Caraham

WHITELISTED
  • Content Count

    127
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
  • Country

    United Kingdom

Caraham last won the day on August 15

Caraham had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

90 Bacon Bandit

8 Followers

PERSONAL INFORMATION

  • Sex
    Male
    Spaghetti monster

Recent Profile Visitors

1,530 profile views
  1. InfectedRP be like 

     

    1. Shade

      Shade

      Share your gear with the rest of the camp and noone gets hurt. 

  2. I'm ok with you posting it so long as it's in full. There's nothing objectionable in there about the subject at hand, we acted on IC reasons.
  3. first, increase or maintain server pop, you just said the goal was to at least NOT LOSE players. second, anything you have to say about whatever came from it is irrelevant because the foundation it was built on was weak and it has collapsed because of it. third, you seem to be taking it personally because I never said I was going to "PVP, Initiate and annoy", any actions I took IC made IC sense. Last, your last paragraph, we did that and you all cried foul because you decided not to comply and didn't like the consequences. My main point was that the reason it failed was because the founding principal on which the RP hub was built was weak and making an rp hub for rp hub's sake isn't going to fix the population problem. Learn to not take things personally and see the point other people are making. Argue the point, not the person.
  4. Starting to sound like a broken record here, let it happen organically. Whether people like it or not, Novo was a staff project that was made for a single reason. It's main objective wasn't to act realistically or provide good RP, it was made to increase the server population. That's not to say that there wasn't good rp there, there was, my point is that it was not the founding principle. This is a problem because as a staff spot, the neutrality game is the best choice because otherwise you get accusations of bias really quickly if you start taking sides so obviously. With this being said, I feel the reason Novo has it's issues is because it has remained "neutral" not because it makes sense ICLY but because the staff do not want to take risks in order further roleplay because it might exclude some players from participating in RP there. That's fair because if your objective is 'keep the players' then a strategy to not lose is often the road taken. My advise is this, play to win, not to survive. By "Playing to win", it would have meant Novo would have taken risks, taken sides and been forthright with their beliefs. This is beneficial because people would have an RP reason to go to novo. It's always been: "lets go to Novo." "Why?", "Other people are there", "Who?", "I don't know." My foundational point is this: The people running Novo were too concerned with trying to avoid BadRP that they forgot what it meant to provide quality RP. They were neurotic and it caused them to be overprotective.
  5. Link to the source of punishment (report/post):https://www.infectedrp.com/profile/265-caraham/warnings/317/ Why the verdict is not fair: As anyone who was involved in the discussion in which 'the words' were said would know, we were having a discussion about multiple political issues for about an hour. Naturally this led to disagreements between those who were arguing different points of view on various controversial political topics. I then said that "Aeryes is the kind of guy to kill baby Hitler". Now on the surface, I could see how that looks bad. However, its a reference to the "Trolley thought experiement". I'll quote something I found very easily on google. "The basic moral question—could you kill one infant to save millions of lives?—is essentially a more dramatic version of the trolley problem, a thought experiment whereby a person must choose between a speeding trolley killing five people or diverting its course to kill one.". Now to be clear, I was poking fun at Aeryes by saying that some of his political positions were unethical. This, granted, was an extreme way of doing that, but not something that warrants a flame / flamebaiting warning? Additional statements/comments explaining your point of view: Warning says Flaming / flamebaiting. Which is it? Leads to another of my appeals where the definition of flamebaiting is so vague it seems to cover simple disagreements. What would you like to achieve with this appeal: Warning removed, Final warning removed, back to 28 points. What could you have done better?: I could have been straight forward in my statement that I believed Aeryes made unethical political arguments rather than mask it in dark humour.
  6. do groups not need rosters?
  7. Winter Chernarus is awful, its fun in the same way tall grass was fun. You'll be happy its there for the first couple of days but it will make you miserable. I know because I had to sit through 4 months of it on DayzRP.
