Warn Appeal

[TapWater69]

Ima go with a -1 for this warn removal 
it should be pretty obvious that a boombox and a armor stand is not a raidable ent like i said it seems like you were just raiding to kill the players that were building 
out of all my time being on this server ive seen 3 people get warned/banned for raiding people for a boombox 
and it sucks because you did this with your staff app just got accepted  

[SilasLeigh]

If people are getting warned and banned for raiding people with entities that staff don't consider raidable, then the rules should be changed to show what is enforced versus what is shown on the rules page.

 

If a line in the rules says

• Placing a building sign prevents you from being raided, but you may not have any entities or any form of making money. This is a ban-able offense

Then how is it fair that I'm being punished for raiding someone with a literal by-the-book invalid building sign?

 

Would it not be more productive to have my warn removed for the confusion and have the basing rules changed to accommodate what's enforced? 

It provides no productivity to punish someone for raiding when they're confused over why the rules are enforced in a way that is different from the literal rules page tied to the server.

[Chessmond]

I’m sorry but it seems like you are almost trying to loop hole this rule. 

[Crabroll]

Regardless of your individual interpretation of the rules, i just want to ask this.

 

what is the rp reason and logic for raiding a base w a building sign and a boombox? How does it benefit you or roleplay?

Edited March 20, 2024 by Crabroll

[SilasLeigh]

Terrry I'm not trying to "loophole" a rule, their building sign was invalid word for word, you even suggesting the idea that I'm somehow loopholing it makes no sense because it's written in front of you on the rules page.

 

Crabroll the reason I raided was that I suspected they only had the building sign up to protect them from having their entities raided, I heard an armor refill station initially as well as the boombox and I assumed as one could, that the armor station was to armor them up to protect more things. 

 

 

I honestly don't understand how I'm not understood here, the rules page clearly states zero entities should be had inside a building with a building sign-up period. It says that word for word on the rules page. 

I was punished for raiding a base with an invalid building sign, and if nobody agrees with the rules then the rules should be changed and I shouldn't be punished for following what the rules page says.

 

If the consensus between most people here is that those entities don't invalidate a building sign, then the rules should be changed to accommodate people's opinions on the matter, and people shouldn't be punished for following what the rules say word for word.

Edited March 21, 2024 by SilasLeigh

[Return of the Mack]

You're just loopholing they had a building sign and no money making entities. Its mentioned in building part of MOTD that only money making entities count against a public base and I would say it's pretty obvious the same goes for building sign bases. 
Please avoid being an insufferable person on the server next time and "raiding" people with a building sign cause they had a boombox and an unmovable entity (armor dispenser)

Some things are COMMON SENSE


-1 for warn removal


Also worth mentioning if someone has a building sign and you thought they had raidable entities you call a staff member
 

Edited March 21, 2024 by WantedNearby

[SilasLeigh]

It's not "common sense" when it says in the rules that building signs are invalid if there are any entities whatsoever inside, if everyone disagrees the rules should be changed and I shouldn't be punished for thinking it's okay to raid an invalid building sign, 

 

I've shown the line of text straight out of the rules multiple times and it's almost like you guys want to pretend the written rules mean nothing. If you disagree with what the rules say, they should be changed, I don't see what's so hard to understand there.

 

The fact that I got a warning for raiding an invalid building sign is unfair and It should be appealed.

 

What is the argument against the rules saying

• Placing a building sign prevents you from being raided, but you may not have any entities or any form of making money. This is a ban-able offense

There is no "loophole' there, it's just the building sign of the base I raided being invalid because they broke the rules of what's allowed in a base with a building sign.

 

 

 

 

Why is it so unreasonable from your point of view, to appeal my warning and make progress to have that line of the rules changed? 

 

 

[Crabroll]

You cannot call something "not common sense" if you are the sole outlier in this decision and understanding of a rule. As other staff said, it is not a rule that majority or is commonly misunderstood, there has only been a handful of times where someone read and understood it as you have. 

 

If it was that big of a problem where every night we had someone misunderstanding this rule, then yes lets change it. But this is clearly not the case. 

 

Would I have warned you if you had an actual explanation and went about it in a respectful manner, probably not if i felt it was a genuine misunderstanding. 

 

 

my personal take is that I do not believe you given the evidence and I find it more likely that you raided this person just to be an asshole. There is a leap of logic that i doubt. You heard a boombox and thought people had entities. Usually, people raid a base after seeing them actually move entities or if they hear printers. There has to be printers or procs if you actually hear printers and procs right?

 

And to address the armor. When I leave spawn, I also put on full armor. What if someone sees me equip armor outside of their base while walking on the sidewalk. Should they take this as a declaration of a raid and gun my ass down?

 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2024 by Crabroll

[SilasLeigh]

It's not a matter of me understanding the rule in a specific way, it's that I'm interpreting the rule by exactly what it says.

 

I'm also not the sole outlier in this discussion, CrumCrocs, Frisco, and Frede Russo, (the guy who warned me,) all agreed that my appeal should be accepted, and I have footage of Crum and Frede, and I had a clip of Frisco but it only recorded my microphone audio.

 

Hud is also cut off because my monitor has a 32:9 aspect ratio and the footage is 1920x1080

 

 

[bone.]

Basing section of the rules says you can call a staff to check if a base with a building sign has entities in it. Knowing you like to call sits a lot why would you not do this first ?