Jump to content

John Strange

Members
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

John Strange last won the day on March 30

John Strange had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

33 Excellent

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. John Strange

    Sal, when I first met you I genuinely enjoyed speaking with you and looked forward to further interactions with you on the server. You were relaxed, and seemed to be quite a genuinely nice fellow. Fast forward to a sit whereby you claim that someone was raiding you whilst building. Turns out you had a raidables in your base while building. I later warned you for building with raidables and believed that to be the end of it. Fast forward around thirteen minutes to a sit where you state that the same player was failing to follow the rules of the raid, and that he RDM'd you. You stated a number of things ranging from the fact that he was raiding you too quickly (he wasn't, it was 13 minutes since the last raid), and that he was breaking NLR by raiding you again (he isn't, this happens all the time and is generally accepted common practice). I told you as much, and believed that to be the end of it. You subsequently spouted a whole paragraph in OOC outlining (and I'm paraphrasing quite heavily here) that I had handled those two sits terribly, you stated yourself that you were trying to get other staff members and community members to see it in an attempt to try and get a reaction against me. You reported me to Baby Cakes, to Cleddus, to Don, and eventually once all those people had heard your tale to Malcolm. You never once, not once, raised your concerns to me privately over PM. You never once said, "Hey, don't you think that warn was a bit harsh," to which I potentially would have agreed, and I would have worked with you to get it removed. Instead, you fabricated outright lies and stretched the truth of what was quite a simple sit (with a couple misses on my part, namely the fact that I didn't see he was a Blood) into something that depicted me as a demonic staff member that didn't care about the community, and that had some sort of personal agenda against you. In your staff report against me to Malcolm: You made claims that it took me five minutes to respond to your first admin request (it took one minute). You made claims that it took me six minutes to respond to your second admin request (it took around 30 seconds). You made claims that I had purposefully ignored you when you said that the person job abused and then solo raided (you never once mentioned the job abuse in the sit request, or in the sit itself. The solo raiding aspect you didn't even realise happened until your discussion an hour or two after with Baby when he brought it up. I never ignored your pleas, because you didn't even make them in the first place). You quoted me as saying "yeah yeah yeah yeah okay okay", which anyone that has ever actually heard me speak in a sit would know is bullshit. I don't dismiss people for a start, and if I did I would do it in a slightly classier manner. You quoted me as saying "Ugh it's you again, look I haven't got time for this because it's going nowhere", same as above. You stated that I "allow[ed] the raider to shout loudly over the mic to try and disrupt the sit" (https://streamable.com/ewvjl) You used the fact that I was doing uni work, and the fact that I made a joke to "Only call me if someone is MRDMing" to try to discredit me as not wanting to do my job. For a start, I took in the region of 30 sits that ranged from just sending people back to spawn to actual AMRDM/RDM sits. The statement was trying to let people know that I was going to be relatively unresponsive, and would like to only have to deal with serious matters. You accused me of being biased against you, despite the fact that in both of those sits I viewed you as someone that I liked. I had never really ever seen Oghma before, and can't even recall having ever taken a sit of his. Simply because the sit didn't go your way, you believed that I had to hate you which simply wasn't the case. You told blatant lies, and misconstrued truths, to several staff members in an attempt to discredit me and turn them against me. I have no doubt that you are a nice player, I have no doubt that you can build well, and I have no doubt that a number of people in the community like you Sal. But with what you have done, and with some of the lies that you tried to conjure up to smear my name, I cannot trust you as far as I can throw you. I want to be able to trust our trusted members of the community, I want to be able to rely on their reasoning for bans should they need to be extended, I need to be able to rely on the fact that they can provide accurate and factual recollections of events (even if they get a few things wrong here and there). In your report I can see that I can do none of these things with you. I cannot support this application. Not any more. A brief note as well: I will happily take your sits, and I will happily try to move past this with you. There is a distinct possibility that I can start to trust you again. I don't hate you Sal, but this definitely could have been handled better. Good luck with your application.
  2. John Strange

    There was definitely some discrepancies between staff members in how they interpreted the MOTD. The ruling now is that you are not restricted from killing police in the PD (because you have to RP). You are only required to resort to RP if it is not burdensome or impractical to do so. We've been told to interpret the rule lightly, so as long as you have a plausible reason for why taking them under FearRP was impractical or burdensome, you are justified in eliminating them as a threat. For example: - If you are solo raiding the PD as a thief, and there are two officers inside it is both impractical (difficult to pull off) and burdensome (a pain in the ass) to take both of them under FearRP. In this scenario, you would be justified in killing one (or both potentially!) officers to access the vault.
  3. John Strange

