(TCM) Jack's Permanent Ban Appeal

[[GL] Jack I the One & Only]

1 hour ago, Rangiatea said:

This would involve either staff constantly watching him or removing his donator rank

Sure remove my donor rank, 100x better to me than not playing at all

[DooM Guy]

13 hours ago, Eternity said:

That whole argument is stupid. If he spawned in let's say 50 props at once, and still claiming he thought he only spawned in 10. That's a reasonable perma ban. 

I mean he should only be able to spawn like 10 props at max, it says that when you buy it pretty much. (buy bronze that is)

Edited November 5, 2020 by DooM Guy

[Forehead man [GL]]

I'd like to give a -support on the ban dissipating, but this is very serious. While his logic does make sense that it wouldn't crash this is a second offense. but wasn't the reason for the ban trying to crash the server? in that case, the server wouldn't have crashed at 50, he knew that and was fucking around. 

I would personally +support something like a reduction to 1-3 months and maybe stripping his donator ranks, staff/ ET restriction because either that or he is permabanned

[Hope]

7 hours ago, _Alpha_ said:

But at the same time as a long time member he would know better, if this was someone new it would probably be a different story, but Jack has played on the server for a while and probably should understand the rules by now.

Not only that apparently he has done something like this before? I don't the context behind that warn but from the sound of it he's a repeat offender.

Also why in the world would you do that Jack? Was it for a stupid meaningless meme? 

 

Personally I'm probably going to have to -1 for now.

 

[Sammie]

+support

I believe a lower ban should be applied to Jack. Maybe he tried to go renegade but I doubt it.

The short time I have experienced with him I felt that he was a chill, funny, and nice guy.

 

 

[I disappear]

+support

should still be banned but not permanently

[Frog]

On 11/4/2020 at 10:08 PM, Sixx said:

-Support

Just look at the screenshots. 

 

[Dect]

On 11/5/2020 at 3:28 AM, Eternity said:

That whole argument is stupid. If he spawned in let's say 50 props at once, and still claiming he thought he only spawned in 10. That's a reasonable perma ban. 

 

On 11/5/2020 at 3:42 AM, Sparkle said:

-Support

You were previously warned on this exact issue. You were already given a "second chance" when you were verbally warned that day.

Even with the arguments about prop limits, knowingly going over that limit for purposes of "minging" as you say could very well be considered exploiting. We just had an appeal about "knowingly going over assigned limits". SMT made clear you shouldn't be doing this type of stuff.

-/+ support
shouldn't have been perm. Maybe a month ban or 2

Edited November 6, 2020 by Dect

[Leo/Kaz]

On 11/4/2020 at 7:33 PM, Sixx said:

+support

I think that Jack deserves another chance to be on the server, knowing him, I know that he never had any malicious intent in anything that he did.

 

[Evelynn]

On 11/4/2020 at 10:12 PM, [GL] Jack I the One & Only said:

Yes, I was certainly propspamming and minging, but at no point was there intent nor ability to cause a server crash. 

You admit to propspamming, your actions are what got you banned.
-Support.

[Jack (utility one)]

+support
I would suggest lowering the ban but not fully removing it. I would say 6 months would be good, lower or higher would be fine.

[The Apple]

5 hours ago, Dect said:

 

-/+ support
shouldn't have been perm. Maybe a month ban or 2

 

[Jack II]

LMAO

+ support

[Kieran ♡]

-Support

- Clear Evidence provided.

- I don't even have to explain my screenshot, It clearly states "Common Offenses", This isn't a Common Occurance.



Even if you are a well respected Member, You are treated with the same respect as the rest, Along with that. You admitted you did it.
 

Edited November 7, 2020 by Kieran ♡

[[GL] Jack I the One & Only]

10 hours ago, Kieran ♡ said:

-Support

- Clear Evidence provided.

- I don't even have to explain my screenshot, It clearly states "Common Offenses", This isn't a Common Occurance.



Even if you are a well respected Member, You are treated with the same respect as the rest, Along with that. You admitted you did it.
 

