- Joined
- Sep 21, 2021
- Messages
- 13
Hello,
This complaint is submitted to clarify the improper enforcement of a specific rule, as detailed in both the German and English versions of the server's regulations. The rule in question prohibits the use of helicopters to access rooftops that cannot be reached by foot or ladder. However, a penalty was imposed despite the fact that the roof in question could indeed be accessed by these means.
We argue that this enforcement undermines the very purpose of having a written rulebook. If admins can arbitrarily add or interpret rules beyond what is explicitly stated, the integrity of the rule system is compromised. A rulebook exists to ensure clear, consistent guidelines for all players, and arbitrary rule additions erode trust in the fairness of the system.
The following text provides a detailed explanation of the incident, the translation of previous complaints, the rule in question, and supporting legal frameworks, ensuring a fair and just review at the next level of consideration.
Here’s the translation of the initial complaint to help you clearly and easily understand the facts of the case.
Source of translated text:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Good evening,
It is clearly stated in both German and English that it is forbidden to use helicopters to access roofs that cannot be reached by foot or ladder.
See here:
6.18 Es ist verboten, Helikopter zu benutzen um auf Dächer zu gelangen, die nicht zu Fuß oder über eine Leiter erreicht werden können. | Jail 120 Minuten
6.18 It is forbidden to use helicopters to gain access to roofs that cannot be accessed by foot or ladder. | Jail 120 min
There is no translation error, which is why the English version serves as proof, as it conveys the exact same meaning.
In rule-of-law systems, only offenses that are clearly and unambiguously defined may be punished (principle of legality). In this case, however, a penalty was imposed, even though access to the roof was possible by foot or ladder (see proof). The rulebook explicitly prohibits accessing roofs by helicopter that cannot be reached by other means. Since the roof in question could be accessed by foot or ladder, no violation of the rule occurred.
The principle of legality in criminal law dictates that an act can only be considered a crime, and punishment imposed, if it has a legal basis: no punishment, no crime without law (nulla poena, nullum crimen sine lege), Art. 103(2) of the German Basic Law, § 1 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), Art. 7(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (see also BVerfGE 45, 363 [370 f.]; 78, 374 [381 f.]). Source: https://www.jura.uni-bonn.de/filead...stuehle/Kindhaeuser/Strafrecht_AT/s-at-03.pdf
The rulebook clearly states that access to roofs that cannot be reached by foot or ladder is prohibited. However, the video shows that this roof could be accessed by foot or ladder. Therefore, it is unclear why a penalty was imposed in this case. Additionally, it was argued that one must also be able to descend by foot. However, this rule does not exist in the rulebook, and there is no indication that the rules could be interpreted this way. Why have a rulebook if there is an "invisible" set of rules that is not documented?
The argument that it would be "FailRP" if one had to jump down from the roof with suspects in custody is irrelevant because the suspects could be picked up by helicopter. According to the written rulebook, a helicopter is allowed to land there since the area is accessible by foot or ladder. Even if the helicopter were incapacitated, the police department has the ability to quickly call for backup via radio and safely escort the suspects.
This reasoning clearly demonstrates that there was no basis for issuing a penalty, as both the rulebook and the circumstances indicate that no violation occurred.
It would be unfortunate if a large and successful server like Grand (especially in Germany) did not uphold or model the principles of a rule-of-law system.
We are open to a personal discussion.
Sincerely,"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
just btw:
1. Germany
Source: Article 103(2) of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz), and § 1 of the German Criminal Code (StGB).
Translation: "An act may only be punished if it was defined by law as a criminal offense before the act was committed."
Source: 2. France
Source: Article 111-3 of the French Penal Code (Code pénal).
Translation: "No one can be punished for an act that was not defined as a criminal offense by law at the time it was committed."
Source: 3. Italy
Source: Article 25 of the Italian Constitution and Article 1 of the Italian Penal Code (Codice Penale).
