Pseudonym

this is an incredibly based and REAL common sense pilled take.

oh I thought it might mean like you needed to have that charge on you 3 times. But yeah your interpretation seems more like how it's intended and common sense, but like..... i'm probably on my 40th offense on some of these crimes. Does that mean they can do the third offense level punishment every time I get charged with it from now on? It's stuff like that in the handbook that I really dislike. It's not even a gray area, it's just like undefined, unknowable.

After further reading, I'm not 100% sure my previous message is correct, but I don't think there is much differentiation between detainment and arrest, and reasonable suspicion vs probable cause in the handbook. The only real mention of "detain" is saying you can detain a civ if they are "interfering" with an investigation, and if you notify them why they are being detained. I believe I have been detained multiple times when I was completely innocent, without doing something that could be considered as interfering with an investigation. I will be paying more attention to that from now on. And, sadly, there is no use of "reasonable suspicion" in the handbook, which in the USA is generally the level required to detain someone. Given the handbook says: Let's take that serious and go through an example situation. Let's say someone is flying without a pilot license. If we look at the ticket guide we can see: Let's think about this more carefully. Probable cause, according to the handbook, is when you have grounds conduct a search OR make an arrest. Now, if you were to send someone to jail, it's pretty obvious that you would have to arrest them. Yet flying without a pilot license doesn't actually provide you the probable cause needed to be able to arrest them. So it's a crime that you can be jailed for if you do it 3 times, but it's not a crime that you can be arrested for. You'd have to be arrested on some other crime that grants probable cause, and then you could finally get sent to jail for this crime. Does this sound right? Does this sound like how it's intended? Does this sound like how it's actually played out on the server? I don't think so, yet if we accept your logic that people need probable cause to be arrested, it means that you can't arrest someone for these "Does not warrant probable cause" charges, and if you can't arrest them, how could you even ticket them either?

I don't believe you need probable cause to detain someone. That would mean anyone who is detained could be searched by the APD, which is incorrect.

they told me to leave the redzone, and not get back in the m900. how would I get back in the m900 and leave the area instead?

how so? as long as you don't restrain or detain them it seems fine to me. I landed a m900 at mushroom pro once trying to audit the apd, they told me to leave redzone, not get back in my m900, then they impounded it leaving me 2 km away from nearest garage even though I was in sight of the m900 outside of redzone, i wasn't detained, and it wasn't blocking a path or roadway. what officer in there right mind would impound a random m900 from someone who isn't wanted, and who you forced to leave the area of the m900?

idk but what's stopping the APD from telling them that? why does it matter that it's "governed by the APD" or not?

ok well then what's stopping them from saying "leave silver pro or be shot"?

I've been trying to audit the impound rules recently, and the most insane thing to me was that they could literally just detain you randomly when your not wanted, impound your vehicle mid legal run, then unrestrain you and leave. There is nothing that prevents that scenario.

i already wrote the code, on how to do it, in the workshop mod, and I have it here if you want to see it. i have the code

yes

yo dawg, respect. addiction is like one of the hardest things to deal with. i'm glad to see ur trying to make that step. good luck dawg!

were gonna miss you dawg!!!

not scammer but he did make me slightly sad recently. was doing uber eats in oly about 10 months ago, he asked for a water bottle and a tac bacon, i met him at the designated airfield while we were both enemy gang, and we managed to exchange the items and the money for those items without any hassle. but also a couple days ago he shot me when i was naked in athira after just spawning it that made me very sad

Milo actually engaged with my points intellectually AND respectfully, where as you lack either. It takes me a while to profile someone, but I think I'm getting there with Milo. If we look at his message: This is such an ELITE, KING TIER message right here. Remaining firm in his convictions, showing respect, yet not letting his own intellect be pranced around and evaded by someone attempting to undermine his walls, rather than tackle them directly. He manages to show his respect by challenging you with this message. And it's beautiful. If we look at other examples like his "apolocheese" for when mines had a 99% EV, or the way he lets rampant @'s on discord flow off his back like water. Milo is one of the best staff in this server, and I am not afraid to call many staff members retarded. Although I do not like using that word, I feel I become a worse more hateful person every time I say that word against someone with genuine emotion. If we look at @ Gwate , his comments definitely lacked respect, and despite saying he was not gonna proof read any of what I wrote, he kind of did. But what he had was intellectual rigor, and while I believe he has a long way to go, along with myself, and along with all of us, but especially with him. I really do respect that he engaged with my messages, challenging me with his views. And if we look at the messages from the sRNR, we can see what honestly appears to be to be the issue with the RNR in its current state. They are weak, their comments are nothing more than a drive by, they are unwilling to discuss the issues of how underpowered the RNR faction is, and how abusable the RNR is to the other two factions. They act as if it is not a problem, they act like because they fly around a xian every once in a while they are helping cultivate a good culture in the organization. They act as if contradictory logic in the handbooks is their strength, that is if they are even willing to admit there is logic in the handbook. I will say from my understanding marcus did basically have to solo write that entire thing, but maybe if you did that you could try accepting help from others when they have comments, rather than shunning them.

