Invalid Report against Jabba

Name of Staff/Player:

Logan/Pie​

Steam ID of Staff/Player:

​

Your Steam ID:

​

Which Server:

East 1​

Which Map:

roy​

Which Round:

​

Time of Occurence:

​

Reason For Report:

False kick for supposedly doorbreaking a room with multiple entrances & it not even being broken literally just push the vending machine with a prop​

Evidence And/Or Witnesses:

​

 

@Lord Momo @Pierogi @Lordyhgm

 

So door breaking is not allowed on our servers doesn't matter how many entrances. You did it once got a warning, then did it again and got kicked. Also pushing the vending machine underneath that door does break it, and actually kills people. As you can see here (This death scene is not related to you and yes the person who did this was warned and given a slay) have a good day my good lad

 

Killing people

as
a
traitor

wow big brain


also point out where doorbreaking was mentioned as a rule/how it is doorbreaking if the prop can be freed

 

"Will be implementing" it is not implemented as of yet, please point to an existing rule instead of future rules

 

So technically every door that you can break can be unbroken but this is like saying when my watch stops working and I fixed it, it was never broken in the first place.

 

It was not implemented, nor is that post anywhere someone would check for rules
Please point out where it is on the rule pages
https://www.seriousgmod.com/rules/
https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/ttt-extended-rules.54957/

 

The rules in the rules list are the rules, not some post you made stating you will be implementing the rule
Implementing meaning it WILL be put in place, future-tense not current or past

If the rule was in effect, it would have been in the rule pages

 

As per moderator advice, this report is also against @Jabba the Slut for failing to add the rule then claiming it is added

 

At the time of punishment, there is no protocol for doorbreaking - but that is the fault of the lead administration for not adding rules that they claimed to exist
so yes technically speaking, if the rule was put into place via leads - it would have been protocol and no I don't really fault pie for it

 

Your post stated future implementation, not it being implemented. No set date or anything, if you meant added right away - it would have been added or you would have used "implemented"