Translation: "No one may be punished except under the law that was in force at the time the offense was committed."
Source: 4. Spain
Source: Article 25 of the Spanish Constitution and the Spanish Penal Code (Código Penal).
Translation: "No one may be convicted for acts or omissions that, at the time of occurrence, do not constitute a criminal offense."
Source: 5. United Kingdom
Source: Common law system, supplemented by the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), specifically Article 7.
Translation: "No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offense on account of any act which did not constitute a criminal offense under national or international law at the time it was committed."
Source:
www.legislation.gov.uk
6. Netherlands
Source: Article 16 of the Dutch Constitution and Article 1 of the Dutch Penal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht).
Translation: "No offense shall be punishable unless it has been defined by law."
Source: 7. Sweden
Source: Swedish Constitution and Swedish Penal Code (Brottsbalken), Chapter 1, Section 1.
Translation: "Punishments for criminal offenses may only be determined by law."
Source: 8. Austria
Source: Article 18 of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG) and Section 1 of the Austrian Penal Code (Strafgesetzbuch).
Translation: "Criminal penalties may only be imposed for actions that are punishable by law at the time of their commission."
Source: 9. Switzerland
Source: Article 7 of the Swiss Federal Constitution and Article 1 of the Swiss Penal Code.
Translation: "No one shall be punished for an act that was not explicitly prohibited by law at the time of commission."
Source:
www.admin.ch
10. Lithuania
Source: Article 31 of the Lithuanian Constitution and the Lithuanian Penal Code.
Translation: "No person may be punished for an act which, at the time it was committed, was not defined as a criminal offense by law."
Source: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Lithuania_2019.pdf
11. Russia
Source: Article 54 of the Russian Constitution and Article 3 of the Russian Penal Code.
Translation: "No one may bear responsibility for an act which, at the time of its commission, was not recognized as a criminal offense by federal law."
Source: 12. European Union and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
Source: Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Translation: "No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offense because of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offense under national or international law at the time it was committed."
Source:
In all these countries, the principle of nulla poena sine lege is a cornerstone of the legal system, ensuring that no one can be penalized for an act that was not previously prohibited by law.
The principle of "nulla poena sine lege" – no punishment without law – is a fundamental tenet of criminal law, recognized in all European legal systems. There is no European state where this principle is not upheld, as it is a core element of the rule of law and fundamental rights across Europe.
Key reasons for its universality in Europe:
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): All Council of Europe member states are bound by the ECHR, which enforces this principle through Article 7, ensuring no one can be punished for an act that was not a crime at the time it was committed.
EU Membership: All EU member states are required to uphold the rule of law, including the principle of legality, which is overseen by the European Court of Justice.
Why am I explaining all this? To make it clear that it makes no sense to punish players on a large server like GrandRP based on rules that are neither written nor even implied at the time of enforcement. The actions for which we were penalized simply do not exist in the rulebook. In fact, there isn't even room for interpretation, as there's nothing in the rules that can be construed in such a way. The rule is clearly written, and in this case, something was arbitrarily added. What is the point of having a rulebook if admins are allowed to arbitrarily punish players outside of it? Rules should be clear, transparent, and applied consistently, not subject to sudden interpretation or modification.
Source of translated text:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Good evening,
We find it unsatisfactory to receive a complaint of this magnitude answered with a mere "denied." A proper explanation of why the rulebook was disregarded or altered would have been more than appropriate in this situation.
In our complaint, we presented detailed arguments, yet it was dismissed with a simple "denied" – without any explanation or counterarguments. Unfortunately, this represents a lack of transparency.
From our perspective, it is clear that the situation was handled in accordance with the rules. Instead, it seems we were judged by criteria that fall outside the rulebook, which are incomprehensible to us as players, as they are not written anywhere. In such a situation, we expect transparency and an objective review of why the rulebook was disregarded – even though we cannot understand the deviation.