no collision lights is one i do regularlay because i don't have to take them hostage, but i get to have a fun littile interaction with the RNR, normally they just turn their collision lights off and go on with their merry way. but i guess i can start taking them hostage for 15 minutes and then killing them if APD doesn't come within that time. s My issue with this characterization is how you separate how hostage-taking does change the positive status of the individual arrested. When you hostage take someone, they are unable to participate in their active duties. You may be a medic in name when you are taken into a rebel area but you are not participating in any medical activities as you are unable to. If you took a medic hostage then forced them to do the role of a medic in a illegal area without another higher ranked medic present then you would be forcing them to break the rule. A better way to understand this is a medic violates a rule when in the pursuit of their duties they wilfully undermine or break a rule. Your mostly interpreting the handbook in a way which I thought would cause some more ridiculous outcomes, but would still be consistent, with the exception of some new stuff about medics being in a different state when they are a hostage. I think you might be conflating the medic being a hostage, with the medic being restrained. The general idea I'm getting from this is: If I restrained a medic, I can bring them anywhere, fed, illegal areas, gang turfs/gang base, whatever. But if I try to force them to do something in that situation, then it would be against the rules? How would this play out if I have a medic hostage, say fighting the cops at frog pro, then the cops tell him to "leave the area or be tazed", is he no longer allowed to stay there unless he is restrained? The cops can just completely nullify the ability of a medic to do anything when he is a hostage? In the rules it mentions hostages medic hostages being able to provide service to people they are instructed to, you can't do that while restrained, which means they do have some freedom of movement to refuse to be in that area. also, it turns out that even though an EMT "must" not enter a redzone unless escorted by APD or superior medic, there is apparently a surprise "common sense" exception, the same "common sense" which doesn't apply to being able to force them to turn off collision lights, a matter equivalent to trying to force a medic to drop their medkit apparently.

As stated in the preface: "I don't much care for saving myself a few extra hours so I can get back in the server faster. What I care about is being able to say that I followed the rules and the handbook reasonably, and that my actions were reasonable and did not justify a ban." REEEDUUUUUUUUCCCCCCEEED!!!! REEEEEEEEEEDUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCEEEEEEEDDD!!!!

I do agree with that point. but robbing medics is something that is double extra mentioned is against the rules, where as collision lights off is just a single "must", and there are either similar "must"s without "unless Y"s, that if we apply the collision light logic to, we have to apply to them as well. For example: can i take a EMT hostage, and bring them to a red zone? according to the handbook: "EMT's must be escorted by an Altis Police Department (APD) officer or higher ranking medic to enter an illegal area". So if I kidnap a medic, and we apply this collision light logic to this specific case, we can't take EMTs to an illegal area. Can I bring an EMT to a redzone? Can I force a medic to land in an open field when I tell them "land or be titaned? wtf is an OOC training event? I tried dispatching the APD but no one was telling me what was going on

I am going to extremely fret it because I heavily believe my innocence. My point remains something like: The must in this case is not like a gang turf where the wording is: "All Medic units (Meaning BOTH ground and aerial units) are prohibited to enter/participate at ALL conquest, gang base skirmish, or Active Turfs. If you are in the area of a conquest when it starts, leave the area IMMEDIATELY", but rather more like a: Like are medics just not allowed to land in a rural field if they are told "land or be titaned" because it would violate the handbook? This is one of those things where yeah it says medics can't do it, but it would have the obvious implicit exception of: unless someone is threatening you with a gun, or titan in this case. If i'm chasing a medic, trying to kill him, is he not allowed to speed in a hatchback because that would violate the handbook?

