Accepted Permanent Gag Appeal (1 Viewer)

[IceStick]

Hi, I'm creating this thread in hopes of lifting my permanent gag that occurred on the 3rd of May, 2017, while I was not even on the server.
Since I know people don't like to read (whether that's due to their inability to read swiftly, or their laziness) I will put the information that's required in the form you want, despite it being rather cluttered:

SourceBans URL: Click here
Steam Nickname: ice
Steam ID: Here you go
Date and Time of the Ban: Third of May, 2017 @ 16:53
Gag reason: Obscene language (or so klay claims)
The gag was a courtesy of the wonderful admin: @klay
Ungag reason: Short reason? Unjust/inaccurate.
Long reason? Enjoy the read:
I'll start off by stating the following: I have a total of 9 gags. 4 of which weren't serious (they were jokes, unless you're unable to understand what a joke is) so we can move those aside.
I can prove that 3 others were also due to the admin's inability to see clearly and judge the situation, as the reasons provided were either inexact or flat out false.
The 3 months gag was partially deserved, as I explicitly targeted the community by sharing content discussed on another community. I should've seen that coming, considering the two owners of that community got permanently banned for "disruptive behavior." I trod on a sensitive line and I fell.

Now to the latest gag. As aforementioned, I wasn't present to even know what triggered a permanent gag, that is why I'm going to assume things based on how people perceive my actions. Either klay was (for some odd reason) continuously checking the chat, or they got a report. Let me talk about the reason; obscene language, I see no rule against obscene language. If klay deemed it offensive, then I'm not offensive. You can't be offensive; you can only take offense. Say somehow I fit the bill of offensive language, is klay incompetent enough to lack the ability to tell the difference between the two words "offensive" and "obscene"?
Next point: the "permanent" part of my gag, is that the next step, going from 3 months to permanent? May I add that I received no warning from neither klay nor Kevin over the past year, not even when Kevin issued the 3 months gag. In spite the fact that both gags share the same reason, one of them was wrong (I was not obscene by definition) and the other one I'm still trying to figure out. I thought gags and bans don't stack if they're for completely different reasons.

If klay still has the vision that my language was offensively obscene, that's their judgment. I can't force a sheep not to follow the herd after it's been doing so for so long. I candidly would like them to at least have the decency to explain the situation clearly and give me a chance to prove my point. After all, they, or any admin for that matter, can simply lock this thread and coax Kevin to ban me, since I've always had tension with him.

Thanks for reading (given the benefit of the doubt.)

 

[EvoWarrior5]

I can prove that 3 others were also due to the admin's inability to see clearly and judge the situation, as the reasons provided were either inexact or flat out false.

I don't think that's relevant. If you disagree with a punishment you're supposed to appeal it, not only bring it up after a long time, when the punishments have stacked. If you somehow still have literal proof for them and not just your word, you might have a shot at turning that point into something relevant. Otherwise, I feel like it's too late to bring them up now.

I thought gags and bans don't stack if they're for completely different reasons.

I don't see why they wouldn't. A rulebreak is a rulebreak. I wouldn't allow someone to spam 4 times and then insult 4 times and then ghost 4 times and never perm them because none of the crimes ever reached 5. Extreme example of course, but hope you catch my drift.

 

[IceStick]

I don't think that's relevant. If you disagree with a punishment you're supposed to appeal it, not only bring it up after a long time, when the punishments have stacked. If you somehow still have literal proof for them and not just your word, you might have a shot at turning that point into something relevant. Otherwise, I feel like it's too late to bring them up now.

I brought them up so they don't get brought up by others. Those gags were mostly after I had left the server.

I don't see why they wouldn't. A rulebreak is a rulebreak. I wouldn't allow someone to spam 4 times and then insult 4 times and then ghost 4 times and never perm them because none of the crimes ever reached 5. Extreme example of course, but hope you catch my drift.

The only useful part of that was the "reached 5" part. Thank you.

 

[EvoWarrior5]

I brought them up so they don't get brought up by others. Those gags were mostly after I had left the server.

If I look at sourcebans it indicates that only kevin's 3 months punishment and klay's perm were through sourcebans so this can't be right.

The only useful part of that was the "reached 5" part. Thank you.

Not sure what you mean here. If you mean "technically I hadn't reached 5 yet so I shouldn't have been permed": 5 is just a rule of thumb which assumes that all the crimes were minor or perhaps medium ones. Offenses that are deemed worse are obviously punished more harshly, after which the stacking generally resumes. This starts taking us into territory which I have no way to judge, however, so you will have to discuss with the relevant people whether your stacking was deserved.

 

[IceStick]

If I look at sourcebans it indicates that only kevin's 3 months punishment and klay's perm were through sourcebans so this can't be right.

"Those gags were after I had mostly left the server"* my bad.

If you mean "technically I hadn't reached 5 yet so I shouldn't have been permed"

Never have I claimed that. I know that this whole thing is purely dependent on klay's opinion, and not on facts nor the public's opinion. So, it doesn't matter.

 

[Lieva]

But the fact is by clearly looking ur chat history, youve still remained toxic and kept shit talking to ppl whether ur being ironic or not.

 

[IceStick]

But the fact is by clearly looking ur chat history, youve still remained toxic and kept shit talking to ppl whether ur being ironic or not.

There was no irony in my messages. Please keep in mind that you're looking at solely my chatlog, meaning you're taking it out of its context. I may have been replying to someone that started talking with me, or even someone over voice chat. Don't be so quick to judge, please. If you quote each message, I will try my best to explain it. While I cannot justify everything (some were straight out wrongdoings of mine), I would like a breathing chance.