Furthermore, we would like to emphasize that we are not only seeking an explanation but a renewed, objective evaluation of the entire matter we are complaining about. We hope that our arguments will be duly considered in this process.
Best regards,"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We find it quite unfair to have an admin complaint of this magnitude dismissed with a simple "denied" and no explanation, despite the fact that we presented clear and detailed arguments in our complaint. For a complaint of this seriousness, there should at least be a response addressing the arguments we raised.
Source of translated text:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Denied
The colleague made the correct decision in rejecting your complaint.
Just because a roof is accessible via a crane ladder does not mean you are allowed to be there, as you must also be able to come back down by foot or ladder without risking your life.
Since it was definitely not possible to do so on this roof, the sanction is justified, and therefore the decision to deny your complaint was the correct one."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Just because a roof is accessible via a crane ladder does not mean it's automatically prohibited to be there, especially since you can come down by foot or ladder without killing yourself."
This argument makes absolutely no sense. What’s happening here is that rules are being added in black and white that clearly do not exist in the rulebook. What Roberto Fire wrote is not in the rulebook. How is it possible that players on a large server like Grand are being punished for things that are not written in the rules?
Additionally, it is possible to come back down without risking your life -> See our argument:
"The argument that it would be "FailRP" if one had to jump down from the roof with suspects in custody is irrelevant because the suspects could be picked up by helicopter. According to the written rulebook, a helicopter is allowed to land there since the area is accessible by foot or ladder. Even if the helicopter were incapacitated, the police department has the capacity to quickly call for additional helicopters via radio to safely escort the suspects."
So even this argument does not make any sense.
Lack of Transparency and Justification: Problem: The initial rejection of the complaint included only a general statement without addressing the arguments you presented. This type of rejection appears non-transparent and unconstructive. Expectation: A more detailed explanation should at least address the points raised to clarify why your arguments were deemed unfounded. Simply presenting the outcome without further details is insufficient.
Rule Interpretation: Rule: "It is forbidden to use helicopters to gain access to roofs that cannot be accessed by foot or ladder." Analysis of the Rule: This rule explicitly forbids the use of helicopters to access certain roofs that are not otherwise accessible. However, you emphasized that the roof in question was accessible via a crane ladder, meaning that according to the rulebook, landing on the roof with a helicopter is permitted.
Counterargument to the Rejection: It was argued that one must "come down again by foot or ladder." However, this requirement is not specified in the stated rule. The rule solely refers to access to the roof and does not specify descent by foot or other means. This is not mentioned in the rulebook.
Objectivity of the Decision: You have pointed out that the decision was based on criteria that are not documented. The rejection is based on an interpretation of the rule that has no clear basis in the rulebook. If new criteria for accessing roofs (e.g., descent by foot or other means) exist, they should be transparently communicated and documented in the rulebook. Otherwise, the decision appears arbitrary and not in accordance with the rules.
Conclusion: The rejection of the complaint is inadequately justified and lacks transparency. The cited rule (6.18) refers solely to access to the roof by foot or ladder and does not define the rules for descent. The statement in the rejection that leaving the roof must be done by foot or other means is not based on the rule and is therefore not a valid reason for a sanction. A renewed, objective review of the situation, considering the clear rules and the arguments presented, is necessary.
Best regards,
This complaint is submitted to clarify the improper enforcement of a specific rule, as detailed in both the German and English versions of the server's regulations. The rule in question prohibits the use of helicopters to access rooftops that cannot be reached by foot or ladder. However, a penalty was imposed despite the fact that the roof in question could indeed be accessed by these means.
We argue that this enforcement undermines the very purpose of having a written rulebook. If admins can arbitrarily add or interpret rules beyond what is explicitly stated, the integrity of the rule system is compromised. A rulebook exists to ensure clear, consistent guidelines for all players, and arbitrary rule additions erode trust in the fairness of the system.
The following text provides a detailed explanation of the incident, the translation of previous complaints, the rule in question, and supporting legal frameworks, ensuring a fair and just review at the next level of consideration.
