Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Profile Song

Malcolm last won the day on March 10

Malcolm had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

294 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

864 profile views
  1. Malcolm

    Insufficient evidence, and its a single day, wait it out. Denied.
  2. Do not apply. Promotions are now granted on a discretionary basis by the management team. This rule does not effect applications that were posted prior to this thread. If you seek an explanation for why this change has come into effect, and why this has been taken for admin apps only, see below. For moderator applications, we heavily rely and lean on the feedback provided by the community to determine if an individual is suitable. This is because as much as we would endeavour to do so, it is not realistic nor possible for us to be familiar with every applicant who applies. Thus we are often in a poorly informed position to make a judgement, causing us to lean heavily on feedback for moderator applications. In addition, the transition from user to staff is much more significant, and involves much more risk. We feel the community at large is in much better position than we ever could to judge whether one is suited to the demands and expectations entailed in a staff role. As I am sure you have found or will find after reading this, the community is very much a necessity, which is of great assistance to us when we come around to making a final call on the application's outcome. Conversely, we feel that we are very much in touch with our staff team, and that while community feedback is somewhat helpful, it is hardly as integral or persuasive in influencing the decision we make with respect an applicant. However, it's not just a matter of not needing it. The promotion from moderator to administrator isn't about rewarding staff, in actuality, its more so about providing staff with permissions that in an ideal world that would have from the start, which are withheld due to the reality which is, not all staff can be trusted with all commands, particularly those held by administrators from the get go. We want to be sure before we provide such additional commands (commands which carry the potential for much more harmful consequences if misused, as opposed to those given to moderators), are given only to those who are sufficiently and demonstrably trustworthy and responsible, a status that can only be known through observance. We feel that it is a matter of who we trust, that we are in the best position to make that call, and that such decisions are best left to the management team, who are in the best position to judge staff performance. In addition to commands, becoming an admin recognises the attainment of a certain level of competence. Again, we feel we are best positioned, (after all, we define what we consider competent staffing) to determine whether a staff member has attained the level of competence expected. While the community can assist in this respect, we feel that many applications assuming that the staff member is already competent enough to be staff (you would presume that considering they are in the team) that much of the commentary is very much an expression of the popularity of an individual member, rather than what makes them stand out from the team. We also feel that by moving the process away, that staff will be more inclined to be on their best behaviour, knowing full well the decision rests with us alone, and that no amount of popularity will create the illusion of suitability. We also feel that the feedback provided through other means (staff feedback forms, pms) are more helpful at times than comments on applications, often because they are more honest and open as they confidential and not subject to the scrutiny of the greater community.
  3. Malcolm

    Good ol' Mr Goo (or should I finally correct it to Miss Goo). It was a pleasure to have you on the team. I won't forget some of our classic banter, or my insistence on you getting a microphone, classic moments that I look on with a smile. Good luck in the HSC fam, you'll kill it
  4. Malcolm

    Accepted The ban will be reduced to a day. I understand defending yourself, but from what I understand, many innocent players got caught in the crossfire. Please don't be impatient, whilst we endeavour to resolve this issues as swiftly as practically possible, we don't have eight arms. In future, I would suggest you just leave the server is there is rampant Mass RDM. Retaliating is one thing in a single instance, but persistently engaging people who are Mass RDMing is just gonna get yourselves caught up with them as it makes it difficult to discern what kills were in self defense etc.
  5. Malcolm

    Denied. We take all staff reports seriously, and its a fundamental imperative to those in future who make reports that A) You thoroughly consult the evidence before you bring an action to demote someone B) You base your claims exclusively on your evidence, rather than making assumptions and leaps. Submitting a demotion report should not be action taken lightly, considering the ramifications for the staff member in question, as well as the drama and general shitfest such discussions bring about. I am not saying this to discourage people from submitting reports when they are justified, rather I am ensuring that we only have to go through this process when it is truly necessary, particularly when the whole thing can be entirely avoided in the first place when the proper processes are followed. Regarding the report submitted, he wasn't even in the Police Chief when you damaged him, he was Staff on Duty doing sits. He had his HP set to protect himself against being RDMed in sits, an all too often occurrence. He didn't even return fire or engage James. Instead of making a whole bunch of assumptions and going as far as posting a demotion report, particularly when a simple examination of the logs provided by Jacen (which I presume you requested) would completely clarify the entire situation, you actually look at the evidence, and only make claims that you can support that evidence, rather than suggesting that he 'left' to avoid compensation, when it just may have been coincidental.
  6. Malcolm

