[Nudel]

Posting on behalf of @Murdoch Murdoch 


Your Name: (On behalf of) Murdoch Murdoch

Issued by: [L²:M] Doctor Internet

Blacklist ID: 73194 , 3151

Server: Rockford

Why should you be unblacklisted? (with evidence for easier reading): It's probably important to keep in mind the warning. It states that it was originally placed 'despite warnings' when the only thing close to a warning I received was a player with no authority telling someone else not to do something:



Doctor Internet claims to have given me a second warning prior to the officially record one, but if you check the logs at this time you will see that is nowhere to be found (around 16:45 GMT):



I was protesting somebody else's warning, mind you. Guess this is what I get for trying to be charitable.

Now, after I was warned it's true that I did express my initial disgust at this. I was given warnings that were very loosely based upon the likely basis that it's impossible (or rather unfortunately for you, just slightly more difficult) for me to appeal them, so it's only naturally I wouldn't be very happy about this.



But as you can see here, after Enzyme said drop it, I added to the message I was already writing "that's more like it" which signified my resolve.

But, instead of accepting this resolve, our rather overzealous friend Doctor Internet decides to dish out a 30 minute OOC blacklist (that's three times his normal, excuse my French, bullshit blacklist length) and not only that but hides it from the chat despite the fact he's not undercover - perhaps he fears the reaction it might bring because he knows it wouldn't go down well? Could that possibly be because it's unjustified?

I can't be expected not to protest my right to be treated fairly, nor the rights of others, it's unreasonable.

To be clear, this covers both the warning and associated blacklist. I considered this more appropriate than making 2 seperate posts that would contain the exact same text.

[Limelight Gaming]

The staff-members have received your unblacklist-request, Nudelsalat im Panzer.

It will take a while for it to be reviewed.

[Doctor Internet]

Since this is only an unblacklist request, I'll focus on the blacklist.

Firstly, it's expired, so I'll assume it's for a removal of record.
Whilst the first "warning" was from a community member, it is a reminder of the rules none the less. Considering your 1200 hours and position as an ex-staff member, you should know the rules. This led to your warning.

The second message was after the warning by Enzyme (giving you two "official") warnings at this point. You continued. Yes, the blacklist was longer than a regular one. However, as a veteran of the community, with 1200 hours, you should have known better.

Personally, I support neither the removal of the warning, nor the removal of the blacklist from record.

[Nudel]

@Murdoch Murdoch

Obviously I can't quote posts while I read this so I'll do my best

"Whilst the first "warning" was from a community member, it is a reminder of the rules none the less."

I'm afraid it's just not. When I was a staff member I'd never consider it that no matter who it is if it's not a staff member saying that. Just because you dislike me (which you don't have to lie about, we're all grown up here) does not mean you get to bend whose word is law.

"The second message was after the warning by Enzyme (giving you two "official") warnings at this point."

And if you could read, you'd know the end of that message signified my resolve. Your point here is, therefore, objectively invalid. It doesn't even take an idiot to realise "that's more like it" implies that you will follow the associated command/gesture.

[Doctor Internet]

"Whilst the first "warning" was from a community member, it is a reminder of the rules none the less."

I'm afraid it's just not. When I was a staff member I'd never consider it that no matter who it is if it's not a staff member saying that. Just because you dislike me (which you don't have to lie about, we're all grown up here) does not mean you get to bend whose word is law.

I don't have an issue with you. I have an issue with your actions.

You were notified by a community member, before receiving an official warning. If you would like the reason editing to remove the "despite warnings." part, I am more than happy to allow that.

"The second message was after the warning by Enzyme (giving you two "official") warnings at this point."

And if you could read, you'd know the end of that message signified my resolve. Your point here is, therefore, objectively invalid. It doesn't even take an idiot to realise "that's more like it" implies that you will follow the associated command/gesture.

However, from what I could tell at the time, you continued to make your point about how the warning was abusive in some way in OOC, as we can see from your own evidence.

In this screenshot, it shows you complaining about the warning "mistreating" you, after @Enzyme told you to drop it. You even see his comment and respond upon it.

If I may quote the unban request rules for you:

Do not post an unban request if:

- You know you broke the rules

Finally, the blacklist was already expired when you posted the unblacklist request. May I query what you're hoping to achieve from this?

[Welker]

"Whilst the first "warning" was from a community member, it is a reminder of the rules none the less."

I'm afraid it's just not. When I was a staff member I'd never consider it that no matter who it is if it's not a staff member saying that. Just because you dislike me (which you don't have to lie about, we're all grown up here) does not mean you get to bend whose word is law.

I don't have an issue with you. I have an issue with your actions.

You were notified by a community member, before receiving an official warning. If you would like the reason editing to remove the "despite warnings." part, I am more than happy to allow that.

"The second message was after the warning by Enzyme (giving you two "official") warnings at this point."

And if you could read, you'd know the end of that message signified my resolve. Your point here is, therefore, objectively invalid. It doesn't even take an idiot to realise "that's more like it" implies that you will follow the associated command/gesture.

However, from what I could tell at the time, you  continued to make your point about how the warning was abusive in some way in OOC, as we can see from your own evidence.

In this screenshot, it shows you complaining about the warning "mistreating" you, after @Enzyme told you to drop it. You even see his comment and respond upon it.

If I may quote the unban request rules for you:

Do not post an unban request if:

- You know you broke the rules

Finally, the blacklist was already expired when you posted the unblacklist request. May I query what you're hoping to achieve from this?

<Posted on behalf of Murdoch>

-Bear with my inability to quote-

You say don't post an unban request if I know I broke the rules, but I haven't. Direct me to the rule which says you're not allowed to share an opinion on somebody else's punishment, since that's the root of the problem here.

Sure, we can break it down to 1.5, but if your arguments were based off of imaginary rules in the first place and we can prove that here in the courthouse, each and every associated punishment or directive doesn't make sense.

You ask what I intend from this. I want it off my record. Every single little blip on my record is another thing that can be used against me in the grand plan of wiping me out for disagreeing with you, and I'm not about to let these be 2 of them.

[Doctor Internet]

You say don't post an unban request if I know I broke the rules, but I haven't. Direct me to the rule which says you're not allowed to share an opinion on somebody else's punishment, since that's the root of the problem here.

Sure, we can break it down to 1.5, but if your arguments were based off of imaginary rules in the first place and we can prove that here in the courthouse, each and every associated punishment or directive doesn't make sense.

At this time, it's brought under arguing in OOC, spamming OOC with un-needed content and 1.5. Not only had a community member mentioned it, you'd already been given a verbal warning by Enzyme and a permanent warning by myself prior. Combine with with your ex-staff position and over 1000 hours on the server, you should know such a basic rule.

You ask what I intend from this. I want it off my record. Every single little blip on my record is another thing that can be used against me in the grand plan of wiping me out for disagreeing with you, and I'm not about to let these be 2 of them.

I have no issue with you, I have issues with your actions. Again, as a former administrator, I'm sure you'd be able to understand the difference.

Thank you for your time in writing these responses, however, I am afraid to say that I believe that this appeal should be denied. Not only did you receive repeated warnings on your conduct prior to the blacklist, your experience on the server is why the length was increase from 10 to 30 minutes.

As a former staff member, with over 1000 hours, having received warnings previously, you should have known better. To argue otherwise here to a disservice to both us and yourself.

[BlackDog]

Appeal Denied