Character
Rules
Events
Map
RP Points
Proplimits
Statistics
Steam Group
Members
Hall of Fame
Team
Bans
Blacklists
Warnings
Changelog
Content
02-04-2019, 04:55 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 01:07 AM by Fearless Community.
Edit Reason: Checked Encoding
)
Though I do not have direct connection with this case, I have some valuable insight and a crystal clear demonstration as to why this case is extraordinary weak. The following are the clear demonstrations as to why:
There is one point in this case which continues to make an appearance. This case is that GHOSTK1LL3R does not have enough evidence against him to be found guilty of breaking a ToS rule. This reply is aimed to simplify this issue:
This is a courthouse. As a virtual courthouse with rules resembling laws, cases are also dealt with on a basis similar to law. The legal basis in any criminal case, which this would effectively be, is that it must be evident beyond all reasonable doubt. That is the standard of proof required to convict, or in this case to ban/punish. For example, this recent case ruled by 'Tomo', a supervising administrator, was denied on the basis of evidence not reaching the required standard; https://www.fearlessrp.net/showthread.php?tid=91536
If there is no reasonable doubt, which was set out in the UK by the Criminal Appeal in Rex v. Davies. It broadly states that if there is a genuine possibility, albeit not even a likely, that the defendant did not commit the crime they are deserving of an acquittal. In comparison, this court system, despite being for rules rather than a legal system, acts on the same principal. Those, like above, who are not proven to such a standard are also deserving of their player report being denied, as is the case with most cases.
That being said, there must be sufficient evidence for each element of the rule being broken.If one element fails, the entire prosecution does. You cannot be half guilty of murder, for example. In this case, Section 1.12 of the Terms of Service Agreement is the key problem. In this section is states what cannot be done while using these services though does not directly condone trading Steam items (an accepted third party application in the Terms of Service) to other members. In addition, Section 1.9 of General rules could also be looked at to fill the gap in the Terms of Service regarding this specific issue. It seems this rule is based mainly on previous cases such as https://www.fearlessrp.net/showthread.ph...game+items .
There is no doubt that asking various new players, who start with given cash, to join the server in order to benefit one player financially is a loophole. This means that if the story of OP can be proven, it would no doubt render GHOSTK1LL3R guilty. However, this case is of course centred around the 'standard of proof' which revolves around evidence given by OP.
Evidence
OP's evidence resolves around an account on a third party application; MPGH Forums. In the Terms of Service it is ruled that you accept the terms, including the rules, for only FearlessRP and third party application revolving around FearlessRP, such as Steam and Discord. MPGH is not involved in FearlessRP and so their evidence, no matter how blatant, should not be considered due to the Terms and Conditions (which include all rules linked to FearlessRP, including 1.9) not applying to that service. Hence, this case cannot succeed.
Nevertheless, lets suppose for a moment that we can accept evidence from this third party source and use it in this case. It took my no more than a few minutes to create this thread on the same website: https://www.mpgh.net/forum/showthread.ph...st14211819 . I would like to make clear, before somebody attempts to place a PR on me out of spite, that the thread linked is not an FL member and they is not to be taken seriously. It is simply an example.
In the above counterexample I was very easily able to create an account without much effort, name it as I pleased which could have easily been an FL player's Steam name and create this post. I could have also, if it were a genuine steam account, made 'elliott' into a link to a steam account of my choice without having to have any possession over the Steam account.I have decided not to do this to avoid causing trouble by choosing a real player.
As it is clear not only is the rule an unspoken one, but the last time it was confirmed was in the time of Temar. GHOSTK1LL3R, being an experienced FL player, will have been aware of it and hence has not broken it. The accuser's case is that IF the unreliable third party application is reliable it MAY show that GHOSTK1LL3R broke this unclear rule. One cannot be found guilty on such a balance of probabilities and with so much doubt in one's mind. It does not come close to meeting the standard of proof required to secure a guilty verdict and is not worthy of punishment based on 3 overwhelming factors; Reliability of MPGH, proof that GHOSTK1ll3R was the poster and the specific rule broken.
