help

[Azarael]

The skill of the administrator in hiding himself is not under question. The situation assumes that a glitching player, unaware of administrator observation or presence, is alerted to such by another player in the game with the intent to save him from a ban and not to uphold any ideals of play.

Conspiracy is defined as two people agreeing to commit a crime in the future and committing at least one act towards that crime. While the pure definition in law doesn't apply here (as opposed to the basic definition of conspiring together to avoid being banned), it, along with attempt, are both cases in which the ACTUAL offense isn't committed but clear intent to commit that offense accompanied by actions towards it are observed.

[iRobot]

I think you're just taking too much from one loose statement.

The meaning could have been "don't glitch, [its unfair] and there's admin here, [they will ban you for it]".

or

"don't glitch [now, do it later when] there's [no] admin here."

Either way, you have no way of knowing what he meant, and banning on what could have happened is a bit too like Minority Report, if you've ever seen it.

[Azarael]

I have experience with both players.

[iZumo]

I have experience with both players.

Pretty much my point exactly, when I said you'd do nothing when the same thing would be done by AS players.

If as you say, IllegalName was 100% about to glitch, why isn't he banned? I would afterall agree that if both of them were banned then you would not be gaming the rules (even though I remain undetected when I want to). But this way, no, I don't trust your judgement here (as said: non-constructive posting in "Fools day", your attitude towards people that play RACE and don't like AS etc.). So next time, when a similar thing happens, don't cry tears with "bad faith as usual".

Afterall, I don't have to convince you. Gaming the rules in order to ban (and ofc evade ban by the players) is nowhere near acceptable (just think how long your ban would be should we take the rule 3i in pure form under your terms). Banning is serious, you can use cm strike / cmdonplayer / etc. to get that along on a non-serious note.

[Azarael]

I typed up a long response to the above post but I realise that's playing directly into your hands, since you're still trying to attack my own credibility to weaken the ban and draw me into a mud slinging argument. It's not going to work this time and I'm going to stick purely to the point:

Why can a player not be banned for acting as a lookout for another player when an admin happens to be watching?

Since it's clear we're going to have to work step by step, work under the following assumptions first:

1) Both players are considered to be friendly to one another
2) Neither player is bothered about the offense when administrators are not present
3) Warnings are only given when administrators are present and one player is in the process of committing an offense

Then if you agree with that, we'll apply it to this case.

[LiZaT]

Why can a player not be banned for acting as a lookout for another player when an admin happens to be watching?

The Problem is it's a "Greyzone", it dosnt stands in the Rules (or?).

[Azarael]

The rules cannot and will not cover every opportunity. I've given the reasoning for this being an offense: it allows exploit or glitch-supportive players to cover each others' backs and it's done intentionally to defeat just punishment for a player who otherwise would be breaking server rules, not out of any good faith intent to stop players from breaking the rules or in support of the ideals of those rules.

Consider that within this test case, the player is assumed to be about to commit an offense, any offense, for example spawnkilling etc.

[iRobot]

But you have no way of knowing that was the offense. You have admitted you're basing your verdict on past occurrences rather than the evidence on the table. Hell you even say in your last post, you 'assumed' an offense was about to take place.

The ban has expired now so it's all a non-issue, but it was extremely harsh for a open ended comment.

[Azarael]

Within the general test case it is explicitly assumed that the player was about to commit an offense. I am trying to establish whether the basic principle in italics up there is sound before we move into the specifics of this ban. While I acknowledge that because the comment is open to interpretation, I can explain my reasoning all day and it still counts for shit when Izumo or anyone else can simply say "I don't agree", I still want to establish that the principle is sound before we get into that, to save unnecessary headaches later.

[iZumo]

For the test case, I don't really agree with 3), but let's consider it for now.

Within the general test case it is explicitly assumed that the player was about to commit an offense. I am trying to establish whether the basic principle in italics up there is sound before we move into the specifics of this ban. While I acknowledge that because the comment is open to interpretation, I can explain my reasoning all day and it still counts for shit when Izumo or anyone else can simply say "I don't agree", I still want to establish that the principle is sound before we get into that, to save unnecessary headaches later.

I am not dismissing you with just "I don't agree." without explaining my own reasoning, nor everyone else is. I'm just trying to see your motivation for such kind of a ban and am saying that I don't believe that it came from enforcing the rules as an admin and rather see it as somekind of hatred based action towards the RACE community (hence pointing to the "Fools day" topic with non-constructive posting).

And I have already said that ability to explain actions rationally doesn't say anything about one's intentions. I can explain "not-so-ok" actions rationally too and showed you an example on rule 3i.