Jump to content
MUX Global Community

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'lawlessness 5000'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General Forum
    • News
    • General Discussion
    • Information
    • Support
    • Questions
    • Suggestions
    • Bug Reports
    • Events
    • Market
    • Guilds
    • Tavern
    • International
    • Prison
    • Complaints and appeals

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Found 1 result

  1. 1. Triton 2. VeryMuch/Type-R 3. 4.18 Malicious acts against the interests of the server and its players. Explanation: You are regularly and on purpose provoke other players to break the rules and then you create topics on them in the Prison section with the intention to ban them. 4. First of all I will talk right now About player HeagbIkBaT judgement only. I have a mixed feelings about 4.18 warning issued to player as rule states "you provoke him so you may screen it and make a topic to punish him" no topics were created from this player at all so why adjust such rule to something that never happened? Calling someone "Sosamba" is more for gigs and LOL's I think people from server will agree on that without any hard intentions to provoke or offend also 4.18 for sosamba isnt too much? Maybe I have missed something certainly "Rules for screenshots" does not state anything about additional refferences, how so you may shift everything up to your mind. Old screens = additional ref(how old up to 6 months or maybe dated 2 years ago are valid too??) nobody knows. In my honest opinion it is somehow stupid to reffer to an old screenshots I havent seen any of senate reviewing any topics with screendate expired or this is the first and very very special case. There are no screens in prison topic UP TO DATE which could lead to any possible warnings/ban, still dont see anything game breaking in those screens from player HeagIKBaT. From this wrap up maybe somebody else from the list has been given wrong verdict, someone should look into this closer. If possible may I receive explanation from Senate/Administrators with more in-depth details on verdict? Thanks in advance. Cheers. @Type-R @VeryMuch @Ivan Nebraska
  • Create New...