Approved Cake's Appeal

Discussion in 'TTT Ban Appeals' started by Cake, Dec 28, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cake

    Cake I like red VIP

    Your In Game Nickname:
    C a k e
    Your Steam ID:
    STEAM_0:0:63642675
    Which Server:
    East
    Why you should be unbanned:
    I was originally banned for RDM and leave in which I came back and took the slay. Later to come find out I was "loopholing" according to CD. I have played on this server for quite a bit of time and I would never intentionally try to loophole. I ended up getting a 128 day ban which makes no sense because the rules state that it can be an extra slay or even up to a 4 week ban based on discretion, a 128 day ban is 4x this and I cant see why my first offense of "loopholing" would result in this.

    Edit:
    I was banned for 182 days not 128.

    [​IMG]
    https://gyazo.com/0399613049de143945acb32cfa8149ba
    Evidence of Innocence:
    I gave my side of the story to CD already and I felt I wasn't intentionally trying to get around the rules. @Highwon @CDriscoll @Kyogre

    https://gyazo.com/42c27ec7098acffc193189ace756ce0c
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2016
  2. GunAndBomb

    GunAndBomb Explosive Banned VIP

  3. CDriscoll

    CDriscoll Lemme advise you VIP Bronze

    Cake,

    When your appeal yesterday was accepted, I had multiple people come to me saying that the appeal looked more like a case of loopholing than it did RDM and Leave, so I decided to look into it with some other admins. There were discrepancies between your story and what actually happened, and it seemed as if you weren't aware of the newly added Deathscene system that was able to catch on video what occurred. Let's jump right in and look at why this appeared to be loopholing, and what ultimately led to your ban.

    Starting off with your ban appeal, this report was filed against you on the server whilst playing on Dolls.
    [​IMG]

    Your response, "crossfire mate, whoops" would typically be treated as a very classic case of word vs word, though we're now able to check Deathscenes to get a clear picture of what went down, which I don't believe was known by you at the time, as it was implemented during your COI ban. However, when looking at the Deathscene that was recorded, there is never any instance of crossfire, and never any instance that one could mistake for crossfire.

    Instead of jumping to conclusions, I added you on Steam to try and talk this out with you and clear the air. While talking on Steam, you clarified your story to be that the two users up there with you at the time both had HK SL8s and that the two users were T's who had opened fire on you. After they began shooting, you turned and killed them both, and believed that the two were both Ts until the report was made, so you just assumed that an innocent was hit in crossfire behind the Traitor in the doorway. However, when I asked soon after about how you would have been able to see any innocent bodies and could have known exactly what happened, you simply stated that you got killed almost immediately after you killed the two. However, the admins and I noticed that there were several discrepancies between this story, the one from the appeal, and what actually happened.

    Nash, the user you killed, was identified to be innocent at 55 seconds into the round, just after you had identified the other user you killed, Supeppereme. All of the shooting began at 47 seconds into the round, you killed and identified both of them by 55 seconds into the round, and you were killed 5 seconds after that. Overall, the ordeal lasted for 12 seconds, which isn't a very short period of time, especially in a game like this. You would have known Nash was innocent (hence the one who reported you), you would have known that Supeppereme was a traitor, and you would have seen any innocent bodies hit in crossfire while you were identifying the body of Supeppereme. It doesn't make sense, then, to immediately claim crossfire in this report, and back your story with claims that also don't match the logs; at that point it appears to be pretty clear cut loopholing.

    Again, I didn't want to assume anything or jump to conclusions, which is why I added you on Steam in the first place. After laying out to you all the reasons that we suspected loopholing, though, you became incredibly defensive, and refused to work with me any further. I wanted to work with you and let you clear the air, I really did, though you shut me down and coldly responded with "just ban me and unadd me like you did last time" and "all the staff team does anyways is jump to conclusions". If anything, it screamed guilt to me more than it did willingness to prove innocence.

    After our discussion, I spoke with almost all of the admins over Teamspeak alonside Kyogre, and we came to the conclusion that there was loopholing. Seeing as you are ex staff and had just come off of a Conflict of Interest ban for 21 weeks, it didn't seem fitting to give a simple 4 week ban or extra slay, and instead we decided that the 26 week ban was for the best. Remember, this was a unanimous decision, not mine alone.

    Below you'll see evidence for the conversation we've had (I've learned), and the logs for the incident. If you have any questions, feel free to either ask me on Steam or create a forum conversation with me. However, your appeal has been denied and will be locked.

    EDIT: As of 12/28/2016, the ban has been reduced to a typical 4 week global for loopholing.

    [​IMG] [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Happy holidays,
    CDriscoll
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2016
  4. Highwon

    Highwon Owner VIP Silver

    I have reviewed this appeal and talked to the parties involved in making the decision. Due to the way it was handled, I am going to reverse the ban and void it. We are going to be reviewing the loopholing rule and punishments surrounding that rule and make changes accordingly to be more fair in the future. I am sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused. Certain members of the administration team will be getting a warning for the excessive length of the initial ban.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.