I am Pseudonym. I have been justly banned for an unjust reason. I am not taking it lying down, for any of my supporters, I grant you this piece of evidence for why you should no longer support me. I am no longer a good person, I am a more genuine form of evil than you can find on this server. As proof, I present to you my ban appeal (skip to the epilogue for a partial self dox +ramblings of the damned) BAN APPEAL IN ITS ENTIRETY: Title: Pseudonym's Ban Appeal or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Become Hate Exact ban message: RDM - Pseudonym - 1d - Strae PREFACE: Before we get further into this I do have to say: I have aspirations of joining the APD, RNR, and perhaps even the administrative/moderation team, so I care much more about the fact that this ban is on my record, than I do about the duration of the ban. Please, take your time analyzing my reasoning and thinking it over, I don't much care for saving myself a few extra hours so I can get back in the server faster. What I care about is being able to say that I followed the rules and the handbook reasonably, and that my actions were reasonable and did not justify a ban. Please, grab yourself a cup of tea, open up that physical edition of the RNR handbook that I know for a fact you have, and let's challenge our believes. Clip that banned me, relevant part starts at 5:24 Hello. I was banned for RDM for telling a medic "Collision lights off or die", and then proceeding to kill him because he did not turn his collision lights off. I believe this was an unjust ban. The reason for the ban, from my understanding, was something along the lines of: The RNR handbook says medics "Must operate with collision lights on at all times", therefore, if you tell a medic to turn their collision lights off, you are forcing them to violate the handbook. I disagree with this logic as I think it is pretty implicitly obvious that they would be allowed to turn their collision lights off if they were threatened with death. If we take this logic of: "If the handbook says medics have to do X, then you are unable to stop them from doing X, as you would be forcing them to violate the handbook", to the extreme, I think we can find some weird examples where this obviously does not seem to be the intent. I will grant, there are sections that say something akin to: "Medics must do X, unless Y", and there are sections that simply stop at "Medics must do X", but I do not believe every section that is simply "Medics must do X" means that you are not allowed to prevent medics from doing that X. there is no immediate exception saying "unless they are forced to", but i'm damn near 100% certain I can take a blueberry hostage, then bring him to a rebel even if that would seem like it ***violates*** this section of the handbook. I can also take them hostage and bring him to an active federal event, even though he "must" be escorted by an APD into an illegal zone, such as an active federal event. There are "Special Circumstances" for feds saying stuff like: "Medics must not enter, or loiter around, the Blackwater facility while an active robbery is in progress unless they are assisting the APD or being held hostage by civilians" which is a counter to my argument, but I would say it is arguable that it can still be interpreted by the "Criteria To Enter" that they are not allowed to, as they "must" be escorted by an APD officer or higher ranking medic. And that this fed special exception still doesn't even include normal illegal areas such as Rebels and Illegal gather/process spots, thus still if you were to bring an EMT to those areas, it would be forcing them to violate the handbook. If you have a medic hostage, or are just simply forcing them to hold their hands up for the time being, and don't allow them to leave a rebel outpost when it becomes appearnt the APD is conducting a rebel raid, you are FORCING the medic to violate the handbook again! just as you aren't allowed to tell a medic "collision lights off or die", you shouldn't be allowed to tell them "hands up or die" at a rebel when APD area coming, because they "must" leave the area and contact the APD. And if we are allowing the "Special Circumstances" overwriting other parts of the handbook excuse as we could for allowing EMTs to go into a fed if they are hostage, then surely we would need to allow that same "Special Circumstances" again to allow them to stop being a hostage, and to exit the rebel outpost. If you try to initiate on a medic, you must allow them to take their wetsuit off first, or they would be violating the handbook and you would be forcing the medic to do something against the handbook. This is an example of a "must" which eventually does get counteracted by an exception. You could say this hurts my case, but I think this just tends to show how inconsistent the handbook is when you take it in totality with other "must"s (or similar verbiage) that do not have an exception, and that therefore my actions were reasonable for a scholar of the handbook. Similiar to the diving gear, but this time I'd honestly allow it because firefighting gear is glitchy as fuck, so if they don't store it people are probably gonna blow up from glitches. So they should store it even if engaged. Here we have an exception to a must. Here medics MUST return to their regularly assigned duties, which means if an entire separate third party who hasn't kidnapped the medic comes and tries to kidnap the medic, that would be forcing the medic to violate the handbook as they "must" return to their regularly assigned duties. Yet I am very confident that medics can be held hostage back to back, as long as it is from separate, completely unrelated groups, even if this part of the handbook says otherwise. Imagine a scenario where you text a medic: "Land or be titaned!". What is the medic supposed to do? First, check if there is a hospital nearby they can land at, if not, check if there is an air garage they can land at, if not, check if there is "Any open, urban or rural, area with the sole intent to provide medical aid to a citizen who has requested a revive", given that landing in any of those areas would not have the sole intent of providing medical aid, as there is the secondary intent of not getting titaned, you are sadly not allowed to land at any of those areas. So if I message a medic "Land or be titaned" they are required to land at a hospital, or air garage, and if they land in an open field, they have violated the handbook. And if I titan them for seemingly