Here’s the translation of the initial complaint to help you clearly and easily understand the facts of the case.
Source of translated text:
Rejected - Warn für Allg. 6.18 | Harald Sachse | 66603
Einen wunderschönen guten Abend, klar formuliert steht sowohl auf Deutsch als auch auf Englisch, dass es verboten ist, Helikopter zu benutzen, um auf Dächer zu gelangen, die nicht zu Fuß oder über eine Leiter erreichbar sind. Siehe hier: 6.18 Es ist verboten, Helikopter zu benutzen um auf...
gta5grand.com
"Good evening,
It is clearly stated in both German and English that it is forbidden to use helicopters to access roofs that cannot be reached by foot or ladder.
See here:
6.18 Es ist verboten, Helikopter zu benutzen um auf Dächer zu gelangen, die nicht zu Fuß oder über eine Leiter erreicht werden können. | Jail 120 Minuten
6.18 It is forbidden to use helicopters to gain access to roofs that cannot be accessed by foot or ladder. | Jail 120 min
There is no translation error, which is why the English version serves as proof, as it conveys the exact same meaning.
In rule-of-law systems, only offenses that are clearly and unambiguously defined may be punished (principle of legality). In this case, however, a penalty was imposed, even though access to the roof was possible by foot or ladder (see proof). The rulebook explicitly prohibits accessing roofs by helicopter that cannot be reached by other means. Since the roof in question could be accessed by foot or ladder, no violation of the rule occurred.
The principle of legality in criminal law dictates that an act can only be considered a crime, and punishment imposed, if it has a legal basis: no punishment, no crime without law (nulla poena, nullum crimen sine lege), Art. 103(2) of the German Basic Law, § 1 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), Art. 7(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (see also BVerfGE 45, 363 [370 f.]; 78, 374 [381 f.]). Source: https://www.jura.uni-bonn.de/filead...stuehle/Kindhaeuser/Strafrecht_AT/s-at-03.pdf
The rulebook clearly states that access to roofs that cannot be reached by foot or ladder is prohibited. However, the video shows that this roof could be accessed by foot or ladder. Therefore, it is unclear why a penalty was imposed in this case. Additionally, it was argued that one must also be able to descend by foot. However, this rule does not exist in the rulebook, and there is no indication that the rules could be interpreted this way. Why have a rulebook if there is an "invisible" set of rules that is not documented?
The argument that it would be "FailRP" if one had to jump down from the roof with suspects in custody is irrelevant because the suspects could be picked up by helicopter. According to the written rulebook, a helicopter is allowed to land there since the area is accessible by foot or ladder. Even if the helicopter were incapacitated, the police department has the ability to quickly call for backup via radio and safely escort the suspects.
This reasoning clearly demonstrates that there was no basis for issuing a penalty, as both the rulebook and the circumstances indicate that no violation occurred.
It would be unfortunate if a large and successful server like Grand (especially in Germany) did not uphold or model the principles of a rule-of-law system.
We are open to a personal discussion.
Sincerely,"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
just btw:
1. Germany
Source: Article 103(2) of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz), and § 1 of the German Criminal Code (StGB).
Translation: "An act may only be punished if it was defined by law as a criminal offense before the act was committed."
Source: 2. France
Source: Article 111-3 of the French Penal Code (Code pénal).
Translation: "No one can be punished for an act that was not defined as a criminal offense by law at the time it was committed."
Source: 3. Italy
Source: Article 25 of the Italian Constitution and Article 1 of the Italian Penal Code (Codice Penale).
Translation: "No one may be punished except under the law that was in force at the time the offense was committed."
Source: 4. Spain
Source: Article 25 of the Spanish Constitution and the Spanish Penal Code (Código Penal).
Translation: "No one may be convicted for acts or omissions that, at the time of occurrence, do not constitute a criminal offense."
Source: 5. United Kingdom
Source: Common law system, supplemented by the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), specifically Article 7.
