Jump to content

SteScotland

Member
  • Content count

    121
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

SteScotland last won the day on June 20

SteScotland had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

26 Excellent

About SteScotland

  • Rank
    Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

216 profile views
  1. [SALE] Vinewood house - 3 car garage

    Sorry dude, I retract my offer. Acquired something else. Best of luck with your sale though!
  2. Player(s) being reported: Stranger 9875_7446, Stranger 6409_179, Stranger 7481_5575 & Stranger 4671_6155 Date of rule breach: 2018.06.22- Time of rule breach: around 00:26 GMT Your characters name: Steven Patronus Other players involved: Specific rule broken: 5.3.1. Deathmatch is the act of killing or hurting another player or damaging their property intentionally without having a valid in-character reason to do that. Breaking this rule repeatedly will end in a permanent ban. 6.2.2. Kill on Sight is only allowed for these specific reasons to kill, and all other reasons to kill must have roleplay involved. Witnessing first hand threat or attempt of murder against you or a close friend. Actively kidnapping or taking hostage a close friend. Large scale theft of greater than $75,000 in value (excluding vehicles). How did the player break the rule?: I was stopped at the side of the road a bike comes along side, i hear them say is he exiled, i think he's exiled. (I'm wearing a mask) they then tell me to get my mask off, I don't bite to them and then soon drive off. When i look behind me, I see they are chasing (at this moment i toggle the record key) During the admin situation, they try to come up with a number of reasons to DM all of which were stated as Invalid by @Triple Seven. There second final reason to commit the DM was that i had tried to kill lexa at LSC and then Phill comes out with i had tried to kill him. Regardless of what ever evidence they present, please do not forget the crucial point - I'm wearing a mask, they have no way of knowing who I am. From my understanding this also doesn't give them rights to shoot my vehicle, nor to shoot me, the shooting starts very early on in the chase. Evidence of rule breach: EDIT: At 00:01 You can see Lexa_Ross (6409_179) is the passenger of the bike, opening fire on me. So please can you provide what reasons you had to do so, You said you had KOS on me. Also added 6.2.2 as a further rule breach, as two of the offenders involved claimed to have KOS on me.
  3. Weapon Attachments for Faction Guns

    Agreed. SWAT are OP as it is. Massive -1
  4. [SALE] Vinewood house - 3 car garage