    @Echo Look at me I'm a forum Nazi Jk I love you pls
  4. John Strange

    +Support. Don't really see any downsides to this suggestion at all, and I can see quite a few examples of where you wouldn't want to be teleported into a sit because you can't cancel it. +Support to the idea of letting you guys see when a sit is claimed too, might help you all stop bugging staff when you think we haven't seen your request :')
  5. Your DarkRP Name: John Strange Suggestion (general idea): Create an option to use the "recent settings" in the keypad settings menu. Description of suggestion (expand on the idea): This option would allow the user to use the most recent settings for a keypad. E.g. if I was building defences in the PD, I could set up one keypad with the settings of "Police Officer, Swat, Chief, Mayor, Deputy Mayor" added to it. Each subsequent keypad I create I would then be able to use the most recent setting, adding all of those jobs to it automatically. How it will benefit the server: Makes it a whole lot faster to add people to keypads, and ensures you can do it consistently. Potential suggestion #2: Allow us to create custom keypad profiles, with different combinations of jobs.
  6. John Strange

    Dealing with rulebreakers that name change is already painful enough, when you get reports that some dude named "John Strange" is RDMing but it's actually some dude named Pablo that's changed his name three times since the initial offence. Having harsher punishments for death would be great in an ideal roleplay world, but you've already brought up the fact that RDM is a major issue with this change. Imagine someone that's been building peacefully in the streets for two hours without having access to advanced duplicator that gets one shot by "xXx_T1ttySl4yer69_xXx". Sure, we could warn or ban the man that RDM'd him but we couldn't give him his time or his build back. The lives system again has a similar issue, because over the course of those two hours of building he could have been killed accidentally a few times. The demotion idea is nice as well, but poses the same issue as all of the others. There are just too many people that either: a) Don't follow the rules of combat engagement, b) don't realise the rules exist, or c) can't read. If this was to be added as well, I'd expect that you'd have to simultaneously decrease the amount of time it takes to rank up. It doesn't seem particularly fair, or fun, to spend an hour or two ranking up just to be RDM'd and lose it all.
  7. John Strange

    I was really unsure of how I was going to comment on this thread honestly. Your name has come up in a number of sits that just teeter ever so slightly on whether it's worthy of an actual warn/punishment. In all of them, however, you've been quite respectful and understanding and that goes a long way. I'd like to see your name a lot less in my sits, but I think overall you're a solid member of the community and a worthy candidate for trusted. +1 brother, good luck.
  8. John Strange

    One of the things that I think you need to consider here is that DarkRP has around a hundred or so base rules. Some of these base rules, such as the idea of FearRP, have countless different variations and scenarios where it might or might not apply. This makes a unified stance, with equivalent punishments and treatment for different infractions regardless of the staff member, for every rule an exceedingly difficult thing to establish. I can only really speak for myself, but I will consistently ask other staff members how they interpret the MOTD or whether a particular rule applies in a particular scenario when I am made aware that my interpretation differs from the accepted norm. This will often come about because a player tells me "well this other admin told me it was okay", in which case I attempt to determine whether my interpretation is correct. Where possible, we really do try to get our punishments and interpretation of the rules aligned. In the past week or so alone, we've created a global stance on mass door ownership and more sensitively references to the recent shooting. As stated above, it is quite difficult to fix something we don't know about. So if you see a large inconsistency in interpretation of the rules, I urge you to talk to someone on the staff team about it (particularly Malcolm or another senior staff member). As a staff team we don't want gross inconsistencies in what we do, we don't want to create a confusing experience of the game for people and we're sorry if we have impacted negatively on yourself and the rest of the community by doing so.
  9. John Strange

    Adding an animation and/or cooldown for someone pulling out a weapon would probably be the most appropriate way of adding a consequence to breaking FearRP.
  10. John Strange

    By this very same logic, the moment anyone is banned for any reason it should be permanent. They're capable of doing it again, right? However, we have to consider the likelihood of it occurring. If chinkus is genuine, and he didn't understand that what he was doing was wrong then upon being informed of his behaviour he will adjust it in the future and as such the risk of him doing it again is (hopefully) relatively low.
  11. John Strange

    +1 Frankly, I haven't read the app at all. I'm judging this entirely off your in-game attitude and whether I believe you would use the commands properly. You have quite a solid understanding of the rules, and where necessary you communicate with staff to ensure you are following them. I have no doubt that you will use the powers and tools appropriately, and only where absolutely necessary (in the instance of voteban). You're a wonderful fellow, and I enjoy having you on the server. Good luck.
  12. John Strange

    I'd be willing to support a significant reduction in ban length, conditional on the fact that you actually read the damned rules this time around and that any significant rule breaking such as multiple RDMs would have greater consequences for you.
  13. John Strange

    +1, I really haven't ever seen you do anything negative on the server. Every interaction I've had with you has been positive and I believe that you are likely to continue this positivity into a moderator role.
  14. John Strange

    Tonight, 12am.
  15. John Strange

    Really can't say this is what I wanted to see at all. I'm sorry to see you leave, and I'm sorry if you felt that I had some part in that. Wish you all the best Ginsy.
×