Translation: "No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offense on account of any act which did not constitute a criminal offense under national or international law at the time it was committed."
Source:
Human Rights Act 1998
An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights; to make provision with respect to holders of certain judicial offices who become judges of the European Court of Human Rights; and for connected purposes.
Source: Article 16 of the Dutch Constitution and Article 1 of the Dutch Penal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht).
Translation: "No offense shall be punishable unless it has been defined by law."
Source: 7. Sweden
Source: Swedish Constitution and Swedish Penal Code (Brottsbalken), Chapter 1, Section 1.
Translation: "Punishments for criminal offenses may only be determined by law."
Source: 8. Austria
Source: Article 18 of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG) and Section 1 of the Austrian Penal Code (Strafgesetzbuch).
Translation: "Criminal penalties may only be imposed for actions that are punishable by law at the time of their commission."
Source: 9. Switzerland
Source: Article 7 of the Swiss Federal Constitution and Article 1 of the Swiss Penal Code.
Translation: "No one shall be punished for an act that was not explicitly prohibited by law at the time of commission."
Source:
Fedlex
www.admin.ch
Source: Article 31 of the Lithuanian Constitution and the Lithuanian Penal Code.
Translation: "No person may be punished for an act which, at the time it was committed, was not defined as a criminal offense by law."
Source: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Lithuania_2019.pdf
11. Russia
Source: Article 54 of the Russian Constitution and Article 3 of the Russian Penal Code.
Translation: "No one may bear responsibility for an act which, at the time of its commission, was not recognized as a criminal offense by federal law."
Source: 12. European Union and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
Source: Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Translation: "No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offense because of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offense under national or international law at the time it was committed."
Source:
In all these countries, the principle of nulla poena sine lege is a cornerstone of the legal system, ensuring that no one can be penalized for an act that was not previously prohibited by law.
The principle of "nulla poena sine lege" – no punishment without law – is a fundamental tenet of criminal law, recognized in all European legal systems. There is no European state where this principle is not upheld, as it is a core element of the rule of law and fundamental rights across Europe.
Key reasons for its universality in Europe:
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): All Council of Europe member states are bound by the ECHR, which enforces this principle through Article 7, ensuring no one can be punished for an act that was not a crime at the time it was committed.
EU Membership: All EU member states are required to uphold the rule of law, including the principle of legality, which is overseen by the European Court of Justice.
Why am I explaining all this? To make it clear that it makes no sense to punish players on a large server like GrandRP based on rules that are neither written nor even implied at the time of enforcement. The actions for which we were penalized simply do not exist in the rulebook. In fact, there isn't even room for interpretation, as there's nothing in the rules that can be construed in such a way. The rule is clearly written, and in this case, something was arbitrarily added. What is the point of having a rulebook if admins are allowed to arbitrarily punish players outside of it? Rules should be clear, transparent, and applied consistently, not subject to sudden interpretation or modification.
Source of translated text:
Rejected - Warn für Allg. 6.18 | Monika Tired | 10555 @Roberto Fire
Guten Abend, Wir empfinden es als unzufriedenstellend, eine Beschwerde dieses Ausmaßes lediglich mit einem knappen "abgelehnt" zu beantworten. Eine Begründung, warum vom Regelwerk abgewichen oder eine Neuausrichtung vorgenommen wurde, wäre hier mehr als angemessen. In unserer Beschwerde haben...
gta5grand.com
"Good evening,
We find it unsatisfactory to receive a complaint of this magnitude answered with a mere "denied." A proper explanation of why the rulebook was disregarded or altered would have been more than appropriate in this situation.
In our complaint, we presented detailed arguments, yet it was dismissed with a simple "denied" – without any explanation or counterarguments. Unfortunately, this represents a lack of transparency.
