Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
talk:proposals:demod_enton [2013/03/08 15:58] areteee |
talk:proposals:demod_enton [2020/11/08 04:02] (current) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| \\ \\ | \\ \\ | ||
| @caBst: What else would you expect from someone you banned for very similar shit like three or four times before? Accusing me of being biased seems to turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy for some. Violating rules doesn't make you popular. \\ | @caBst: What else would you expect from someone you banned for very similar shit like three or four times before? Accusing me of being biased seems to turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy for some. Violating rules doesn't make you popular. \\ | ||
| - | Also, I shortened the ban to six days because I banned him for two weeks before I left. --- //Enton 2013/03/08 11:52// | + | Also, I shortened the ban to six days because I banned him for two weeks before I left. --- //Enton 2013/03/08 11:52// \\ |
| - | \\ | + | |
| - | That doesnt justify banning him on mere account of some "witnesses". If there is no proof, there shouldnt be a fucking ban (when in doubt, for the accused). Either the poles provide screenshots or video evidence of Chris flying in battle or whatever the fuck you banned him for, or you don't ban if there is insufficient evidence. Since the battle was observed by a mod each time - and no mod would disregard the rules enough to not ban a cheater abusing in front of them in a battle - and you havent posted any proof yet, I kindly request K_Chris to be unbanned. The issue here isnt even if the poles are some sort of entity or shit, its the way Enton dealt with this situation, namely banning someone while trusting a party whose interest is contrary to K_Chris (and even if it wasnt, thats not enough). --- //areteee 2013/03/08 15:57// | + | What I've read in here so far doesnt justify banning K_Chris on mere account of some "witnesses". If there is no proof, there shouldnt be a fucking ban (when in doubt, for the accused). Either the poles provide screenshots or video evidence of Chris flying in battle or whatever the fuck you banned him for, or you don't ban if there is insufficient evidence. Since the battle was observed by a mod each time - and no mod would disregard the rules enough to not ban a cheater abusing in front of them in a battle - and you havent posted any proof yet, I kindly request K_Chris to be unbanned. The issue here isnt even if the poles are some sort of entity or shit, its the way Enton dealt with this situation, namely banning someone while trusting a party whose interest is contrary to K_Chris (and even if it wasnt, thats not enough). --- //areteee 2013/03/08 15:57// |
| \\ | \\ | ||
| + | >What else would you expect from someone you banned for very similar shit like three or four times before? | ||
| + | It's not about what you should expect from them but what we expect the mods to do and that is giving a **fair** ban. Had K_Chris done something or not is not up to you to decide considering you didn't even presence the event. Is up to the mod present at the time to make that call. | ||
| + | >always watching, alway judging, never playing xD | ||
| + | Who would want to play in an admin-neglected server? | ||
| + | --- //[[caBst@irc.dev-urandom.eu|caBastard]] 2013/03/08 18:57// | ||