flying off in some random direction, when in truth they are flying to a Hospital/Air Garage, then I have committed RDM. Now you could say that it says they "may" land at these locations, and that they could just land in a rural area anyway if they feel like it because there is nothing explicitly denying them, and I would have to say: Holy Moly you are thinking like Pseudonym! And secondarily I'd have to say: Why would this section exist, if it was just allowing medics to land at places they were already allowed to land? The only way to justify it's existence in the handbook would be if you treat it as a whitelist system where everything else is blacklisted by default. If you treat this list as allowing medics to do things which they are ALREADY allowed to do, that's kind of absurd. So no, I do not believe the "may" is simply allowing them to land and places they are allowed to land at anyway. I believe the "may" is telling them specifically which places, and in which circumstances, they are allowed to land at all. If I tell a medic to "Revive X or die!" after that medic was instructed by an APD officer not to enter an area, I would be forcing him to violate the handbook, as he is supposed to wait 5 minutes first. There is no exception for being forced at gunpoint. And if we allow that exception because it is "implicit" or "common sense", then again, why would we not allow that exception for turning off your collision lights or dying? EPILOGUE: all of what you previously read was written in about half an hour. but i really couldnt care less for it. theres something thats been gnawing at me much harder than the strict meaning of the rules. it's something i only really realized after i went outside for a bit to clear my mind after writing the first part Real photo of Pseudonym touching grass under the gaze of a street lamp at 12:38 AM its that i was trying to bring fun to the server. i was trying to have an interesting interaction, i was trying to go further than the cancer that is a simple "hands up or die", a phrase which i believe is a mockery of the server. ive taken to adding it and the end of any of my phrases when i interact with hostages just because of how absurd it is "hey bro whats up or die" "good luck or die" were in a "light rp" server, yet when someone attempts to go out of the standard "hands up or die" format, and does something with a more unique interaction of "collision lights off or die" its treated as if i killed a medic for refusing to enter a gang turf. it would have been better if i just held him hostage for 15 minutes then killed him cuz no APD came. collision lights are one of those things where medics are forced to do it for like a roleplay reason, to make it more immersive in a way that they are trying to be responsible pilots, yet when i try to do some kind of roleplay, granted still purely in the "or die" format, i'm punished for it. telling a medic to land a heli or die? 100% acceptable, telling a medic to turn their collision lights off or die? a tremendous violation of the handbook and pure RDM. i've genuinely seen myself become a worse and worse person on this server. i remember when i joined the server i imagined if i could just not dispute anyone else, they wouldn't dispute me. that was rather foolish. i've still managed to only have 1 real ban on record from my time on this server (a dpi ban, mixed in with dozens of VPN bans). since i've played more and more i've become even more hateful and spiteful. i've finally started IA-ing police because something switched, i went to the pyrgos casino, got killed by enemy gangmember infront of like 5 police, anad they did absolutely nothing. that's something that really got to me, even if i didn't realize it in the moment. but i really felt that after i saw that ban message, and when i watched the video from the medics POV i could just sense that switch again, that i don't care about the RNR anymore, i could have IA-ed you guys dozens of times over, anad now you burn me? well then fucking watch what happens if i'm actually trying. i don't think that's good to feel like, but it is what i feel like. i used to try not to swear as much on the server, i thought it would be interesting if i could manage to not insult any other players, but i let that slip and it just kept slipping i've gotten to the point of calling people the r word and referencing people as "n word" (verbatim, saying the "n" then "word", not the actual full word its self, yet). i really thought that i could just to just be purely nice, but i failed. i didn't have a hard set boundary to not pass, so it just kept slipping and slipping till i don't even know if i have a boundary anaymore "You asked me why I let Dom go. I did it, because at that moment, I respected him more than I did myself. One thing I've learned from Dom is that nothing really matters unless you have a code.". I had a code, but I lost it, and i feel no desire to get it back with the people i'm sorrounded by. i don't know if they ruined me or if i was just ruined from the start and it took a push to really realize it. when i started really reading the server rules and handbooks, i started pushing things to really show of their absurdity, and that they need to be fixed. i was really trying not to IA people, i just wanted to show what was wrong with the rules if we pushed them to hard, and that they could do with a few adjustments. David Miller hoenstly fixed most of my problems with the server rules by introducing the details and examples, it finally felt like there was a path forward for all the secret interpretations of the rules. and that is still how i feel about them. but now i'm trying to push people, not the rules. i want them to fail, not the rules or the handbook to fail. i want people to expereince pain. I dont feel like the good guy anymore. I don't deserve to be unbanned, i deserve to be permenently banned from how I want to treat every player on this server. but I want to be unbanned. not because i deserve to be banned, but because the rules don't deserve to have banned me, you don't deserve to have banned me. your nothing better than every other fucked up piece of shit on this server, but i'm nothing better either, and i'm gonna bring down every fucker around me. I request to be unbanned.

why? is there a correct timeframe to use cheats? is it better to always cheat, or cheat then stop cheating, or no cheats then cheats, like if not cheating, then cheating is bad, then how about: cheats, no cheats, cheats, is that better?