From our perspective, it is clear that the situation was handled in accordance with the rules. Instead, it seems we were judged by criteria that fall outside the rulebook, which are incomprehensible to us as players, as they are not written anywhere. In such a situation, we expect transparency and an objective review of why the rulebook was disregarded – even though we cannot understand the deviation.
Furthermore, we would like to emphasize that we are not only seeking an explanation but a renewed, objective evaluation of the entire matter we are complaining about. We hope that our arguments will be duly considered in this process.
Best regards,"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We find it quite unfair to have an admin complaint of this magnitude dismissed with a simple "denied" and no explanation, despite the fact that we presented clear and detailed arguments in our complaint. For a complaint of this seriousness, there should at least be a response addressing the arguments we raised.
Source of translated text:
Rejected - Warn für Allg. 6.18 | Monika Tired | 10555 @Roberto Fire
Guten Abend, Wir empfinden es als unzufriedenstellend, eine Beschwerde dieses Ausmaßes lediglich mit einem knappen "abgelehnt" zu beantworten. Eine Begründung, warum vom Regelwerk abgewichen oder eine Neuausrichtung vorgenommen wurde, wäre hier mehr als angemessen. In unserer Beschwerde haben...
gta5grand.com
"Denied
The colleague made the correct decision in rejecting your complaint.
Just because a roof is accessible via a crane ladder does not mean you are allowed to be there, as you must also be able to come back down by foot or ladder without risking your life.
Since it was definitely not possible to do so on this roof, the sanction is justified, and therefore the decision to deny your complaint was the correct one."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Just because a roof is accessible via a crane ladder does not mean it's automatically prohibited to be there, especially since you can come down by foot or ladder without killing yourself."
This argument makes absolutely no sense. What’s happening here is that rules are being added in black and white that clearly do not exist in the rulebook. What Roberto Fire wrote is not in the rulebook. How is it possible that players on a large server like Grand are being punished for things that are not written in the rules?
Additionally, it is possible to come back down without risking your life -> See our argument:
"The argument that it would be "FailRP" if one had to jump down from the roof with suspects in custody is irrelevant because the suspects could be picked up by helicopter. According to the written rulebook, a helicopter is allowed to land there since the area is accessible by foot or ladder. Even if the helicopter were incapacitated, the police department has the capacity to quickly call for additional helicopters via radio to safely escort the suspects."
So even this argument does not make any sense.
Lack of Transparency and Justification: Problem: The initial rejection of the complaint included only a general statement without addressing the arguments you presented. This type of rejection appears non-transparent and unconstructive. Expectation: A more detailed explanation should at least address the points raised to clarify why your arguments were deemed unfounded. Simply presenting the outcome without further details is insufficient.
Rule Interpretation: Rule: "It is forbidden to use helicopters to gain access to roofs that cannot be accessed by foot or ladder." Analysis of the Rule: This rule explicitly forbids the use of helicopters to access certain roofs that are not otherwise accessible. However, you emphasized that the roof in question was accessible via a crane ladder, meaning that according to the rulebook, landing on the roof with a helicopter is permitted.
Counterargument to the Rejection: It was argued that one must "come down again by foot or ladder." However, this requirement is not specified in the stated rule. The rule solely refers to access to the roof and does not specify descent by foot or other means. This is not mentioned in the rulebook.
Objectivity of the Decision: You have pointed out that the decision was based on criteria that are not documented. The rejection is based on an interpretation of the rule that has no clear basis in the rulebook. If new criteria for accessing roofs (e.g., descent by foot or other means) exist, they should be transparently communicated and documented in the rulebook. Otherwise, the decision appears arbitrary and not in accordance with the rules.
Conclusion: The rejection of the complaint is inadequately justified and lacks transparency. The cited rule (6.18) refers solely to access to the roof by foot or ladder and does not define the rules for descent. The statement in the rejection that leaving the roof must be done by foot or other means is not based on the rule and is therefore not a valid reason for a sanction. A renewed, objective review of the situation, considering the clear rules and the arguments presented, is necessary.
Best regards,
