4 Likes
I requested the investigation >:)
1 Like
Mr. @Lidels,
The submitter does not consent for his name to be revealed. The submitter filed a complaint against you anonymously, therefore, his username is not collected for release.
I am the one who added additional evidence to the case card.
On behalf of DPS, we respect anonymous complaint submitters and will protect their privacy.
4 Likes
Mr. Ftlicious, you are required by the Bill of Rights to provide me with his name, because no DPS operations are classified. Redacting his [as you say] name is a violation of it, and will result in litigation.
Is this really the way you want to go down?
1 Like
Take it to court. I am not revealing the submitter’s username.
1 Like
Sure.
1 Like
TONE INTO THE NEXT EPISODE OF DRAZON BALL Z
3 Likes
oh man this will be a juicy one
3 Likes
For future reference, I will be recusing myself from any investigations against Lidels.
1 Like
Seeing as how you added your own evidence to the bunch and blocked me when I asked for a new investigator due to evident bias, I think it’s a little too late.
Don’t you worry though - there’s nothing a courtroom can’t solve.
1 Like
I had you blocked for months. You continue to show desire to harass my department; I have no interest in associating with you.
3 Likes
Go ahead, tell us another lie. 
1 Like
Oh yes, bring up a conversation in which you asked for my input over a bus you made. I hope you realized I needed to unblock you in order to give my input.
1 Like
I think you actually asked me.
1 Like
I have no evidence to prove it to you, but I can confirm that he had you blocked for quite a while. Whenever I’d ask him to look at something you posted, he’d say “I have him blocked” or something along those lines.
1 Like
Honestly, it seems you had the same issue that Stamose supposedly had. He went to eat a potato and he shot a innocent citizen. He was fired from DOC for it, I think he was at least, and had a DPS Investigation on him just like you do. This all could’ve been handled in DMs or privately in my opinion and didn’t have to be presented to the public to attempt to cause an outburst.
Other than that I have no other comment on the matter.
3 Likes
That’s still okay - he openly denied a FOI, and I went to the chief of investigations.
2 Likes
The DPS trello has always been public, DPS has to look into every complaint so it doesn’t really matter if everyone thinks it’s better to handle it privately. It has to be investigated anyway.
Ftlicious has no control over who reports something and what they report, unless he obviously blacklists them but that is only done in extreme cases as I’ve seen it.
1 Like
Now that you’ve brought it on the forums, yes he denied to give you that information. Personally, I’m not a legal expert so I don’t know if he’s obligated to do so.
In my own opinion, the law seems a little controversial.
SECTION X.
All citizens have the freedom of information. Should a citizen request for information that is
actively collected to be released, the relevant department, agency, entity, etc. shall be obligated
to release the requested information, if possible.
“Actively collected to be released”
“If possible” as in if they have the means to do so, in this case he does. So that part is irrelevant. But the “to be released” part is what confuses me.
1 Like
It makes more sense when you read it like this:
SECTION X.
All citizens have the freedom of information. Should a citizen request for information (that is
actively collected) to be released, the relevant department, agency, entity, etc. shall be obligated
to release the requested information, if possible.
2 Likes