 

[Lieva]

There was no irony in my messages. Please keep in mind that you're looking at solely my chatlog, meaning you're taking it out of its context. I may have been replying to someone that started talking with me, or even someone over voice chat. Don't be so quick to judge, please. If you quote each message, I will try my best to explain it. While I cannot justify everything (some were straight out wrongdoings of mine), I would like a breathing chance.

Since this is the internet, and everything shouldnt be taken seriously. But because sourcebans and chatlogs seems to be everyones proof atm, Ill rest my case here until @klay comes and opens this up a bit more.

But I find it funny that u were saying that 3-4 first gags shouldnt be count with this even tho they were each 30mins long and didnt have that big of meaning at the time, you have only one reputation. If you fuck it up then thats it

 

[cooks]

But the fact is by clearly looking ur chat history, youve still remained toxic and kept shit talking to ppl whether ur being ironic or not.

Can you please tell me your course of action which led you to come to that judgement as an "Admin"?

 

[Lieva]

Can you please tell me your course of action which led you to come to that judgement as an "Admin"?

Solid proof about the gag, havent said that he doesent have any rights to defend himself, so what are you on about?

You are telling me that things that you have said in past dont matter?

 

[IceStick]

Since this is the internet, and everything shouldnt be taken seriously. But because sourcebans and chatlogs seems to be everyones proof atm, Ill rest my case here until @klay comes and opens this up a bit more.

I don't think anyone's proof is relevant here, other than klay's.

But I find it funny that u were saying that 3-4 first gags shouldnt be count with this even tho they were each 30mins long and didnt have that big of meaning at the time, you have only one reputation. If you fuck it up then thats it

I didn't say they shouldn't count, I put those there so I don't get people saying "well look, you were already gagged 3 times". Furthermore, as I have mentioned before, the gags happened right before I quit, and no, I didn't quit because I was gagged; I played today for some time despite my gag.
I don't get what you mean by "one reputation" and how do I manage to "fuck up" that?

You know what I find funny? Your attempt to thwart me despite being ignorant to what's going on here.

EDIT:
What I said in the past does matter, which is why I included it.

 

[Shad]

@Bass

 

[cooks]

Solid proof about the gag, havent said that he doesent have any rights to defend himself, so what are you on about?

You are telling me that things that you have said in past dont matter?

I don't think they should, you're clearly in the wrong here judging a person by what they said in the past you can't really say anything for anyone else since you don't actually know the person that appealed for this ban.

 

[Lieva]

I don't think anyone's proof is relevant here, other than klay's.


I didn't say they shouldn't count, I put those there so I don't get people saying "well look, you were already gagged 3 times". Furthermore, as I have mentioned before, the gags happened right before I quit, and no, I didn't quit because I was gagged; I played today for some time despite my gag.
I don't get what you mean by "one reputation" and how do I manage to "fuck up" that?

You know what I find funny? Your attempt to thwart me despite being ignorant to what's going on here.

EDIT:
What I said in the past does matter, which is why I included it.

So you are saying that something that you literally did or more specfically said less than a week ago should be forgotten because its too deep in the past.

 

[IceStick]

So you are saying that something that you literally did less than a week ago should be forgotten because its too deep in the past.

I beg your pardon? Less than a week ago? I was talking about my previous gags, what are you on about?
I'm starting to doubt your capabilities here.

 

[Lieva]

Yes this is about the gag, gag means you broke the chat rules. Im talking about your current perm gag, not your previous ones, like you just said that they shouldnt have nothing to do with your current gag. But you just brought them up so other people dont do so, so what are you trying to tell me with them?

Since im running out of phone battery

 

[cooks]

Deleting my post shows how capable of dealing with this situation you are, you literally had no way to combat it head-on, it's funny how you had to deal with it that way. Furthermore, it was contribution to this ungag appeal, we were getting somewhere but you decided to throw my lovely idea away.

 

[TBotV63]

In fact your post was deleted by another admin due to it being a personal attack and not in the slightest conducive to what you're trying to achieve here. Now stay on topic and stop the personal insults, thanks.

 

[EvoWarrior5]

Hi, the person who suggested to Madact that your previous post be deleted. Lieva had nothing to do with it.

Since you probably didn't know I will explain this to you now: generally on appeals the people who are supposed to post are the appealer, the admin in question, any other admins can give input, and maybe others should they have relevant input and not overstep their boundaries. Since I have been a large presence in this community for several years those boundaries tend to be fairly loose for me and I post in a lot of places.

Your post, while I wouldn't say it was necessarily incorrect, was rude if nothing else. If you're going to post in a thread like this, you should at least know your place. Ice had already responded to Lieva's misunderstanding of what he said, your post was redundant. You tell Lieva that he shouldn't post here when you don't have any more business here than he does.

Now that I'm here anyways, what you said to Lieva about "you're clearly in the wrong here judging a person by what they said in the past"; Lieva never did that. He only looked at Ice's recent logs and judged on that. Perfectly within his power to do so, and if Ice or other admins disagree they are very capable of doing so.

I asked Madact to simply delete it since I didn't want to kick up a fuss here, overstepping my boundaries, but after your latest post I felt that I had to act. If you wish to debate this further, please feel free to create a thread in the suggestions or questions sub-forum to discuss who should or should not be able to post what in appeals. Let's not go off-topic any further, as Tbot noted.

 

[Lieva]

Tho its midnight and trying to type from my phone,but ty for that @EvoWarrior5

Its was useless me to post from beginning because end of the day im not the who ungags Ice or not. Talking just to clear the water on some things that remained unclear to me. Since I dont have anything to say without repeating myself, Gl on this @IceStick