Denied ryan4win's Appeal

Your In Game Nickname:

ryan​

Your Steam ID:

d​

Which Server:

West​

Why you should be unbanned:

dunno why i was banned​

Evidence of Innocence:

dunno
@wink​

 

You were banned for "trolling" by @wink

 

I was present on the server at the time observing the actions you were committing at the time. I'll be presenting my evidence shortly.

 

alright man, thanks.

 

@ryan4win

Let me start this part of the evidence off with the question. Do you really think it's acceptable to promote spam, harassment, or any form of chargeback as someone with the amount of experience you have on our servers? Below will be the screenshots of you spamming on the servers. This going to the point where I had to mute you twice on the servers.

Spoiler: Evidence

Below these screenshots will be some examples of your trolling through the following YouTube videos. First video will show you asking an intentional question about a potential chargeback (something both you and Steve Mason decided to trollishly answer). The second video shows you promoting spam by telling someone a way to get around the rules of spam. The third video mentioning that you treating a player who attempted to jihad (but failed) harshly by referring to him as someone with down syndrome.

Spoiler: Evidence

With all of this evidence provided, I'll leave it up to @wink to finish this appeal off and the higher administration to evaluate this appeal in case they feel the need.

Best Regards,
Guilty

 

I'll handle this in the morning when I can talk to another relevant party, please be patient.

 

Thanks for bringing up this evidence.

1)

I did not promote spam actually. I said "Hit em with it twice" and I have never heard anyone ever consider saying something 2 times spam. So if promoting saying something twice is considered promoting spam, then I guess I'm guilty! (Pun intended)

2)

I'll assume you're talking about the downs syndrome part here. I jokingly said something about someone having downs syndrome, and to my knowledge no one was bothered by it, unless I am wrong then I do admit saying someone has downs syndrome is pretty rude. But the thing is, with harassment the first time you do it you get a warning, which I did as you can see here.
after I was warned, the only thing I referred to was "Up syndrome" which no one really seemed to care about, and if they did then maybe you should possibly inform me instead of recording me the whole time and taking snippets of me being "disruptive" just to pile them against me. (And yes I did hear that)

3)

I didn't know joking wasn't allowed on the server. Multiple times have people said things such as "I'll DDOS the server" and whatnot, and that is never taken seriously. Why should me messing around with a pal of mine about a chargeback be held against me. If I chargeback, I'll be banned and end of story. Not sure why I would be held accountable for saying such a thing.

Moving on to the screenshots.

Spoiler

Time I said it in the first three screenshots - 3

- 2 - 3
- 0 (From this screenshot this is an invalid mute)
- 3
- 2 (From this screenshot this is an invalid mute)

I was muted by you twice, and I would have to say, these were very harsh mutes. The way I am accustomed to spam is that you may say something 3 times in a row and that's the max. So I wad kind of unfamiliar with how you handled spam. Not once did I ever say it more than 3 times.


Also, I would like to point out that I had spaced out these messages later on by an immense amount, so you muted me twice, which was called for I guess. But then you went ahead and banned me for putting a bind once every 5 minutes or so?

At no point in time should saying a certain bind once in every while be considered "trolling" or "spam" and this is blatant abuse if this is the main cause of the ban.

Spoiler

As you can see, I had made it to a point where I said it maybe once per round. Which I don't see as spam, and which no one complained, and at no point in time did guilty or wink see it as spam or they would have banned me for spam.

In the end, I see this ban as a case of poaching ex staff members who are now seen as "unwarrantable members of the community". Stacking a bunch of small cases of disruptive behavior against them just to slap a broad "trolling" ban on them. This is a case of bias, and I can easily see this being denied because of it.

You guys need to realize, there is a difference between playful jokes, and malicious intent. Just because I resigned on that day, and just because I can come off as a jerk sometimes don't mean that as a valid reason to go out and poach me, or anyone else that falls into that category. I put in just as much time and effort as you guys did to help this place out, and if you really think I want to see this place die, then you are terribly mistaken. Just because my time was before, and your time is now doesn't make what we did for this place any different.

I would actually prefer if @wink gave his verdict, then have this reviewed by @Falcor afterwards, then maybe after that Highwon should give it a glance too.

Regardless, thanks for your time.

 

Hello @ryan4win,

I'll be denying this appeal for the one day globalized ban of trolling today.

As you may know as a former staff member, trolling is a discretionary ban. I used my discretion in this case to issue the ban since I saw it fit due to your general behavior exhibited on the server, which includes: spamming your binds and advocating to others how to get around the spam threshold, joking around about a mental disability and then using technicalities to continue joking about it, and then going to the point of potentially advocating chargebacks.

All in all, I don't see this behavior as a friendly jest between friends. I see it along the lines of malicious behavior deemed to worsen the gameplay of others, which is why the ban was issued. We've seen this behavior before with your actions on our minecraft server, and I do not want to see it again. Consider this ban a formal warning that could lead to further consequences if the trolling demeanor is continued.

Appeal: DENIED