  8. I have the music and am not staff / mvp / vip. “Contribute to the community and you’ll be awarded with profile music” <--- This is true. If you want it, do that ^
  9. I'm of the opinion that when it comes to rules on a roleplay server, less is more. With that said, I'll wait for that in depth response before I add anything. besides, I've made my concerns about the other rules known previously, no point in raising it here. (for real though, I'm the loophole guy. Whats up with that?)
  10. 8.0 - This rule has a loophole in that if either faction refuses to come to an agreement over the 5 battles then the war cannot end through hostility since the 'objectives' for a win through hostile action haven't been agreed and therefore have not been made. 8.0.1 - what is a 'proper decalration'? 8.2 - This sounds like a report generator if I ever saw one. People could hold each other up / perform hostile actions without knowing which faction the other is apart of. 8.3 - This sounds powergamey. Some people will not want to act injured for such a prolonged period of time especially since there is no time limit on a 'war'. 8.4 - This rule means nothing 8.6 - This is irrelevant, it is already covered in the other rules (people can take each others bases) 8.7 - Same as above 8.8 - Can be abused with a lack of a time limit, vulnerable to what I explained about 8.0. (As a suggestion to staff, if you want someone to find you loopholes, you should send me the draft of whatever rules you plan on releasing before you make it public. I'm literally the loophole guy)
  11. Link to the source of punishment (report/post): N/A. Will provide screenshots: Why the verdict is not fair: I'll be referring to each screenshot as it's own case starting from the top to the bottom. The first screenshot is me saying that Sc0ttie needs to try harder. This was interpretated as flame baiting and @PandaOG Gave 5 warning points for it. This verdict is nor fair because of the follow reasons: It is a light hearted way of saying that Sc0ttie could see himself redeemed if he literaly 'tries harder'. I would argue this is true since he did try harder and was unpermed with support from the community 'Hokage' is a title bestowed upon the strongest ninja in a village. The deeper meaning behind this is that through hard work, anything is possible. The combination of the above two bullet points actually shows that I'm making a point and lifting spirits in a subversive way as not everyone will get the meme. This is obvious since it was misinterpreted as flame baiting rather than motivational wisdom. The second Screenshot landed me 3 points from @PandaOG for being an 'unnecessary post'. Here are the problems with this warning: It was clearly a joke, the meaning behind it was that many people had been placed on the roster without their knowledge and had asked to be removed. I was making an ironic and 'funny' comment that rose spirits around the issue What is considered an 'unnecessary post' is subjective. Are jokes unnecessary? Who judges whats unnecessary? If I don't like what someone has said on any particular thread, can I call it unnecessary and have them get three points too? Where does it end? The third screenshot is again a joke that landed me points. This time awarded by @Xehara who gave me 5 points for flame baiting. Below are reasons for it not being fair: It was a joke that (again) had two deeper meanings. The first being that the "can't do the time, don't do the crime" phrase is known to be an 'RP boy' phrase (w/e that means). This is important because I was actually making a point within the meme. Sc0ttie had broken the rules and had received a punishment for it. I was making the argument that if you don't want points, don't break rules. I simply masked it within a joke to provide some humour. Similar to the 'unnecessary post' warning, what counts as flame baiting is subjective. I cannot be held accountable for what OTHER people say. That is ridiculous. If I say something that some people find offensive, it doesn't matter that I was offensive. What matters is the actual content of the message I am sending. Having a flame baiting rule is a dangerous precedant to set. It trifles free debate. It is known that people only share their true opinions in private discords and DM's and will dodge actually speaking their minds in general or even in memes. Additional statements/comments explaining your point of view: I have said all I need to above. What would you like to achieve with this appeal: Accumulated 13 points removed and the recent IBR timer being reduced to 2 months since the appeal would place me below the 20 points threashold. What could you have done better?: It is at all possible that staff wish to control the way in which people communicate on InfectedRP's platforms to a greater extent. I understand the reasoning behind this and had I realised this (if it is indeed the case) then I would have limited myself to simply make my points as directly as possible without masking them within humour.