[i0V3RK1LLi wrote: link=topic=28244.msg136147#msg136147 date=1780351061]
Your silence and lack of cooperation when explicitly asked to reveal, speaks louder than words. You never disclosed that for over 9 days. And you already said TODAY that you DIDN'T WANT TO lol
/Glasses 👇 I assumed innocence and Distraction at the beginning. Read the In ANY CASE section.
However, the reported staff who dealt with that infraction appeal on May 22, 2026, "Accidentally" or Purposefully OMITTED, DIDN'T DISCLOSE who was the admin whose unlawful infraction was being rightfully revoked.
I am very aware that the staff who deals with appeals CAN KNOW AND HAVE ACCESS to the name of the ISSUING STAFF, and can even APOLOGIZE for such mismanagement ON BEHALF OF THE STAFF WHO ISSUED IT on the first place. As of May 23, 2026
https://mikescnr.com/forum/index.php/topic,28176.0.html
I'm also aware that after 24 hours of an unattended post, a player or an admin can request an intervention, and after such request , the post CAN AND SHOULD BE ATTENDED WITHIN 72h or max 6 DAYS. As of May. 2026
https://mikescnr.com/forum/index.php/topic,28138.msg135595.html#msg135595
Therefore, the Reported staff WHETHER, is colluded with the Admin who issued the unlawful infraction and is HIDING his identity as in Hindering Prosecution / Obstruction of Justice, OR the reported staff DIDNT READ that I was lawfully requesting to know the Admin's name.
IN ANY CASE , IT IS DUE TIME FOR THE REPORTED STAFF , or any staff, TO DISCLOSE/REVEAL the Admin's name, given the case that the Reported staff HAS FAILED to do so
Otherwise, It will be considered such mismanagement as EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION HINDERING, COLLUSION , LENIENCY, and FAILURE TO ANSWER IN A TIMELY MANNER . (Valid staff complaint reasons # 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6)
https://mikescnr.com/forum/index.php/topic,1188.0.html
🤫
you're assuming I was supposed to respond, but the policy does not say that staff must respond in all cases.
The wording is that staff may be required to respond in certain circumstances. That is not the same as a necessary requirement.
My refusal to provide the information cannot therefore be automatically read as evidence of concealment, favoritism, or protection of another member of staff.
You are assuming that I was under an obligation to disclose the information. But if there is no such duty, then the conclusion you draw does not follow
Not getting the answer you wanted is not evidence someone was being protected