Special Educator Warn Appeal

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Tyz37 said:

-1 from me. Everyone by know knows or has known for at the least over a week that the scooter is indestructible (or at least almost indestructible i have not tested it personally). You should know that using something to avoid damage while in a situation such as terrorist terror attacking or kidnapper kidnapping then using something to go invincible is not allowed and considered exploiting. You have been a player for a very long time.

 

 

 

As for this comment, the delivery scooter is indestructible or at the least has well over 3k health. Using a vehicle or entity to avoid damage to give yourself an advantage in combat would not be allowed. Only thing that could be considered ok to use in something like this would be the jeep because it is very clearly destructible and the delivery scooter is not.

... it is not indestructible

proof: https://medal.tv/games/garrys-mod/clips/Z1QSSzj9ZJziy/d1337rF7RV8p?invite=cr-MSxlZFMsMTg0NTA5NDIs

 

It just takes three shovel throws to destroy it

Edited March 11, 2023 by Guest

[Tyz37]

26 minutes ago, GoatNuts said:

... it is not indestructible

proof: https://medal.tv/games/garrys-mod/clips/Z1QSSzj9ZJziy/d1337rF7RV8p?invite=cr-MSxlZFMsMTg0NTA5NDIs

 

It just takes three shovel throws to destroy it

Using something that clearly requires a very specific tool to destroy to gain an rp advantage in a fight would not be allowed. Additionally, it would be impossible for a newer player to find out that you need to throw a shovel at the front wheel multiple times to destroy it and it would be near impossible to do if he was actively driving it.

 

[Guest]

Alright i did a bunch of testing and the scooter is pretty much indestructible, having around 6000hp, so it is pretty much industrable in my eyes!!

https://medal.tv/es/games/garrys-mod/clips/Z23h3KmE2OzW_/pwI6q2Ytr4XG?invite=cr-MSxwMzksMTg0NTA5NDIs

Edited March 11, 2023 by Guest

[Tyz37]

Definitely would not be allowed to have an entity that can completely shield you from damage that has easily around 6000 health. Goat did testing and showed me the clip. He used a reskin of a gun that has 100 rounds in the clip and does about 19 damage a shot. He has the thief talent that gives a 25% chance not to consume ammo when shooting and it went of easily about 75 times. It took him approximately 2 and a half clips to destroy the vehicle while it was not moving with perfect accuracy as his gang perk kept going off. You are using an entity (in this case a vehicle) for an unintended purpose to gain an insane rp advantage. That is clearly against the rules so my -1 stands where it is.

[Special Educator]

I understand where you are coming from but my main issue here is that I was explicitly given information coming from a Senior Moderator that this was not against the rules, and I am definitely not the first to have done this. Obviously I know now that I can't do this in the future, but why am I expected to think/know that a senior mod is giving me bad information on what is allowed or not? I just don't think its fair to go for a full on warn when I would not have done this without being told that, and also seeing others do it as well.

[Coconut Overflow]

1 hour ago, Special Educator said:

I understand where you are coming from but my main issue here is that I was explicitly given information coming from a Senior Moderator that this was not against the rules, and I am definitely not the first to have done this. Obviously I know now that I can't do this in the future, but why am I expected to think/know that a senior mod is giving me bad information on what is allowed or not? I just don't think its fair to go for a full on warn when I would not have done this without being told that, and also seeing others do it as well.

See, there is no rule that explicitly states that this is not okay, in my opinion I stated that I believe that it isn't. However, that is what the forums is for, for better clarity on how everyone feels about the situation. I do agree with the fact that this should not be allowed.

[Succ The Zucc]

1 hour ago, Special Educator said:

I understand where you are coming from but my main issue here is that I was explicitly given information coming from a Senior Moderator that this was not against the rules, and I am definitely not the first to have done this. Obviously I know now that I can't do this in the future, but why am I expected to think/know that a senior mod is giving me bad information on what is allowed or not? I just don't think its fair to go for a full on warn when I would not have done this without being told that, and also seeing others do it as well.

Maybe because you were given a verbal for FailRP already that day would be why it was moved to a warn as it was your second instance that day. 

[Kio]

Hey man if you have any type of evidence of a staff member telling you it's okay thn by all means i'd be a +1 to remove the warn since it would of been a fuck up on our end. 

Without anything proving that a staff member told you this (No staff member stepped forward claiming they told you it was allowed) ima have to -1 this appeal. 

[Special Educator]

Coconut was the staff member. I also asked him yesterday before this blew up and he said at that time it was alright

Edited March 11, 2023 by Special Educator

[Coconut Overflow]

On 3/11/2023 at 4:13 PM, Special Educator said:

Coconut was the staff member. I also asked him yesterday before this blew up and he said at that time it was alright

I pulled you and reminded you that other staff members have different beliefs than I. I didn't specifically say that this is okay and allowed in the rules, I only said my opinion on the matter. I even told you not to do it after that point, because it is being discussed.