Declined Silence Appeal

[Gamus]

[if i make some grammar mistakes please excuse them, english isnt my native language]

Punishment: silenced
Steam ID:http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198141780302/
Admin who punished me: viking34
why my punishment should be removed: I was silenced for being disrespectful

I want to explain how this happened.
it started with me giving out chocolate to reds,viking thought this was breaking rules.

I see nothing relating to how its breaking a rule.mainly giving health to reds(if it was a rebeller then i would understand)
i then decided to ask him what rule i broke,i didnt get a anwser,whatever. i blew it off and went on as normal.
then he slayed a blu for killing viking when he attacked a guard.i went back in console to see what happened and saw viking rebelled and the blu killed him.
i got upset that he slayed two players that did nothing wrong (me and the unnamed blu,( for privacy reasons i dont want to say his name.))
i began trying to get a reason out of viking for why he slayed the blu,still didnt get one.
it went on for a while until i got silenced( at the moment i was silenced i was talking to a friend about giving chocolate to reds was somehow a rule that i broke.) not talking on the mic (if i did then it was little)

i went back in chat and copied the ban.

[SourceComms++] ADMIN: Issued an extended silence on Gamus for 10080 minutes (reason: disrespectful towards players).

i would of been fine if i was muted for the map round,a day or even three days. but i was recently getting off a week silence for calling out an admin who was undercover( not saying names )
and i didnt want to wait a whole week again to use my mic and chat.

thats about all i can get and remember from the situation.

im not saying to remove the ban, as i did overtalk. but i really dont like it when unruly things happen. i would like an answer, a good one.

 

[Ben289]

This appeal has confused me to so much...

You say you were silenced for overtalking? But it says disrespectful towards players? You also aren't appealing the silence, you are complaining at what @Viking was doing?

 

[Cammy]

To throw a Sandvich or chocolate bar at a player on RED can be considered favouritism, as it only heals one person and the warden has not given you permission to heal the player(s) in question.

In my person catalogue of rules, I also personally consider it baiting as REDs may run and pick it up to heal, then getting killed by other guards.


The guard in question that Viking backstabbed was AFK right next to a huge pile of REDs against the wall just beyond the 3-door trap in ML_Castle. They were baiting while AFK due to being right next to the RED team, and Viking backstabbed them as they were baiting. Viking was then killed for killing the baiting guard, and he slew the guard that killed him as the original guard was baiting, and the kill was illegitimate.

He slew you because he warned you at the start of the round to not throw your chocolate bar at the RED team, as it was being considered favouritism by Viking. You continued to do it, and the slay was placed.

After 10 minutes of back-and-forth arguing involving me, you and Viking (because I had a very strong and informed opinion in the matter), another player decided to get involved that kept bringing the topic back up inadvertently. After 20 minutes (total) of arguing, you started to say that the admin was basically blowing his top, but in a disrespectful way. At this point you had a couple (of what I believe to be) friends joining you on this. An hour after your mute, they were still trying to antagonise Viking based on the argument that had happened.

In regards to the rules, I feel that players shouldn't need a permanent hand-holding when it comes to them; Players should realise that aspects of the rules literally come to down to common sense, which I've argued many times against many people.

Also, I would also say that your mute reason could be adjusted to include the following:

False accusations, disrespect towards other players/admins, constant overtalking

...and I'll gladly take a mute for overtalking as I am also guilty of this during the time of the argument.

 

[Cammy]

Also, he did give you an answer, stating it was favouritism, but very shortly after the baiting guard situation happened.

 

[Gamus]

This appeal has confused me to so much...

You say you were silenced for overtalking? But it says disrespectful towards players? You also aren't appealing the silence, you are complaining at what @Viking was doing?

not silenced for overtalking,being disrespectful.
im saying i was overtalking but thats not what i was silenced for.
i was complaining about viking slaying two players for false reasons

 

[Gamus]

Also, he did give you an answer, stating it was favouritism, but very shortly after the baiting guard situation happened.

favortisim is pardoning someone repeatedly as far as i know, not healing reds

 

[Wanka]

favortisim is pardoning someone repeatedly as far as i know, not healing reds

Favourtism is the act of being favourable towards a specific prisoner as a BLU i.e. helping them run off, helping them live longer but chucking health items at them, etc.

 

[Gamus]

To throw a Sandvich or chocolate bar at a player on RED can be considered favouritism, as it only heals one person and the warden has not given you permission to heal the player(s) in question.

In my person catalogue of rules, I also personally consider it baiting as REDs may run and pick it up to heal, then getting killed by other guards.


The guard in question that Viking backstabbed was AFK right next to a huge pile of REDs against the wall just beyond the 3-door trap in ML_Castle. They were baiting while AFK due to being right next to the RED team, and Viking backstabbed them as they were baiting. Viking was then killed for killing the baiting guard, and he slew the guard that killed him as the original guard was baiting, and the kill was illegitimate.

He slew you because he warned you at the start of the round to not throw your chocolate bar at the RED team, as it was being considered favouritism by Viking. You continued to do it, and the slay was placed.