Apologies for not being directly involved in the case, though I believe this any have been helpful insight. I express no bias towards either GHOSTK1LL3R or OP and simply stated facts rather than an opinion. I hope this was helpful, and apologise if you see this as 'spam'. Though looking at other replies in this thread, I see no harm in this post.
There is one point in this case which continues to make an appearance. This case is that GHOSTK1LL3R does not have enough evidence against him to be found guilty of breaking a ToS rule. This reply is aimed to simplify this issue:
This is a courthouse. As a virtual courthouse with rules resembling laws, cases are also dealt with on a basis similar to law. The legal basis in any criminal case, which this would effectively be, is that it must be evident beyond all reasonable doubt. That is the standard of proof required to convict, or in this case to ban/punish. For example, this recent case ruled by 'Tomo', a supervising administrator, was denied on the basis of evidence not reaching the required standard; https://www.fearlessrp.net/showthread.php?tid=91536
If there is no reasonable doubt, which was set out in the UK by the Criminal Appeal in Rex v. Davies. It broadly states that if there is a genuine possibility, albeit not even a likely, that the defendant did not commit the crime they are deserving of an acquittal. In comparison, this court system, despite being for rules rather than a legal system, acts on the same principal. Those, like above, who are not proven to such a standard are also deserving of their player report being denied, as is the case with most cases.
That being said, there must be sufficient evidence for each element of the rule being broken.If one element fails, the entire prosecution does. You cannot be half guilty of murder, for example. In this case, Section 1.12 of the Terms of Service Agreement is the key problem. In this section is states what cannot be done while using these services though does not directly condone trading Steam items (an accepted third party application in the Terms of Service) to other members. In addition, Section 1.9 of General rules could also be looked at to fill the gap in the Terms of Service regarding this specific issue. It seems this rule is based mainly on previous cases such as https://www.fearlessrp.net/showthread.ph...game+items .
There is no doubt that asking various new players, who start with given cash, to join the server in order to benefit one player financially is a loophole. This means that if the story of OP can be proven, it would no doubt render GHOSTK1LL3R guilty. However, this case is of course centred around the 'standard of proof' which revolves around evidence given by OP.
Evidence
OP's evidence resolves around an account on a third party application; MPGH Forums. In the Terms of Service it is ruled that you accept the terms, including the rules, for only FearlessRP and third party application revolving around FearlessRP, such as Steam and Discord. MPGH is not involved in FearlessRP and so their evidence, no matter how blatant, should not be considered due to the Terms and Conditions (which include all rules linked to FearlessRP, including 1.9) not applying to that service. Hence, this case cannot succeed.
Nevertheless, lets suppose for a moment that we can accept evidence from this third party source and use it in this case. It took my no more than a few minutes to create this thread on the same website: https://www.mpgh.net/forum/showthread.ph...st14211819 . I would like to make clear, before somebody attempts to place a PR on me out of spite, that the thread linked is not an FL member and they is not to be taken seriously. It is simply an example.
In the above counterexample I was very easily able to create an account without much effort, name it as I pleased which could have easily been an FL player's Steam name and create this post. I could have also, if it were a genuine steam account, made 'elliott' into a link to a steam account of my choice without having to have any possession over the Steam account.I have decided not to do this to avoid causing trouble by choosing a real player.
As it is clear not only is the rule an unspoken one, but the last time it was confirmed was in the time of Temar. GHOSTK1LL3R, being an experienced FL player, will have been aware of it and hence has not broken it. The accuser's case is that IF the unreliable third party application is reliable it MAY show that GHOSTK1LL3R broke this unclear rule. One cannot be found guilty on such a balance of probabilities and with so much doubt in one's mind. It does not come close to meeting the standard of proof required to secure a guilty verdict and is not worthy of punishment based on 3 overwhelming factors; Reliability of MPGH, proof that GHOSTK1ll3R was the poster and the specific rule broken.
Apologies for not being directly involved in the case, though I believe this any have been helpful insight. I express no bias towards either GHOSTK1LL3R or OP and simply stated facts rather than an opinion. I hope this was helpful, and apologise if you see this as 'spam'. Though looking at other replies in this thread, I see no harm in this post.