, and we can use someone like that on the staff team. Cons: Your paragraph reminds me of someone trying to get their word count up on an essay, using multiple words and sentences that mean generally the same thing in repetition and making it considerably harder to read than it should be. In this paragraph you don't really say how you'll solve problems and mostly just outline things that every staff member should do, and how you want to show you can do it. Remember, this reasoning is supposed to be why you should be picked over other candidates.

This is going to be a -1 from me. I have never seen you in-game. It looks here like you haven't read the staff rules two days after being told to reread them. I would also like the "three days" explained, until these few problems are fixed and you up your playtime and become more well-known throughout the server , my -1 will stay

Okay I know I said that last post would be the last time I clarified, but I cannot allow for such a fundamental misunderstanding of this situation and falsifying of the information. There's evidence for all three kills in the first post I made, as well as an admittance that you rdmed all three of them for the same reason in that clip I provided, which I now believe you have not watched as you would know it's very clearly said. I also find it interesting how Ace went from a bother to you while you were building, to someone you were basing with, to a party member. Once again, the fact that ghost doesn't mind and screenshots of him saying so do not matter, as I've stated multiple times and has been stated in multiple appeals before, consensual RDM is still RDM. I find the fact that you say he was basing with you to be untrue according to how you acted about it during the sit, and I'm not sure how it would be a coincidence for you to say you "accidentally killed him" and also say at the same time you were "upset with him right now" and killed him for that reason (I can clip this if need be, But it seems rather irrelevant as it's RDM either way) The lack of a friendly fire system is not a shield to be hidden behind even if you were in his party, as the lack of this system does not give you the ability to say "Well I had to kill him because there is no friendly fire in the party system" since I do not believe his death was accidental based off of what you originally said (I'm sticking with your original story, which has changed and is evident by reading these posts) Maple was not reporting for someone else, there was already a report on you in which there was not enough evidence. When Maple reported you, there was evidence of both RDMs, and you would have been punished for both until you said that you killed Ace for the same reason (In the clip which is very audible, once again at 0:14,) I do not appreciate how your view keeps shifting rapidly, as at first you said this and now you're saying this This not only just looks like you trying to limit your punishment as much as possible, but is clear evidence of you, as I've said, changing your story. As I explained before, it would appear you have another misunderstanding of how reports work so once again let me clarify: If you are reported for RDM and no evidenc is found, and then you are reported for RDM and evidence is found of MassRDM, you will be banned. Just because Phil reported you for RDM and his sit was resolved does not make his RDM "null" because that is simply not how it works. To give an example, if you murder someone and are tried, and then are found innocent, you will be free. If you murder someone again, and there is evidence presented for both murders, you do not suddenly become a murderer (RDMer), you already were on when you killed the first person and shall be punished as such (Not exactly how courts work but the analogy clearly works). You were not found innocent when there was not enough evidence, you were simply found as not guilty within a reasonable doubt. When you were proven as such, you were banned accordingly. I am 100% certain that all the kills were RDM, the only question in my mind is whether this should be shortened to unintentional or not, but in no way do I support an unban. In essence what I'm saying is, just because you say these things does not make them true, the evidence is there and what you said originally differs from what you are now saying. Whatever staff resolves this appeal can contact me for the full video of both sits, I'll be happy to show you, but the evidence I've supplied is more than enough to justify the ban, as the only counter-evidence is hearsay.

This the last time I'm going to re-clarify what happened. Knoxx was reported for RDM by both Maple and Phil. Phil's proof was not enough, as a screenshot of a base with no sign minutes after a death is not proof of an RDM. This is because the sign could have been accidentally deleted, taken by a minge, and so on. the screenshot and picture of the time however matches up with the deaths. The story has changed multiple times in this thread and from the sit, where it was originally said (In video) that Knoxx killed all three of them because they were interfering for his building (Not a valid reason to kill without a KOS sign) "that's why I killed all three of you" as he said in the video I provided. It seems there's a bit of a misunderstanding on how a Mass RDM ban works, so I'll explain a bit: There does not need to be three reports on you for you to be banned for mass, nor do you need to have the intent to mass. This would make no sense, as a player could MRDM and then if only one player reported them, they would get off with a single RDM punishment. I do not take kindly to the suddenly new information that Knoxx was basing with Ace, as this directly contradicts what was said in the clip I provided where, once again, he said he killed Ace for interfering with his building and not by accident, and whether Ace minded or not, players and staff both have been banned for consensual RDM, and it should be no different here. The issue of the party system is very true, as this could cause plenty of accidental RDMs (which should be dismissed) but I simply cannot believe with the evidence from my post and what I heard in the sit that Ace's death was accidental. To add to this point, if his death was accidental, I as the staff member made the decision to consider the RDM as RDM since I had no knowledge of the nature of the death. Accidental RDM, however unfair some may consider it, is still considered RDM, and with the two others the best I could see here is a reduced ban to 1 week, although an accidental kill seems like a convenient new story. This is as clear as I can make this topic, and anything else I say will just be my opinion and therefore irrelevant. This is the evidence I have gathered, and this

While MRDM is actually the act of killing 3 people or one person twice and another once, etc. , if Ace's death was unintentional (Which was not at all said in during the sit or in the clip I provided by the way) then the ban should be lowered to a 1 week for unintentional MRDM. I'd like to clarify again though, this was never said to ke during the sit and Knoxx said he was "Upset with" Ace multiple times, causing me to assume his death was intentional, and since it was stated in this clip all the players killed were killed for the same reason.

In the video, to take a quote from 0:14 and on " You, ghost and... the other friend... that's why I killed all three of you" He was banned for killing Maple (you), Ace(ghost), and Phil Philly (the other friend) In the screenshot of kill logs I provided you can see ace died at around the same time as the other two (within 6 seconds) and this video has him saying he killed them all for that same reason. Even if Ace was okay with it, no matter how frustrated Knoxx was with him, this still would have been rdm as there was no sign. If he had killed any of them thinking he had put a sign up, I would have shortened this to a week ban for unintentional mass, but in his most recent reply to the topic he seems to make it clear he was aware of the absence of a sign.