After 10 minutes of back-and-forth arguing involving me, you and Viking (because I had a very strong and informed opinion in the matter), another player decided to get involved that kept bringing the topic back up inadvertently. After 20 minutes (total) of arguing, you started to say that the admin was basically blowing his top, but in a disrespectful way. At this point you had a couple (of what I believe to be) friends joining you on this. An hour after your mute, they were still trying to antagonise Viking based on the argument that had happened.

In regards to the rules, I feel that players shouldn't need a permanent hand-holding when it comes to them; Players should realise that aspects of the rules literally come to down to common sense, which I've argued many times against many people.

Also, I would also say that your mute reason could be adjusted to include the following:

False accusations, disrespect towards other players/admins, constant overtalking

...and I'll gladly take a mute for overtalking as I am also guilty of this during the time of the argument.

the guard wasnt afk as i spectating him go around the red group to kill viking who was the rebeller, certainly not afk.
atagonizing him? i would be ticked if i saw this happen to any random person. people have opinions and they want to share them.
i was overtalking, but what was the false accusations?

 

[Cammy]

Since I was dead and speccing a RED player, seeing the guy looking somewhat down and not moving while against the wall, and Viking waiting 5 seconds before making the move to kill the guy, I can safely say he was AFK.

Also, the false accusations are you claiming that he was falsely slaying someone, and claiming that he was abusing his powers.

 

[Gamus]

Favourtism is the act of being favourable towards a specific prisoner as a BLU i.e. helping them run off, helping them live longer but chucking health items at them, etc.

i wasnt warden, i cant pardon anyone.

 

[Cammy]

@Gamus Read it again.

 

[Gamus]

Since I was dead and speccing a RED player, seeing the guy looking somewhat down and not moving while against the wall, and Viking waiting 5 seconds before making the move to kill the guy, I can safely say he was AFK.

Also, the false accusations are you claiming that he was falsely slaying someone, and claiming that he was abusing his powers.

i think the reds were supposed to afk frozen, not stabbing blu's in the back.
i never said he abused them, just not using them for a good reason.

 

[Cammy]

Buuut if the BLU is baiting, they're allowed to attack the player that is baiting. Viking was meant to be AFK but stopped being AFK to backstab the guy, then resumed being AFK.

 

[Gamus]

Buuut if the BLU is baiting, they're allowed to attack the player that is baiting. Viking was meant to be AFK but stopped being AFK to backstab the guy, then resumed being AFK.

he can hit him, unless he moves to fully backstab him, baiting is hitting a blu in your melee range,scoping and such.
ive always known the idea is someone in your melee range or scoping in on me. but moving to hit a blu is not baiting and is rebelling.
thats what ive seen and known as far as of now.

 

[Cammy]

If Viking didn't kill him for baiting, the rest of the RED team would have, he was merely taking the opportunity, and by the sounds of it he was a bit annoyed that the guy AFK'd at that particular spot. In any case, he was baiting a massive amount of the RED team at the time.


Edit: This'll be the last post I make today, probably for the rest of the thread. All information involving the entire incident leading to the mute is present as far as I can tell, now it's down to Viking and admins that are watching the thread to determine the outcome; I'll still take a mute for my involvement in the overtalking during the argument.

 

[Gamus]

If Viking didn't kill him for baiting, the rest of the RED team would have, he was merely taking the opportunity, and by the sounds of it he was a bit annoyed that the guy AFK'd at that particular spot. In any case, he was baiting a massive amount of the RED team at the time.

they might have,but either way he was still kos and was killed for it, then viking slayed the guy that killed him. thus, he killed a rebeller and was slayed for doing the right thing. seems standoutish doesnt it?

 

[Viking34]

I have edited the reason for the silence in sourcebans to also include the rest of the infringements.


So, what you are complaining about is that I've slain two players and you disagree, and that the following argument got you silenced?

Player 1 - you. I told you to stop throwing food to the prisoners, as I consider it giving certain prisoners an unfair advantage. You went on with it, and were promptly slain. Since you're only arguing about whether or not feeding prisoners is against the rules, I take it you heard my warning clearly and kept going just because you didn't think I could justify it. Well, the admins who have given their input have agreed that throwing food at the prisoners is considered favouring and in some cases baiting, so I hope that's clear enough now.

Player 2 - marshmallow. Slain for freekilling me after I stabbed a guard who was standing afk right next to the entire red team. Mind you - I believe even the order to afk freeze after exiting the minigame we were at was given after everyone had already rushed out. Regardless, he was standing too close.

You would not have gotten silenced if you hadn't kept going on and on about how marshmallow 'did the right thing' and 'admin is losing his shit' even after a bloody mapchange. You had so much time to stop being an asshat before the silence was eventually placed. Why a week you say? Why only a week, I say. You've had blocks for 2 days, 3 days and even already a full 7 days. Normally I'd have to do several weeks or a month to someone who keeps warranting blocks after already having endured a week's block.

 

[Gamus]

I have edited the reason for the silence in sourcebans to also include the rest of the infringements.


