Changes to punishments for uninvolved posts

[Avgar]

Lol, most of the "I'll take my warning" don't even stem from the courthouse. They stem from when administrators try to silence people's opinions.

Everyone has an opinion. If we allow just about anyone voice their opinions in courthouse cases (which would happen all the damn time in the courthouse these days) then the threads would be a mess (and they were).

Anyways,who is the judge of who is involved, what actually makes one involved ?

As I could be standing across the street from where it happened and claim I am involved but say that administrator didn't see me there, he gives me a 50% warning level due to administrator negligence ?

Show me the cases where administrator negligence happened in a situation that you described and we'll look into it. Perhaps it should be more explicitly defined what being involved means and what doesn't, fair enough. But when there's doubt then there's no punishment. You know full well people chime in most of the time when they have not even witnessed the situation and are just going by what is written in the thread or their own opinion, nothing else.

Also do moderators receive warning levels as they should, I am literally sick to the back teeth of reading threads in the courthouse and Reebs has stuck his nose in because he can.

Remove that right, only people who are involved, or are the administrator who is judging the case should be allowed to post.

Moderators are part of the staff team and can voice their opinion on court cases. They can even deal with court cases, investigate them, etc. From what I've seen Reebs doesn't post nonsense, but assessments of certain situations. If you can prove that moderators do not add to courthouse cases feel free to hit up the SAs with a forum PM and we may consider revoking the ability for moderators to deal with them.

[Adamantite]

Everyone has an opinion. If we allow just about anyone voice their opinions in courthouse cases (which would happen all the damn time in the courthouse these days) then the threads would be a mess (and they were).

Bullshit.
Pure bullshit and you know it.

[Avgar]

Everyone has an opinion. If we allow just about anyone voice their opinions in courthouse cases (which would happen all the damn time in the courthouse these days) then the threads would be a mess (and they were).

Bullshit.
Pure bullshit and you know it.

You haven't seen any of the more popular cases that had an abundance of uninvolved posters, most of them saying 'I'll take my warning, but X Y Z'?

Also, is it really necessary to flip and proclaim everything is 'bullshit', 'a joke' or that people are 'braindead', etc.? Is it that difficult to have a civil discussion?

[mintblackbeard]

Great change. This was definately needed.

[Greed^]

Seems fair

[Midget]

Yh well, wasn't needed tbh but guess this is all FL can do now apparently..

[King Kickass]

"What is right isn't always popular and what is popular isn't always right" - Someone i forget.

[Agorith]

Yh well, wasn't needed tbh but guess this is all FL can do now apparently..

How would you argue it was not needed?

To be fair, some constructive critisism could go a long way.
However witty/sassy comments like yours prove you choose to be ignorant.
Ignorant to the fact you know we do a hell of a lot more than some of you like to portray us.

The ''change to punishments for uninvolved posts'' internal discussion barely took any effort, because why would it have?
Whenever we do anything, we'll get sourpusses complaining about it because it's not the ''update'' they personally wanted.

Where's all the positivity at, I am certain this change will be for the better as it's a simple rule we can now enforce with harsher punishments when violated, which on its turn will leave the courthouse section looking cleaner than ever, making it easier on the eyes for everyone.

[Zecon]

Quite frankly this doesn't really bother me and there is only one negative I can see from this and that is 'innocent' posters being warned with insufficient reason.

This is because individual players may have different concepts on what 'involved' exactly is compared to the admins. For example a player may consider "Oh I was on the server the same time as X and saw a small bit of whatever happening" or "I was in teamspeak with X and it's true etc etc" as involved, and may think they weren't violating any rules. However the admins may think that "Oh you didn't see enough of the situation at all to give any sufficient input to the case - warned".

That's the only negative I see, which means that players who feel they weren't violating forum rules now get a harsher punishment, because to be fair the rule of "a witness or in any other IMPORTANT relation to the Ban Request." is still rather vague as once again people have different concepts of importance.

[Midget]

Yh well, wasn't needed tbh but guess this is all FL can do now apparently..

How would you argue it was not needed?

To be fair, some constructive critisism could go a long way.
However witty/sassy comments like yours prove you choose to be ignorant.
Ignorant to the fact you know we do a hell of a lot more than some of you like to portray us.

The ''change to punishments for uninvolved posts'' internal discussion barely took any effort, because why would it have?
Whenever we do anything, we'll get sourpusses complaining about it because it's not the ''update'' they personally wanted.

Where's all the positivity at, I am certain this change will be for the better as it's a simple rule we can now enforce with harsher punishments when violated, which on its turn will leave the courthouse section looking cleaner than ever, making it easier on the eyes for everyone.

Rather not start a flame war with you. Cheers