Adhere To The Accept/Deny Rules For Appeals.

#1
(1) In-game name & Steam ID (can be obtained by the TAB menu in game, or by using steamid.xyz) Edgar Nova-Moongoose 

(2)Your suggestion: In title. Just recently 3 appeals for 3 day bans were instantly denied even though the Appeal Format section states at the very top in red that bans of 3 days OR more must be left open for 24 hours before a verdict is made. 

(3) What made you feel that this change was necessary or would make a great addition: Apart from the set out rules being followed? 

(4) List what you think (if any) could be possible negatives if your suggestion were to be added: Staff wont be able to deny 3 day bans instantly.

BONUS ROUND: Unban the 3 individuals whose appeals were unjustly locked before their due time as a way to compensate for their time being wasted even writing an appeal that was locked early as a result of a rule breach.

@Albert Sterling
[Image: giphy.gif]
Ravenclaw Horcrux
The Faceless
"Your ass is grass and I'm going to mow it!"
[Image: 20190302_000700.jpg]
[Image: 4948dbf520d76aa193539c45fa0b08b1.png]

[Image: adcb458bb75e6964f6f1de8b4c377fc3.png]
Expand Signature

#2
+1, its not fair for a staff member instantly deny a ban appeal when a good amount of people that vote think that the length was unfair or the ban itself. 

If the ban is 3days long, or more it should only have the staff members final verdict a day after it was posted.
⊰ @Lydia ♥ ⊱

[Image: 76561198152859708.png][Image: AddFriend.png]

All Hail the new Ravenclaw Citadel

[Image: Lewdlenor3.png]

<3
Expand Signature

#3
-1

My opinion on this is purely disagreement due to the fact the people banned clearly broke the rules and the knew exactly what they were doing. In any other case where the situation may have been a bit different, then possibly I'd agree with this. The recent string of bans was due to an invalid name which can ensure they can't be targetted/seen in game at all and this can cause a plethora of issues when staff need to deal with them. Or any players, I muted them INSTANTLY due to the fact the changing to an invisible name usually means a hacker, troll or etc. It is never associated with any positive, productive.

They had full responsibility, awareness and understanding.

Quick Edit to Clarify: I disagree with suggestion in specific regards to case that people are contesting which they know their actions have/will be malicious and cause massive disruption on a subjective level. If you agree, disagree, that's fine, just my pure opinion. No need for hate. :)

#4
(01-06-2020, 05:08 AM)Thomas Carlisle Wrote: -1

My opinion on this is purely disagreement due to the fact the people banned clearly broke the rules and the knew exactly what they were doing. In any other case where the situation may have been a bit different, then possibly I'd agree with this. The recent string of bans was due to an invalid name which can ensure they can't be targetted/seen in game at all and this can cause a plethora of issues when staff need to deal with them.

They had full responsibility, awareness and understanding.

Excuse me but fucking what? Lmao. You know you can still grab steamids right? This isn't opinion. Just like they broke "rules" in game, the locked appeals broke "rules" on forums. So two wrong make a right? Or it's just okay to go against the pre set guidelines because they knew what they were doing? You do realize, that most bans people know what they were doing? So by that logic that means the minimum lock requirement can be disregarded for every ban. For someone who seems so interested in following rules, you dont clearly have any interest in following them unless it suits
[Image: giphy.gif]
Ravenclaw Horcrux
The Faceless
"Your ass is grass and I'm going to mow it!"
[Image: 20190302_000700.jpg]
[Image: 4948dbf520d76aa193539c45fa0b08b1.png]

[Image: adcb458bb75e6964f6f1de8b4c377fc3.png]
Expand Signature

#5
(01-06-2020, 05:08 AM)Thomas Carlisle Wrote: -1

My opinion on this is purely disagreement due to the fact the people banned clearly broke the rules and the knew exactly what they were doing. In any other case where the situation may have been a bit different, then possibly I'd agree with this. The recent string of bans was due to an invalid name which can ensure they can't be targetted/seen in game at all and this can cause a plethora of issues when staff need to deal with them. Or any players, I muted them INSTANTLY due to the fact the changing to an invisible name usually means a hacker, troll or etc. It is never associated with any positive, productive.

They had full responsibility, awareness and understanding.