 

On 11/4/2020 at 9:12 PM, [GL] Jack I the One & Only said:

As for my dispute, there are only three issues (according to staff handbook, which I get doesn't apply as much to HoS) 

I am not trying to claim I did nothing wrong, rather that the punishment in this case is excessive. 

Not to argue, but nowhere in my application did I try to imply the staff handbook was a hard guideline. As quoted above, I understand the staff handbook does not apply nearly as much to the HoS, but still should be generally followed for issues that fall under it.

Also, while I do admit to it, I believe the punishment does not fit the crime, and neither does the reason. Attempting to crash the server implies intent and ability, and while there is a tiny, miniscule chance I had the ability to do so with props (being exceptionally unlikely due to the props I was spawning being commonly spawned on the server, with no history of crashing the server from their spawn), I did not have the intent. I did not wish harm onto the server, and was simply having fun.

This was not an attempt to crash the server, and I do not believe it should be treated as such. I understand rang can make his own punishments freely and without practically any restriction, but this punishment does not make sense to me, so I appealed.

[Gunther]

On 11/4/2020 at 10:12 PM, [GL] Jack I the One & Only said:

I find it hard to believe in any stretch of the mind that spamming up to 10 props at 50 players would impact the server's preformance, or even remotely possibly crash the server.

+Support for the removal of the permaban, while I have seen this happen in other scenarios, and while it might be possible, I don't believe this was the case, nor do I believe for a second Jack would attempt to crash the server on purpose, or intentionally. I believe the warn for the mingery and prop abuse should stay, but not a permaban. 

If he is the cause, then that's concerning given he only spawned 10 props at a 50 player capacity. If the server can crash like this, then we may see an issue in the future.

On 11/4/2020 at 11:49 PM, DooM Guy said:

Like bruh I've seen Rang crash the server with Molotov's before lmao. 

A lot of people have too, I remember I crashed the server as Event Team, albeit not intentionally and this was before I learned how the tools to prevent clipping. Point is, unless someone is doing it with malicious intent, I find permaban being far too harsh for this type of thing. 

Edited November 8, 2020 by Gunther

[Gunther]

On 11/5/2020 at 3:26 PM, Phillers said:

-Support for a complete unban, +Support for a reduction to 6 months.

 

Edited November 8, 2020 by Gunther

[NeoID]

On 11/7/2020 at 9:15 AM, Kieran ♡ said:

Even if you are a well respected Member, You are treated with the same respect as the rest, Along with that. You admitted you did it.
 

Admitting his wrongs is not what I would consider a bad thing. If anything, its a first step to repent. The solution is simple. Jack even agreed that if he was unbanned after said amount of time, that he was ok with his donator rank being removed. How he goes from there is up to him, but it would be a resolve to ensure everyone's happiness, and to make sure it is not to happen again. A compromise? If you will. If he was to push the limits again and get punished, I absolutely agree it could/should be permanent, but I doubt it somehow.

[Applegapple]

On 11/4/2020 at 11:49 PM, DooM Guy said:

MAJOR +SUPPORT

You guy are looking at this wrong. Even if the prop limit is more then 10 he had no idea because WHEN YOU BUY SILVER IT TELL YOU YOU HAD A CAP OF 10 ON BRONZE. At that point it's on EMT for putting that in the store description. even then, a perma ban is way to harsh for someone simply prop spamming. I believe he had no intent on crashing the server what so ever. Jack isn't the type of guy to do that. I could see a war or maybe a few day ban but a perma ban is next to ridiculous.  Plus there was like 50 people on the server. Like bruh I've seen Rang crash the server with Molotov's before lmao. 

He should at least have the ban shortened, I mean c'mon, really??

On 11/4/2020 at 10:16 PM, [GL] Fizz-y Soda said:

 

 

[Rito]

On 11/4/2020 at 10:42 PM, Scoron said:

+Support

If his prop limit caps at 10 props, even if he spawns and deletes them rapidly, it does virtually NOTHING to the server.
 