So, what you are complaining about is that I've slain two players and you disagree, and that the following argument got you silenced?

Player 1 - you. I told you to stop throwing food to the prisoners, as I consider it giving certain prisoners an unfair advantage. You went on with it, and were promptly slain. Since you're only arguing about whether or not feeding prisoners is against the rules, I take it you heard my warning clearly and kept going just because you didn't think I could justify it. Well, the admins who have given their input have agreed that throwing food at the prisoners is considered favouring and in some cases baiting, so I hope that's clear enough now.

Player 2 - marshmallow. Slain for freekilling me after I stabbed a guard who was standing afk right next to the entire red team. Mind you - I believe even the order to afk freeze after exiting the minigame we were at was given after everyone had already rushed out. Regardless, he was standing too close.

You would not have gotten silenced if you hadn't kept going on and on about how marshmallow 'did the right thing' and 'admin is losing his shit' even after a bloody mapchange. You had so much time to stop being an asshat before the silence was eventually placed. Why a week you say? Why only a week, I say. You've had blocks for 2 days, 3 days and even already a full 7 days. Normally I'd have to do several weeks or a month to someone who keeps warranting blocks after already having endured a week's block.

where was this warning you gave me?
you stabbed the guard in the back, and moved to do so which is rebelling. you did this after being told to afk freeze and after the minigame.you were kos he killed you and you slayed him.

i kept going on about it because you did too. you slayed the blu that killed you. and i saw this as you killed him for no good reason. i was fine with me being slain for no good reason (happens alot) but when someone who is innocent gets slain. it gets under my skin.
most of those mutes were just warnings for me because i like to "lick" some people, atleast 90% were removed shortly after.

according to the rules, this is the def. of favortisim.

pardoning someone,not baiting. i saw nothing about feeding prisioners being a rule.
and i eventully did stop whammering about it until another player started to ask about it, once again, people have opinions and they will address them. such as he did.

i recently realised if you did give me a warning then it wasnt clear.
you were undercover as(TDP) and didnt send me a private message or server one.
if you sent it through chat then how would i know you were an admin?
you certainly didnt make an effort to get your warning across.

 

[Flynt]

where was this warning you gave me?
you stabbed the guard in the back, and moved to do so which is rebelling. you did this after being told to afk freeze and after the minigame.you were kos he killed you and you slayed him.

i kept going on about it because you did too. you slayed the blu that killed you. and i saw this as you killed him for no good reason. i was fine with me being slain for no good reason (happens alot) but when someone who is innocent gets slain. it gets under my skin.
most of those mutes were just warnings for me because i like to "lick" some people, atleast 90% were removed shortly after.

according to the rules, this is the def. of favortisim.
View attachment 1864
pardoning someone,not baiting. i saw nothing about feeding prisioners being a rule.
and i eventully did stop whammering about it until another player started to ask about it, once again, people have opinions and they will address them. such as he did.

i recently realised if you did give me a warning then it wasnt clear.
you were undercover as(TDP) and didnt send me a private message or server one.
if you sent it through chat then how would i know you were an admin?
you certainly didnt make an effort to get your warning across.

Why would you need to know if he's an admin (when undercover)?

If something isn't allowed or against the rules and a a normal player tells you (warns you) what makes it less important then when an admin does?

 

[Copyright]

First of all, I would like to point out that I wasn't there for the entire argument only the beginning. I saw the blue who got killed by Viking standing in the finish of red DR. I saw him getting backstabbed by Viking and I saw him getting killed by the blue demo who ran into red DR and killed him. He then smited the demo and respawned himself. I think that Viking was right in doing so because the blue who got backstabbed was afk by the looks of it (so he was going to die anyway). Concerning the sandvich or whatever it was, I am of mixed opinion. For me, if a blue gives a red a sandvich/ health kit while that red is doing or has just finished a minigame, that is favoritism. If the blue throws it at the group of reds for no reason then the reds SHOULD know not to get it ( notice i said should). At the same time the Blue should not do it in the first place.
On the other hand, if the blue accidentally freehit the red then i think it is acceptable for that blue (if he is a heavy of course) to give it to the red bearing in mind the fact that some minigames require health and not all wardens let reds go to medic despite the red's plea that he was freehit and thus low on health.
This is only what I think but it varies according to circumstances.
I do not know the rest of the story between Gamus and Viking so I cannot give my opinion without having seen the event in question.

Why would you need to know if he's an admin (when undercover)?

If something isn't allowed or against the rules and a a normal player tells you (warns you) what makes it less important then when an admin does?

I agree with you concerning "the concept" but I can see what Gamus means. If something is said explicitly in the rules then no there isn't any difference but for something like this it isn't that easy (as you can see with the thread about killing freedays after lr is chosen).

favortisim is pardoning someone repeatedly as far as i know, not healing reds

Favourtism is the act of being favourable towards a specific prisoner as a BLU

In my opinion, the definition of favouritism is a mixture of both( I know that I didn't take Wanka's full definition but examples don't matter as such for this post).