Sausage Clicker

Hey, We have asked that all admins would be revised on the extension rules we have on our server, we also recognise that hamo is a trial admin and is doing the best he can. The point of a trial admin is to, wait hold up lemme check, it's (now dont be surprised) to learn. Hamo is really trying his best and for that, we are willing to stay with him provided he is willing to learn and change. In addition to compliance on our part, we would also like you to comply with changing your name. Let it be known, that if you don't it will show up with Bad_Name. Thanks for the report, but for now we will take limited action.

Shadow, as someone who watched the demo, I dont believe anything shown here comes anything close to report worthy. I can understand how you're annoyed at players trolling, and that admins can't be perfect, but I think blaming everything on one man has the wrong idea. We will all try to better ourselves as admins, but please also try to understand that we're all doing our best. Thank you for taking the time to express this concern.

Steam id: STEAM_1:0:439997897

7

Ultimately css > csgo ze_stalker_ultimate_v2_3 ze_predator_ultimate_v3 ze_tilex_ultimate_v2_14s Special Kicker: Unrestricted Bhop on Stalker and Tilex Unrestricted Bhop for @CT only on Pred Tilex Extreme Boss

@checkstersave it for the trial XD

@William! :D yeah sorry mate, that was the joke ? #unbanpivo

Your Honour, almighty Klixus, this is a criminal case under Section 18 of the Online Crimes Act 2001 concerning the banning of Frodo (paying nide admin) by Checkster, an insignificant glob of snot trying to act c00l. The defence DENIES that Checkster's banning was a result of a deliberate act to knife zombies on the sever by Frodo himself. The defence notes that this is a criminal case and henceforth, the prosecution has a duty to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the alleged offence. This means the prosecution must prove (a) that Checkster was banned by Frodo, (b) that the ban was caused by a deliberate act of the accused, and, (c) that at the time the act was done, it was done with either an intention to kill or to hamper the duties of an on-duty admin. Your Honour, the defence does not deny that Checkster was banned by Frodo. The key facts of the matter are thus: • The defendant, Mr Frodo is a 44-year-old legend of the C:SS server Nide • Frodo plays on the server almost every day and gets at least 7 mako solos every night (hellz extreme 3). • This year a new coordinator, Klixus, made amendments in regards to the management of the server. Appointing Checkster, an inexperienced admin out of the blue, probably due to sexual favours. • The defendant tried to contact the Klixus via both phone and email multiple times about his decisions however never received a response. • Frodo expressed anger over the confusing admin changes however no threats to harm were present • On this morning on rooftop runaway, the defendant snapped at the constant nagging and bad decisions from his "senior" and got kicked by him for no reason! • The defendant returned to the server, where he proceeded to ban Checkster for inappropriate use of admin powers, not wanting another pivo. • Checkster then stated in private dms to "sausage clicker" [14:35] checkster: I can unbann and I have console so hes banned now • Checkstar unbaned himself and proceed to ban Frodo for a day claiming that he was in the right. [14:36] checkster: how stupid are you when u ban a senior admin lel • On the morning where details about mako v7 were due to be released, the defendant received an email from "the Checkster" stating a day ban off Nide due to harassments and threating behaviour by the Defendant, and futher damage claims to follow. • Due to the Checksters refusal to reply to his questions, Frodo found me, his lawyer. Your honour, the defence will show through witness testimony that Frodo did not intend to cause any bodily harm, (only online). Indeed, the defence will show that Mr. Frodo had good reason not to cause pointless harm to Checkster because he was a dedicated css playerand a paying admin, a kind hearted worker and friend with no reason to ban Checkster but that he was incompetent. We will also show that Checkster was not doing his job properly and many other people had something against him. In doing so, and by following the outline of what a ban entails, we will prove that Frodo did not, in fact, deserve the ban for himself banning 'the imbecile' Checkster. Although the defendant was angry about the recent changes and permanent banning affecting Mr. Frodo's good friend Pivo, killing or banning Checkster would have taken away any hope the defendant had of reasoning with Klixus and changing his decision. In banning Checkster, the defendant would have risked his job and imprisonment. The defendant was a dedicated teacher and Mako Solo-er, leader and effective item user that enjoyed his job and wouldn’t have risked all of that to ban someone when he had no motive. Through cross examination, the Defence has been seeking to clarify the exact detail of the banning, including the timing, whereabouts and knowledge of the witness from the time, proving checksters incompetence and hate boner. Your Honour, the defence will show that this, combined with evidence that shows that Mr. Frodo was a dedicated worker and kind hearted person, will find the defendant not guilty and unban him instantly. Sincerely, Frodo's lawyer

oh , uhhhhh.... have fun XD