Approved Yellow's Appeal

Your In Game Nickname:

Yellow​

Your Steam ID:

STEAM_0:0:153941989​

Which Server:

Vanilla​

Why you should be unbanned:

The first warn for toxic gameplay that I got I agree with, I even admitted that in my response to the !report. My 2nd one I got I disagree with but I can't do anything about it since my shadowplay wasn't on but this time I do have footage.

I've gotten a clarification of why Izzy banned me with discretion from lordy
and here's why I disagree:

https://imgur.com/C1YxmfV
What I said in my response was all true.

https://imgur.com/Z8qabtC
For the 2nd part my brain was thinking: let's not write everything down it isn't needed but now that I have to appeal it is needed. So, at the moment I walked out of that door and saw zarock with the unid my brain thought of the following possibilities

1) Zarock killed him and is going towards him to ID
2) Zarock's t-buddy killed and zarock is IDing it (because someone behind him walked away) this would make him still GBA because he didn't shoot the person.
3) the unid was already there and zarock walked over it then went back for some reason to ID it.

https://imgur.com/My6xDlb
I was talking about Pixie getting shot and if I understand this correctly you shot pixie and then died 1 second after it. If this is correct and I'm assuming it is since you wouldn't lie. zarock still waited about 5 seconds to ID pixie's body even though the fight was already done. And zarock didn't shoot during any of the kills made in that period.

^^
This is why I think that the kill I made on zarock was allowed and that it shouldn't be a toxic gameplay ban

Now if I understand correctly, Izzy issued the ban and lordy/spitfull agreed.
I'm guessing it means the warn from spitfull(which imo still isn't correct but I don't have footage of it) that I got 2 or 3 days ago + lordy for this report.

from the time I submitted my response to the time I was banned it was around 2:30 mins. Seeing as izzy had to send it to her first she looked at it for a maximum of 2 minutes. This is a short time imo but that's what ban appeals are for so the moderators/admins can relook add it.

also could I get a clear clarification of what 'toxic gameplay' actually is since I didn't get any after my first 2 warns.
​

Evidence of Innocence:

My response+report:
https://imgur.com/LchfSg2

and the link of my shadowplay:
​

 

If there's anything more Izzy/the other staff needs from my side, ask me I will try to provide it.

 

tagging @iizzy who issued the ban, as well as @Lordyhgm and @Spitefulvenom who were named in it.

 

I have seen this and will respond in kind.

 

I've been thinking about this ban, and seeing as it is mostly about me 'lying' in the response I would like to add something.

I do not lie intentionally in serious things, if you have a history of the reports that resulted in me getting slain in a good portion of them I have said "Yea, my bad" "sorry about that" "mod this is a slay" because I do not like lying in serious things. And I admit to my mistakes when I know I'm in the wrong, this was also on the 1st warn for toxic gameplay where my response was something along the lines of: "It is not RDM but it was quite toxic of me, sorry"

Another example is my ban appeal from a few weeks ago where I appealed for a porn spray ban, innitialy I was convinced my spray didn't have any pornographic things in it, untill someone on discord pointed it out and as you can see in the following screenshot: https://imgur.com/x0uttVq I corrected my mistake as soon as I found out about it. Then when Aegis/Makoto called me a liar in his conclussion to the ban appeal I forum dm'd him saying something along the lines of me not appreciating being called a liar
proof: https://imgur.com/yqhmqmp

 

Right-o, so, ban appeal.

First off to talk about is the context. You have a huge history of loopholing yourself out of slays by always giving a second reason in your report response, normally a reason that is closer to Word v Word or another situation which is hard to disprove, and two separate instances, one 2 days ago and one 3 days ago, of killing people in a manner which, in our rules on Toxic Gameplay, may be defined as toxic. In both of these instances, I sent the proper information to all administrators, and in both instances, @Spitefulvenom decided that what you had done was Toxic Gameplay. I'd like to take a step out to explain discretion, as it appears from your report that you believed it was my pure decision to ban you. A lot of offenses that are more complicated, such as Metagaming, Toxic Gameplay, and Group Trolling, can be misconstrued to fit a narrative, and as such the discretionary power goes to an administrator from a mod. A mod does not have the power to give discretion in these cases, and must collect evidence and send to an administrator for their take and decision. In both of these previous cases, I had recorded what I suspected to be Toxic Gameplay, and sent it to administrators and was met with a response from Spiteful.

