AA AwestruckBullet
#11
(05-12-2017, 07:52 PM)General Rickets Wrote: Too my understanding who is actually posting this case? Balls how are you involved? Why is Dreebot posting this? As far as I am aware Dreebot was not even online.

Does it matter? No it doesn't
#12
(05-12-2017, 07:55 PM)DreeBott Wrote:
(05-12-2017, 07:52 PM)General Rickets Wrote: Too my understanding who is actually posting this case? Balls how are you involved? Why is Dreebot posting this? As far as I am aware Dreebot was not even online.

Does it matter? No it doesn't

Yes it does actually because that means you are not involved at all?

#13
Let's get this straight: Spawning banned props is not abuse. It is one of the many perks of being an Administrator.

When spawning the Yacht, I had no intention of driving/utilising it as a vehicle, so saw no issue. It was only being used as a prop for a short meeting. Other Administrators in the past have done such acts like spawning vehicle props outside builds (such as the offices).

As said, I was not driving the prop. I did not add thrusters. I did not add hoverballs. It was not drivable.
Kind Regards,

[Image: nw3ghiD.gif]
#14
(05-12-2017, 07:55 PM)General Rickets Wrote:
(05-12-2017, 07:55 PM)DreeBott Wrote:
(05-12-2017, 07:52 PM)General Rickets Wrote: Too my understanding who is actually posting this case? Balls how are you involved? Why is Dreebot posting this? As far as I am aware Dreebot was not even online.

Does it matter? No it doesn't

Yes it does actually because that means you are not involved at all?

Well, as long as I posted the thread and provided proove, I am.
#15
Can you prove how you are involved then? I fail to see any evidence directly linking you to this case.

#16
(05-12-2017, 07:50 PM)General Rickets Wrote: The way this post is worded it seems more like a personal attack towards Awestruck.

The post is in no way a personal attack towards AwestruckBullet, as I don't have anything against him.
I am simply pointing out what I believe is abuse.


(05-12-2017, 07:50 PM)General Rickets Wrote: The yacht was not spawned no due to the member currently being AFK as far as I am aware.

You are saying two different things. Which one is true?
You started out with saying as follows: "We have a yacht in the clan already however the player was AFK and unable to spawn it so we improvised."
Oh bollocks... I lost my Signature!
#17
(05-12-2017, 07:57 PM)AwestruckBullet Wrote: Let's get this straight: Spawning banned props is not abuse. It is one of the many perks of being an Administrator.

When spawning the Yacht, I had no intention of driving/utilising it as a vehicle, so saw no issue. It was only being used as a prop for a short meeting. Other Administrators in the past have done such acts like spawning vehicle props outside builds (such as the offices).

As said, I was not driving the prop. I did not add thrusters. I did not add hoverballs. It was not drivable.

You are still abusing the main reason of the yacht, which is to go on it and not to be driven. Why would people spend $2+ million if they could just spawn it, like you did. The lake has hardly any room to drive it whatsoever.
#18
(05-12-2017, 07:59 PM)Balls Wrote:
(05-12-2017, 07:50 PM)General Rickets Wrote: The way this post is worded it seems more like a personal attack towards Awestruck.

The post is in no way a personal attack towards AwestruckBullet, as I don't have anything against him.
I am simply pointing out what I believe is abuse.


(05-12-2017, 07:50 PM)General Rickets Wrote: The yacht was not spawned no due to the member currently being AFK as far as I am aware.

You are saying two different things. Which one is true?
You started out with saying as follows: "We have a yacht in the clan already however the player was AFK and unable to spawn it so we improvised."

I am not, there is a Yacht owned by a clan member but he was AFK so unable to spawn it thus meaning there was no Yacht vehicle spawned.

#19
(05-12-2017, 08:01 PM)General Rickets Wrote:
(05-12-2017, 07:59 PM)Balls Wrote:
(05-12-2017, 07:50 PM)General Rickets Wrote: The way this post is worded it seems more like a personal attack towards Awestruck.

The post is in no way a personal attack towards AwestruckBullet, as I don't have anything against him.
I am simply pointing out what I believe is abuse.


(05-12-2017, 07:50 PM)General Rickets Wrote: The yacht was not spawned no due to the member currently being AFK as far as I am aware.

You are saying two different things. Which one is true?
You started out with saying as follows: "We have a yacht in the clan already however the player was AFK and unable to spawn it so we improvised."

I am not, there is a Yacht owned by a clan member but he was AFK so unable to spawn it thus meaning there was no Yacht vehicle spawned.

Like I stated before, just because someone is AFK and stuff you're not allowed to abuse your powers.
#20
(05-12-2017, 07:57 PM)AwestruckBullet Wrote: Let's get this straight: Spawning banned props is not abuse. It is one of the many perks of being an Administrator.

When spawning the Yacht, I had no intention of driving/utilising it as a vehicle, so saw no issue. It was only being used as a prop for a short meeting. Other Administrators in the past have done such acts like spawning vehicle props outside builds (such as the offices).

As said, I was not driving the prop. I did not add thrusters. I did not add hoverballs. It was not drivable.

As connbob stated, the intention of having a yacht is rarely to drive it around as the lake is too small for that.
The main reason to why people would buy the yacht, would to spawn it somewhere and walk around on it, throwing parties or whatever. Which you abused your way to.

I agree with you, that one of the perks of being an Administrator would be to spawn banned props.
Some props are simply banned because they are too heavy, too big or whatever. But props that gains you an advantage etc should stay banned for everyone.
Oh bollocks... I lost my Signature!


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)