This has nothing to do with the actual suggestion. The reason why Edgar included those 3 ban appeals is because it basically got instantly denied, when in reality it shouldn't. You're are bringing up something that has nothing to do with the actual suggestion, and giving out your opinion on those 3 cases. Also, we didn't change our names so we wouldn't get caught by staff members, it was purely out of curiosity and fun in general.
⊰ @Lydia ♥ ⊱

[Image: 76561198152859708.png][Image: AddFriend.png]

All Hail the new Ravenclaw Citadel

[Image: Lewdlenor3.png]

<3
Expand Signature

#6
+1 for same reason Etlenor put


[Image: xG2NipC.png]
Expand Signature

#7
+1 if it says 3 days or more it means 3 days long ban is in the longer category, there has to be a line drawn somewhere and it's not up for interpretation where you feel like people don't deserve to have their appeals open based on what they did
slytherinPride  Lizzie Heart-Bones  ravenclawPride
Joined the server on September 30th 2018
Married to Joe Heart-Bones since January 18th 2020
Mother to Ida, Carla, Matt, Jack, Rosemary, Xam and Stephan
Dark Occultist
Witch of the Forest
Dark Animagus Rogue
Tormented Pupil
Warlock
Forest Nymph
Heart DF Forver Heart
Expand Signature

#8
+1 ^^
[Image: san.png]
Expand Signature

#9
(01-06-2020, 05:14 AM)Edgar Nova Wrote:
(01-06-2020, 05:08 AM)Thomas Carlisle Wrote: -1

My opinion on this is purely disagreement due to the fact the people banned clearly broke the rules and the knew exactly what they were doing. In any other case where the situation may have been a bit different, then possibly I'd agree with this. The recent string of bans was due to an invalid name which can ensure they can't be targetted/seen in game at all and this can cause a plethora of issues when staff need to deal with them.

They had full responsibility, awareness and understanding.

Excuse me but fucking what? Lmao. You know you can still grab steamids right? This isn't opinion. Just like they broke "rules" in game, the locked appeals broke "rules" on forums. So two wrong make a right? Or it's just okay to go against the pre set guidelines because they knew what they were doing? You do realize, that most bans people know what they were doing? So by that logic that means the minimum lock requirement can be disregarded for every ban. For someone who seems so interested in following rules, you dont clearly have any interest in following them unless it suits

Funnily enough, yes you can grab steamids. This is opinion, my pure opinion regarding the situation you specifically was quoting. I don't agree with you and that's fine but at the end of the day, why would you attempt to appeal something you know would get you banned, in trouble? I have full interest in following rules and at the end of the day like I said, that's opinion. If you disagree, that's fine too. Two wrongs don't make a write and don't attempt to twist my words to validate an argument I was very specifically, quoting. The response from this is quite interesting and proves a lot of other points made outside of this.

Like I said, critical awareness is productive so thank you, I do agree with you on some regards but the minimum lock requirement isn't disregarded as we've seen. Staff handle the situations according to what they believe is by the rules. I agree with it being just due to the situation. If that offends you, that's fine.

(01-06-2020, 06:44 AM)Etlenor✅ Wrote:
(01-06-2020, 05:08 AM)Thomas Carlisle Wrote: -1

My opinion on this is purely disagreement due to the fact the people banned clearly broke the rules and the knew exactly what they were doing. In any other case where the situation may have been a bit different, then possibly I'd agree with this. The recent string of bans was due to an invalid name which can ensure they can't be targetted/seen in game at all and this can cause a plethora of issues when staff need to deal with them. Or any players, I muted them INSTANTLY due to the fact the changing to an invisible name usually means a hacker, troll or etc. It is never associated with any positive, productive.

They had full responsibility, awareness and understanding.

This has nothing to do with the actual suggestion. The reason why Edgar included those 3 ban appeals is because it basically got instantly denied, when in reality it shouldn't. You're are bringing up something that has nothing to do with the actual suggestion, and giving out your opinion on those 3 cases. Also, we didn't change our names so we wouldn't get caught by staff members, it was purely out of curiosity and fun in general.