And now we're on to today. From your perspective even, it's clear to see that you saw Zarock in front of an unIDed body. From your perspective, all you can see is that he was turned away from the body, and then he turned around and saw the unIDed body, but had no chance to react to the information before you began shooting at him. First, let's go through your report response.
"First of all, you were GBA of when Pixie died." This was quite a while before, and you were locked in a room, and realistically didn't see any of what happened in that instance. In the video that will be below, you will see what happened. I used a silenced pistol to kill two people, and rather immediately I was shot by Sam and killed in one shot. If you accuse Zarock of GBA, everyone in that area aside from Sam was also GBA because not a single person had time to react, considering they were too far from me to hear the pistol going off. In addition, if he was GBA, and you had seen it, you would have KOSed him.
"Second off you ran away from a different unid I think your T buddy killed him 1 sec after you turned around so you didn't see it." Here you quite obviously admit that Zarock hadn't seen the unIDed body. So why would you shoot him as he turns around, before he's had a chance to process it's there and go ID it?

And now we'll go through the extra reasons you gave in this report that you should be innocent. It is technically against our Staff Procedures to accept anything after the slay, but I'll even make an exception here.
"Zarock killed him and is going towards him to ID" -This is suspicion, and didn't happen
"Zarock's t-buddy killed and zarock is IDing it (because someone behind him walked away) this would make him still GBA because he didn't shoot the person." -Again, this is pure suspicion, you cannot accuse someone of GBA for an event you literally didn't see happen.
"the unid was already there and zarock walked over it then went back for some reason to ID it." -Suspicion.

You present these all as possibilities, and yes these are 3 very distinct possibilities. Another is that the unIDed kill binded. Yet another possibility is that a traitor teleported to that exact spot, and an innocent saw this and killed him before Zarock turned around. I can continue to name possibilities of what happened all day. In the end, you need evidence to kill someone. Bottom line.

Onto the ban. These three "possibilities" you presented, as well as the two reasons you gave in your report response, are characteristic of what I mentioned earlier. You gave multiple responses, none of which hold water, in the hopes that one of them would be too difficult to look into and would absolve you from being slain. Even in your report response, your second reason wouldn't be reason to kill even if it were true, because you just didn't see it. These kinds of tactics make moderation significantly more difficult whilst trying to manage the rest of the server. In addition, you only submitted your response right as the next map was being voted on, meaning it would be difficult to get the deathscene and see what happened. I managed to just barely grab it before the map changed, and that will also be in my video below. All of this is characteristic of loopholing, which is a form of Toxic Gameplay. Spiteful was very clear after your second Toxic Gameplay slay, that your next offense was a one week ban. @Pixie.Danni sent all of the information to @Lordyhgm and discretion was given. You were banned.

All of the relevant logs, beginning with me shooting the first person in that whole gobbledygook:
https://i.imgur.com/9lcm2X6.png - Here you can see Sam killed me within one second of me killing someone. No GBA.
https://i.imgur.com/8AWWdrZ.png
Video of my kills/death, and the deathscene (which was rushed, so it's not at an optimal angle):

Spoiler: Video

 

The reason I frequently add multiple reasons to my response is because of the possibility of false slays being given. I've started putting multiple reasons into responses after my threat about a common sense kill (https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/what-does-the-community-think-common-sense-kills-are.56850/) in this thread someone was saying 'It depends on how you responded. If you responded to the report with "I saw you kill xxx" probably a slay. If you responded with something mentioning him not identifying the unID'd body, then no slay.' and roy 'While idk who handled the report, that certainly seems like GBA at the very least as you were able to place him next to an unid body that he obviously didn’t ID. I’d be curious what the report/response said though.' since these replies to the thread I've been putting multiple reasons that connect to each other to prevent me from being false slain, I get how this seems toxic on the side of the moderators but it is not my intention for this to be toxic, I just want to put as much information in the response as I can.

Now you said ''Spiteful was very clear after your second Toxic Gameplay slay, that your next offense was a one week ban". I've never talked to Spitful about these warnings, I asked him once about how long my toxic warns would last on discord but I got an anwser of dazza. Because of common knowledge it it quite obvious that a 3rd warning would result in a ban. But spitful has never once spoken to me about my toxic warnings so I don't know why you would lie or why Spitful has given you false information.

I would also like to add that if any moderators ever have one of these 'word v word' cases with me, ask me about my recordings I have almost always my shadowplay on, unless I have been watching Netflix while I'm dead.