  7. Malcolm

    I have examined the logs and it paints a fairly clear picture of what arose. The poster was killed three times in the space of roughly 1-2 minutes. Coupled with the video evidence, its fairly clear that the user captured in the video had and was breaking the rules. Even if you do egg someone on, clearly if you watch the video (I think its now unavaliable), they were set on killing him even without his 'provocative' taunts, asking him to get out the NLR zone presumably to kill him. Accepted. The SteamID in question will be banned for 2 weeks.
  8. Malcolm

    Enough is enough. Permanent bans are permanent bans for a reason. Not only have you literally put no effort into the app, but you raise no valid arguments as to why you should be unbanned. You have already been provided second chances, its now with the realm of 5-6th last chance to improve, as logically incoherent as that sounds. How are we supposed to even treat that argument with even a remote degree of consideration, when you time after without fail, prove that you aren't deserving of such a chance. You forfeited your right to have your argument of 'having a second chance' treated seriously the second you decided to minge and break the rules after having your appeals were granted; this is particularly so in that you have already been granted 5 or 6 'second chances'. No more. You do not positively contribute to the server, and I am not going to continue your cycle of unban, disruption, reban, appeal. I am not going to subject the playerbase to your return, knowing full well what that means. "Better not get denied again" As if you are in any position to expect to have your appeal to be granted. Poor effort, this attitude that you believe you're entitled to some mythical 6th second chance that doesn't exist, the expectation that your are entitled to being unbanned; no more. Denied.
  9. Malcolm

    I wasn't in an executive role then, (or even in the staff team for that matter) so I couldn't possibly comment. I will say this, firstly this is an application for a promotion to admin, not a promotion to the team. Secondly, we are strict with who we promote to admin.
  10. Malcolm

    Or, we have basic rules that ensure people who join can enjoy some standard of roleplay, which staff enforce because they want the game they play in their spare time to be enjoyable.
  11. Malcolm

    I don't think its fair that you patronise people who raise valid points regarding the age criteria/maturity criteria for applications. Whilst I agree with you, and am of the the view that the individual maturity displayed by the applicant can overcome the age requirement (as indicated in the application template), I think theres nothing wrong with advocating for a stricter application of the criteria, or greater consideration of the applicants age, as they do play a role. No matter how mature you may appear for your age, life experience still influences how appropriately and maturily staff respond often difficult and provocative situations. This is a valid discussion in the eyes of the management team, and it will be considered properly when the time comes for a decision is to be considered.
  12. Malcolm

    - They pose a real and probable, or potential threat to your life (or life of someone whom you are associated with) with which the use of roleplay would be too impractical to overcome, or burdensome. That is the relevant rule to this situation. There is no grey area in rules, a player can engage another player in combat pre-emptively, provided you were a) a real and probable threat (tick, as a uniformed police officer, he is entitled to presume you are armed, and would respond lethally if he endeavoured to initiate a raid) b) the use of roleplay is too impractical, or burdensome to overcome the threat. In the situation outlined, it's not exactly clear. If you were the sole police officer in the lobby, or were in a location that meant taking you hostage or otherwise roleplaying would of been possible. I am going to presume you were based on the screenshot. Since b) was not satisfied, Mericky Pug should not of engaged you in combat, and in that sense attempted to RDM as it was not a valid combat engagement. That being said, there was a 'grey area' or rather a poorly understood area of the !motd that existed for a long time, which staff effectively led users to believe that they could automatically engage police in the PD pre-emptively regardless of the situation, and I don't blame Mericky for being under that impression. I'll be speaking with staff to ensure that actually understand the amended and clarified combat engagement rules. Whilst Mericky raid alone would only imo amount to a warn, I find the fact that he attempted to RDM post the sit without a valid reason is very persuasive in terms of whether a ban should be imposed. Accepted. He will be banned for 24 hours.
  13. Malcolm

    Insufficient community feedback. Denied.
  14. Malcolm

    Denied. Mixed community feedback.
  15. Denied. Insufficient community feedback.