I clarified it in my post regarding the 'suggestion'. In reality, you are mature enough to understand what having a blank name can do and can cause. If you put yourself in a questionable position then you should be well aware of the consequences. And, if I am aware, you were warned to change it also. If I am incorrect on the last part, feel free to correct me. I gave an opinion on the intent and what the capacity of the invisible name can do. 'Curiosity and fun'? I wouldn't say it was any of those but each to their own. Some final comments to add, don't do something stupid if you know it'll get you trouble or you think it might cause disruption. I think it's somewhat common sense, in my opinion, tha'ts just me though.

Thank you also, it's good to see critical feedback.

#10
(01-06-2020, 08:01 AM)Thomas Carlisle Wrote:
(01-06-2020, 05:14 AM)Edgar Nova Wrote:
(01-06-2020, 05:08 AM)Thomas Carlisle Wrote: -1

My opinion on this is purely disagreement due to the fact the people banned clearly broke the rules and the knew exactly what they were doing. In any other case where the situation may have been a bit different, then possibly I'd agree with this. The recent string of bans was due to an invalid name which can ensure they can't be targetted/seen in game at all and this can cause a plethora of issues when staff need to deal with them.

They had full responsibility, awareness and understanding.

Excuse me but fucking what? Lmao. You know you can still grab steamids right? This isn't opinion. Just like they broke "rules" in game, the locked appeals broke "rules" on forums. So two wrong make a right? Or it's just okay to go against the pre set guidelines because they knew what they were doing? You do realize, that most bans people know what they were doing? So by that logic that means the minimum lock requirement can be disregarded for every ban. For someone who seems so interested in following rules, you dont clearly have any interest in following them unless it suits


Funnily enough, yes you can grab steamids. This is opinion, my pure opinion regarding the situation you specifically was quoting. I don't agree with you and that's fine but at the end of the day, why would you attempt to appeal something you know would get you banned, in trouble? I have full interest in following rules and at the end of the day like I said, that's opinion. If you disagree, that's fine too. Two wrongs don't make a write and don't attempt to twist my words to validate an argument I was very specifically, quoting. The response from this is quite interesting and proves a lot of other points made outside of this.

Like I said, critical awareness is productive so thank you, I do agree with you on some regards but the minimum lock requirement isn't disregarded as we've seen. Staff handle the situations according to what they believe is by the rules. I agree with it being just due to the situation. If that offends you, that's fine.

(01-06-2020, 06:44 AM)Etlenor✅ Wrote:
(01-06-2020, 05:08 AM)Thomas Carlisle Wrote: -1

My opinion on this is purely disagreement due to the fact the people banned clearly broke the rules and the knew exactly what they were doing. In any other case where the situation may have been a bit different, then possibly I'd agree with this. The recent string of bans was due to an invalid name which can ensure they can't be targetted/seen in game at all and this can cause a plethora of issues when staff need to deal with them. Or any players, I muted them INSTANTLY due to the fact the changing to an invisible name usually means a hacker, troll or etc. It is never associated with any positive, productive.

They had full responsibility, awareness and understanding.

This has nothing to do with the actual suggestion. The reason why Edgar included those 3 ban appeals is because it basically got instantly denied, when in reality it shouldn't. You're are bringing up something that has nothing to do with the actual suggestion, and giving out your opinion on those 3 cases. Also, we didn't change our names so we wouldn't get caught by staff members, it was purely out of curiosity and fun in general.

I clarified it in my post regarding the 'suggestion'. In reality, you are mature enough to understand what having a blank name can do and can cause. If you put yourself in a questionable position then you should be well aware of the consequences. And, if I am aware, you were warned to change it also. If I am incorrect on the last part, feel free to correct me. I gave an opinion on the intent and what the capacity of the invisible name can do. 'Curiosity and fun'? I wouldn't say it was any of those but each to their own.

Thank you also, it's good to see critical feedback.

We were never warned for it, and as you can see, a lot of people agreed that we were falsely banned because no one knew this would give us a ban, specially a 3 day one. If you don't know anything about the situation then stop talk about it. You're spreading misinformation about what happened in this thread, and this is not about it at all. Stop fucking replying if you don't have anything to say about the actual suggestion because like I said, it's not about what happened, it's about how appeals are being handled atm.
⊰ @Lydia ♥ ⊱

[Image: 76561198152859708.png][Image: AddFriend.png]

All Hail the new Ravenclaw Citadel

[Image: Lewdlenor3.png]

<3
Expand Signature


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)