Brett

Nation: Vietnam MTA Server Status: Not the first English speaking. Founder: Maxime, now Chaos. I assume he did it because he had free time on his hands, and wanted something to occupy it. Isn't that why we create anything? Purpose of Owlgaming: Roleplay? Or at the very least, GTA San Andreas Multiplayer with elements of character development. Better then LSRP?: By playerbase, hell no. By roleplay quality, debatable. By arbitrary standard with zero basis, sure. Class dismissed...

I do. Do you remember this; https://forums.owlgaming.net/topic/36739-the-1992-owlgaming-riots/

I had a topic about this two years ago; The problem is, SAMP and MTA do this differently. In SAMP, questions are only done in /do and not in /b. In MTA, I've seen the opposite. And honestly? To me it doesn't matter that much as it comes down to personal preference. Now ideally, how it would work is like I explained it in my /do and /b thread, is people would see your /me and stuff and respond in /do about how it would go. Unfortunately, that rarely happens and it's extremely difficult to force that to happen. I've experimented a lot with the asking in /b and /pm to people about responses, and even then everyone does it different. Some respond back in /pm, some in /b, some in /do, and even some in /me. It's a disorganized mess and when you start enforcing one standard, you're gonna end up catching a lot of people still doing it wrong. In my opinion, I would just leave it to personal preference. Nobody is quitting Owlgaming and getting in rage mode over someone responding to a /me or whatever in /do or /b so it's not that big of a deal. If seeing text on your screen in a different context, that is still responding to the RP going on is aggravating to you, then that sounds like a personal problem. My personal way of dealing with it has just been to /pm my questions to people, but like I said earlier the response forms are different and I just role with it. And to be honest, I think this is a situation in which we just need to concede to the "just roll with it," mentality. Only time I would raise an objection is if someone is doing full RP in /do, /b, or whatever form of text that is just entirely incorrect and easily noticeable.

I thought the "Stans," were all here Los Santos like Idlewood? Or was that the same period when everyone had disappeared? Either way, seems like someone was paying close attention.

I'd say about as well as the DPS merge and everything after.

Platinum like a Miranda Rights Recording studios album, ya fuckin' gabagool. I guess I'm the God of Owlgaming. Cause the statement actually has more truth to it then meets the eye.

Kinda got other plans going atm...but those were the days.

Name: David Gonzalez Comment: When politicians stop taking money from the National Biker Association, then we will have sensible bike control. And if they refuse, VOTE THEM OUT! They say these bikes do more good then harm, WE CALL B.S.! Contact your congressmen, and demand Common Sense Bike Reform!

"Plea of VC021 and 1,000$ fine confirmed from the defense." (( @ThatGuy @Zebulon @Cosa @Alfredas ))

"Your honor, If there was factual evidence behind the prosecutions claim, then he wouldn't need to question it and could point to his own narratives and evidence provided at the beginning of this trial. So what someone is driving faster then the posted limit, in the same direction, next to each other? What does this prove? Are we also going to start charging people with being accessory to murder because they along with the murderer walked into the same establishment at the same time? I repeat my original objection that the prosecution is testifying, by claiming that the officer did indeed witness something the officer himself has denied and using this false pretense to question my client in this manner." (( @ThatGuy @Zebulon ))

"And further your honor, If the prosecution wishes to make a case for a simple speeding infraction, he is free to amend his charges to reflect that. However, speeding alone does not constitute the mens reas for our charges in anyway, and as there was no overtaking, no rewards being given out, or anything indicating this was planned, this question will merely serve to prove absolutely nothing other then that my clients were indeed travelling above posted limits. It's irrelevant your honor, and clearly just shows how poorly prepared the prosecution was for this case, more so then actually add anything substantial to the findings." (( @ThatGuy @Zebulon ))

"Your honor, objection. The prosecution is attempting to testify. The officer in my cross-examination clearly stated that he did not see them attempting to overtake each other, and thus the prosecution is arguing a false assumption he personally is making up." (( @ThatGuy @Zebulon - This post for a link. ))

"Your honor, I repeat my earlier objection that this line of questioning is not at all relevent to the events of the day in question, and seems to be jumping from various unrelated factors. I stand by my statements." (( @ThatGuy @Zebulon ))

"Your honor, objection. What is the relevance of this question? We went from a relationship between two people, to a conviction record? Does the prosecution have any point here?" (( @Zebulon @ThatGuy @Alfredas ))

"In this kangaroo court? Go right ahead." (( @Zebulon @Zebulon ))