Now you also said "In addition, you only submitted your response right as the next map was being voted on, meaning it would be difficult to get the deathscene and see what happened." I have no idea how deathscenes work since I don't ask staff about how they work and because I have never been staff. And also I was one of the last few innocents alive on the last round of the map, around 40 seconds between the report being made and the map changing which normally would be enough for me to awnser but seeing as I wanted to be clear in my response it took me sometime to write it, and between map changes I had to rewrite it because it doesn't save. And I didn't submit my response right after the map was being voted on, I submitted it the next map.

here's video evidence of me actually thinking about how to word the response and not just waiting in the screen:

you can clearly see that I am trying to type the report and not just wait for the round to end. And before you say 'what you wrote in the video is different from what you said the 2nd time, you can see that the last second before map change I wrote 'also' in which I wanted to say the thing about the GBA with you. And me hovering over 'submit' and not clicking it was because I was re-reading what I said and see if I needed to add anymore information.

 

Yes, I meant in his response to me. I wasn't implying he had told you this information, although I thought I had communicated that to you with your second TG slay.

This was an edge case to be sure, but yes in that specific instance you didn't actually see the kill, you saw two halves to a whole picture, and while common sense 90% of the time will get you the correct answer, that doesn't always mean reality shook out in the most straightforward way possible. There are other answers to the equation that do come up, even if they are less common. In that case you said you had seen me kill, which you had not. All in all though, it's best to only kill off of things you know, and in your report responses, if you didn't break the rules, the truth will set you free. Finding other reasons that could help you get out of a slay is toxic and untruthful.

 

If at any point anyone had shared with me not to put multiple reasons in a report I would've stopped doing that, but seeing as it resulted into me getting slain less I assumed it was because of me giving more information. Like I said earlier it was not actually shared with me what 'Toxic gameplay falls under' see: also could I get a clear clarification of what 'toxic gameplay' actually is since I didn't get any after my first 2 warns.

and yes, you did say it was my 2nd TG slay.

 

These are my words and they seem to be misinterpreted. The questions were if it was common sense and if it was a false slay. The situation in question wasn't common sense. Whether the situation was a false slay depended on your response, which was not provided. I was simply saying if you killed him for the T-act of unID'd (which is not common sense) then it was a false slay, if you killed based on common sense then the slay was valid. I didn't mean to imply that you should lie about things that happened so that you can get out of a slay, or to list half a dozen things that you think are common sense (even though they contradict each other so can't be 100% which is a requirement for common sense) to try to get out of a slay.

 

I used your quote to make the point that if I had put more information in it I wouldn't have gotten the slay. Because if the exact situation happened as back then. instead of responding with 'common sense' I would respond with 'common sense and not iding the body/being gba to the death of it' and that would not have gotten me false slain because of the extra (truthfull) information. And it is NOT a lie.

Like I said before I do not lie (or try atleast) in serious things.

 

Hello, sorry, I was out most of yesterday afternoon/evening and at night I had D&D so I was pretty much booked through the day.

While I'm a writer by trade, I'm not always the best at words. I feel that the three quotes above illustrate my points far better than my shitty young adult novel up at the top could have accomplished, and as such I feel this is a good point to end on. These quotes show the crux of the issues. I'm not so absurd to try and present you giving two reasons in a report as a reason for banning, but the question is constantly of the validity of your reasons. You have a trigger finger, and everyone knows it, and yeah, a lot of the times there's "common sense" shit that I have to just let slide by because yes, you have to be absolutely sure that the person you are killing has a valid reason to be killed. Your history is one of an itchy trigger finger, or some sort of inane boredom, and a constant slew of responses to reports that feel more as if they are circumnavigating the truth to fit what happened, rather than what actually happened. If all of your responses were true, verifiable things you witnessed, we wouldn't be here.

I agree with danstorm. You're a regular, and someone who constantly helps out the server. The fact that you also have such an idiosyncrasy that seems to be at odds with our rules on RDM is strange, but I would be willing to accept your appeal if you simply agree to be more careful with your trigger finger, and only report the truth, unabashed and unembellished, in your report responses.

 

I'll keep it short.

First of all a quick tip, you might wanna ease up on the usage of words such as 'idiosyncrasy' since non native english speakers like me have to look up the definition on google which can cause more confusion.
Secondly, I'd be willing to try to keep my kills to the predefined rules. But I won't/can't make any promises that mishaps like these will not happen in the future, because you change 2 years of instinct with the flick of a switch.

 

Just keep the responses honest.

Appeal: Approved, ban not voided.