    $280,000 Let me know.
  5. It's got absolute nothing to do with post count, again this is one of your silly assumptions.
  6. Well stop disregarding the key points/facts which are very relevant, in turn I wouldn't have to repeat myself.
  7. In seems you missed/disregarded the key points & facts Here they all are again. After coming to a complete stop in the middle of an intersection (which caused me to collide with the back of your vehicle) - you then begin to yell at us over VOIP asking why we are following. This indicated that your windows were down. We didn't respond over voip as we aren't required to do so. You then use a /do to describe something - "/do cant hear windows are up" Which quite clearly was not TRUE. You spoke to us expecting a reply, this tells us your windows are down (We can hear you, You can hear us) - However to suit the situation you turn this around (without the required RP), which can be seen as lying in a /do. Lets clear this up. You yell at us via VOIP expecting a reply, we didn't reply as we arent required to do so. (this does not mean our windows are up) You then proceed further down the hill then describe an action (/do cant hear windows are up) an action that was never made, there was no /me (to perform an action) - so ultimately your /do (which describes an action) -once again an action that was never made is both invalid and a lie... So between us being able to hear you at the top of the hill and then moving down the hill a bit, at what point was the window raised? - It's clear from your own evidence there was never any action made to raise the window. Fundamentally due to your very low standard of role playing this report has surfaced, and quite clearly has no grounds.
  8. After coming to a complete stop in the middle of an intersection (which caused me to collide with the back of your vehicle) - you then begin to yell at us over VOIP asking why we are following. This indicated that your windows were down. We didn't respond over voip as we aren't required to do so. You then use a /do to describe something - "/do cant hear windows are up" Which quite clearly was not TRUE. You spoke to us expecting a reply, this tells us your windows are down (We can hear you, You can hear us) - However to suit the situation you turn this around (without the required RP), which can be seen as lying in a /do. Lets clear this up. You yell at us via VOIP expecting a reply, we didn't reply as we arent required to do so. (this does not mean our windows are up) You then proceed further down the hill then describe an action (/do cant hear windows are up) an action that was never made, there was no /me (to perform an action) - so ultimately your /do (which describes an action) -once again an action that was never made is both invalid and a lie... So between us being able to hear you at the top of the hill and then moving down the hill a bit, at what point was the window raised? - It's clear from your own evidence there was never any action made to raise the window. Fundamentally due to your very low standard of role playing this report has surfaced, and quite clearly has no grounds.
  9. Lets reiterate everything we said to make it clear. @0:05 the reporting parties yell at us from inside their vehicle (whose windows are smashed out on their own video) @0:36 they lie in a /do by saying that now their windows are magically up, without ever having /me'd putting them up (much less fixing their windows) @1:02 they decide to take it to /b rather than RPing and reporting later. We are not the parties who messed up here. Initially, we assumed you weren't lying about a "/me rolls window up", which is why we apologised to Triple Seven, but now we can see that the /me never happened, and honestly is nonsense given the condition of your vehicle and the way you yourself acted in shouting at us from the comfort of your own car over VOIP. They were shot for calling the police, an honestly self-evident end to what was happening there. The MG accusation is silly, as both were already aiming at you, ready to fire if you did something (like exit the car). There's no more to be said really... If an admin wants more information, I'll reply to them, but that's all from us. This is a joint reply as the other party involved is unable to access forums. - In conclusion: You lie in a /do You lie to an ADMIN on scene - You said there was /me - when quite clearly there wasn't. (We apologised to Triple on scene as we took your word that there was a /me - after reviewing the video it's clear that there was NOT a /me" You stopped in the middle of an intersection, causing a collision, why? to mouth off at us VIA VOIP (this is made it clear to us that your windows were in fact down or broken) Lets quote something from one of your above replies "After badger (Moe) stated, you ignored my call outs so i then assumed your windows were also fully closed" So this report is based on an assumption as quite clearly seen from above. You could've easily asked in a do /do would you guys be able to hear us? or /do would your windows be up. Instead you act on your "assumption" that we wouldn't hear you - and begin to call the police, which led to you guys being attacked. Had you not wanted us to hear you on the phone - You should've used /low & you should've /me raises windows (or something alike) It's not our problem you didn't. I'll further reply if and when required by an admin.
  10. @0:05 the reporting parties yell at us from inside their vehicle (whose windows are smashed out on their own video) @0:36 they lie in a /do by saying that now their windows are magically up, without ever having /me'd putting them up (much less fixing their windows) @1:02 they decide to take it to /b rather than RPing and reporting later. We are not the parties who messed up here. Initially, we assumed you weren't lying about a "/me rolls window up", which is why we apologised to Triple Seven, but now we can see that the /me never happened, and honestly is nonsense given the condition of your vehicle and the way you yourself acted in shouting at us from the comfort of your own car over VOIP. They were shot for calling the police, an honestly self-evident end to what was happening there. The MG accusation is silly, as both were already aiming at you, ready to fire if you did something (like exit the car). There's no more to be said really... If an admin wants more information, I'll reply to them, but that's all from us. This is a joint reply as the other party involved is unable to access forums. Happy RP'n
  11. [FOR SALE] Fully Modded Trophy Truck

    "With a sensible offer"
  12. [FOR SALE] Fully Modded Trophy Truck

    Throw a sensible offer to me.
  13. After having a few hours out and further thinking this whole thing out. With compassion, I'd like to request that this post/report be closed with no action. Best Wishes. Ste
  14. Of course you're being salty, your going on about things that are completely irrelevant as seen above.. Crying about 3rd person usage and so on. In regards to Irish discord (which is also irrelevant to this report), is my number there? have i used the info ICLY? Well then. You're barking up the wrong tree and continuously derailing the report; The report is against you two guys for clear combat logging. I've got nothing more to say to you @Xylum. I'll await admin reply/verdict then take it from there. Best Wishes!
  15. How did I hear you were leaving for the night? You still have not explained this.. He was not instructed to in OOC (Why would I instruct someone what to do over OOC - that'd clear MG/mixing.) There was much more chat prior to the recording being started - which starts with only OOC being visible. Why are you even questioning why I was intending to rob? that's pretty irrelevant at this stage. Most people go to a house to take a stash out or vice versa, it doesn't take a genius to work that out. In regards to using 3rd person, if you feel like I've broken a rule you're more than welcome to make a report, why are you so salty anyway @Xylum. Can't you be mature about this?!
×