Your Name: Hungames
Warning ID: Forum Warn 295
Issued by: Please include the [L²]/[L²:M] tag.
Reason: [font=open_sansregular, Arial, sans-serif]Insulting other players.[/font]
Why should it be removed?: My forum warning should be removed due to the fact that other admin(s) found my language to be acceptable, possibly borderline but ok. even made a reply to my post commenting on the borderline nature of my words, however, he didn't warn me or delete it. If one admin (who I'm not a friend of) allows my language, why can another come in and supersede the other? It is quite possible that other staff members noticed my post, however, they didn't take action. This is preposterous. I will be hesitant to call out bias, but the possibility of a bias is evident. Requesting someone other than Doctor Internet or Porg handle this. Thank you for your consideration.
Evidence: none
(If this is the wrong forum for this please move this thread, thanks)
HR have been contacted for this thread, as you do not wish for me to handle this appeal.
(Mar 12, 2018, 10:21 PM)Doctor Internet Wrote: [ -> ]HR have been contacted for this thread, as you do not wish for me to handle this appeal.
Thanks
While someone else will review it, the staff members you've mentioned are free to comment and discuss on this thread.
In review
(Mar 12, 2018, 10:37 PM)Enzyme Wrote: [ -> ]While someone else will review it, the staff members you've mentioned are free to comment and discuss on this thread.
In review
All I want is someone else to make the decision. Thanks
Appeal Rules Wrote:Do not post an unban request if:
- You know you broke the rules
Just because Porg didn't issue you a warning, doesn't mean it was acceptable. Porg didn't handle the report, he only posted in the thread.
(Mar 12, 2018, 10:46 PM)Doctor Internet Wrote: [ -> ]Appeal Rules Wrote:Do not post an unban request if:
- You know you broke the rules
Just because Porg didn't issue you a warning, doesn't mean it was acceptable. Porg didn't handle the report, he only posted in the thread.
That doesn't apply as I don't believe I broke the rules, only possibly borderline. I was giving my opinion based on previous experience (you can see the video I posted on the thread).
Porg made a response to my comment. In doing so he proved that he consciously took notice of my words and what I was saying. As such, due to his response, or lack thereof, he indicated that there was no rule breakage. If one admin takes notice of a possible rule breakage and doesn't act upon it, the matter should be considered handled. Bringing it back up in the future and acting upon it is unfair. Such a concept is called 'Double Jeopardy'; the prosecution of a person twice for the same offense. This idea is unconstitutional in the US, and rightfully so. The Founding Fathers of America considered this to be immoral in the 1700s. It is still immoral today and in the case of this appeal.
(Mar 13, 2018, 12:29 AM)Hungames Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 12, 2018, 10:46 PM)Doctor Internet Wrote: [ -> ]Appeal Rules Wrote:Do not post an unban request if:
- You know you broke the rules
Just because Porg didn't issue you a warning, doesn't mean it was acceptable. Porg didn't handle the report, he only posted in the thread.
That doesn't apply as I don't believe I broke the rules, only possibly borderline. I was giving my opinion based on previous experience (you can see the video I posted on the thread).
Porg made a response to my comment. In doing so he proved that he consciously took notice of my words and what I was saying. As such, due to his response, or lack thereof, he indicated that there was no rule breakage. If one admin takes notice of a possible rule breakage and doesn't act upon it, the matter should be considered handled. Bringing it back up in the future and acting upon it is unfair. Such a concept is called 'Double Jeopardy'; the prosecution of a person twice for the same offense. This idea is unconstitutional in the US, and rightfully so. The Founding Fathers of America considered this to be immoral in the 1700s. It is still immoral today and in the case of this appeal.
Welcome to Limelight Gaming.
We're a British Company.
Hosted in France.
The constitution does not apply to a set of internet forums.
In fact, in our Terms of Service (that you agreed to when you created your forum account), it states that
Quote:Limelight Gaming may disable your user ID and password at Limelight Gaming’s sole discretion without notice or explanation.
(Mar 13, 2018, 12:38 AM)Doctor Internet Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 13, 2018, 12:29 AM)Hungames Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 12, 2018, 10:46 PM)Doctor Internet Wrote: [ -> ]Just because Porg didn't issue you a warning, doesn't mean it was acceptable. Porg didn't handle the report, he only posted in the thread.
That doesn't apply as I don't believe I broke the rules, only possibly borderline. I was giving my opinion based on previous experience (you can see the video I posted on the thread).
Porg made a response to my comment. In doing so he proved that he consciously took notice of my words and what I was saying. As such, due to his response, or lack thereof, he indicated that there was no rule breakage. If one admin takes notice of a possible rule breakage and doesn't act upon it, the matter should be considered handled. Bringing it back up in the future and acting upon it is unfair. Such a concept is called 'Double Jeopardy'; the prosecution of a person twice for the same offense. This idea is unconstitutional in the US, and rightfully so. The Founding Fathers of America considered this to be immoral in the 1700s. It is still immoral today and in the case of this appeal.
Welcome to Limelight Gaming.
We're a British Company.
Hosted in France.
The constitution does not apply to a set of internet forums.
In fact, in our Terms of Service (that you agreed to when you created your forum account), it states that
Quote:Limelight Gaming may disable your user ID and password at Limelight Gaming’s sole discretion without notice or explanation.
I never claimed that the constitution applies here, only a principle deemed immoral and unconstitutional connects to the situation.
I am aware of the Terms of Service. You are obviously able to terminate my account at any time, but that seems unnecessary. It would also result in a PR nightmare.
I didn't find it acceptable, so please don't put words in my mouth, I was just about to go out so I didn't have time to file a warning i just threw a quick msg out on my phone.
(Mar 13, 2018, 03:18 PM)Porg Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't find it acceptable, so please don't put words in my mouth, I was just about to go out so I didn't have time to file a warning i just threw a quick msg out on my phone.
I never claimed you found it acceptable. I claimed you saw it, but didn't take action.
To my knowledge, LL uses the myBB warning system. Unless there is some long paperwork process that I am unaware of, a warning is quicker than writing out a post.
Furthermore, your post was sitting in the thread for a full day I believe (the post was deleted so I can't see the time it was made). During this time, you didn't take any action. Why was this? May I remind you that lying in the courthouse is a punishable offense.
Quote: My forum warning should be removed due to the fact that other admin(s) found my language to be acceptable,
Quote:I never claimed you found it acceptable.
????
(Mar 14, 2018, 12:41 AM)Overlewd Wrote: [ -> ]Quote: My forum warning should be removed due to the fact that other admin(s) found my language to be acceptable,
Quote:I never claimed you found it acceptable.
????
In that post, did I directly state that Porg found the post to be acceptable? My later posts point towards the overlying idea of acceptability through inaction. Let's remain formal and professional here, thanks.
You specifically mentioned Porg and gave an example based on what him commenting and acknowledging your comment. You state that your warning should be removed because an admin found it acceptable. Pretty obvious and direct to me. Your entire argument is based around Porg finding your post acceptable, and Internet coming along and "overriding" Porg's decision.
That said I see no reason for this to be approved.