We all screw around with props when we're bored, this does not warrant a permanent blacklist and ban from SCPRP
It would not matter if the logs say he filled out even 1000 pages (which he only filled out 5), it would still not affect the gameplay in the slightest, or even crash the server (it would take a miracle for that to happen with 10 props of the size he was using to crash the server).

 

And No, he was not "going rogue" after his previous punishment and blacklisting from the O5 Staff Team, as much as you would like to believe so.
If he gets unbanned, I'll be keeping an eye on him; but that choice is up to Rang.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1- Racism, Homophobia, Transphobia, ETC
#2- DDOS Threats, Advertisement of Other Servers, Attempting to Crash Server
#3- Warning Threshold Bans

These types of bans are warranted for people that actually commit those offences listed ^
Jack does not come anywhere close to any of these.

Please reconsider, thank you.

Free my boi he aint do non wrong

[[GL] Mike]

On 11/4/2020 at 7:57 PM, Rangiatea said:

I have 8 screenshots worth of imagines from blogs that shows you continuously spammed the same prop (screenshots will come in shortly) however ignore the current incident that got you banned you had also a few days prior received a verbal from me due to your minging in 682's CC with around 50 of the exact same prop, when I told you to delete them or face a perma you immediately deleted them all (quick note, i looked at the props and Blogs they were all his).  so this wasnt your first incident

 

ALSO real quick i had @Sixx set to bronze and said "spam props till you cant" it got to https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2277682570 till i said stop

 

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2273926961

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2273924122

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2273924051

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2273923797

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2273922531

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2273921207

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2273921124

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2273919759

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2273922411

A considerable number of these props will also spawned in water and were found by my staff @[GL] Zeus  @Sarge   

 

This image is of the O5 channel in discord where i informed both of them of jacks spam in the server, while it does nothing to prove it, it does show the date (the first incident)

Sorry man.....

[BOBBLE]

On 11/4/2020 at 9:42 PM, Scoron said:

+Support

If his prop limit caps at 10 props, even if he spawns and deletes them rapidly, it does virtually NOTHING to the server.
 

We all screw around with props when we're bored, this does not warrant a permanent blacklist and ban from SCPRP
It would not matter if the logs say he filled out even 1000 pages (which he only filled out 5), it would still not affect the gameplay in the slightest, or even crash the server (it would take a miracle for that to happen with 10 props of the size he was using to crash the server).

 

And No, he was not "going rogue" after his previous punishment and blacklisting from the O5 Staff Team, as much as you would like to believe so.
If he gets unbanned, I'll be keeping an eye on him; but that choice is up to Rang.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1- Racism, Homophobia, Transphobia, ETC
#2- DDOS Threats, Advertisement of Other Servers, Attempting to Crash Server
#3- Warning Threshold Bans

These types of bans are warranted for people that actually commit those offences listed ^
Jack does not come anywhere close to any of these.

Please reconsider, thank you.

i agree with this i think theres no possibility of the server being affected by 10 props i do agree though that is considered minging and prop spamming 

[TAlila | Tay Keith!]

On 11/5/2020 at 3:26 PM, Phillers said:

-Support for a complete unban, +Support for a reduction to 6 months.

 

[General bacon]

This is gonna stay pending and never get accepted/denied bruh

[Rookieblue]

DENIED

Based on the evidence and testimony provided in this case, I am denying this appeal. The key facts considered in this case were the following: The appellate previously received a verbal warning about mass spamming props and that a repeat of that would result in a permanent ban. Despite this warning, the appellate engaged in the same conduct again, mass spawning props which contradicts MOTD rule: You should only use props to enhance an RP situation. Depending on the size, complexity, and position of the props, they have the potential to crash the server regardless of the population size. Furthermore, the population of the server at the time of the incident has no bearing on the level of punishment given. Just as there is no such thing as minge hour, and how using racial or homophobic slurs are never tolerated during different times of day, mass spawning props is also not tolerated. The appellate is a long time player of the server, and well aware of what is considered acceptable and not acceptable. Being verbally warned by the Head of Staff not to do something, and then going ahead and doing it again is a clear violation of the rules, and in my opinion the level of punishment issued is sound.

The appellate is free to appeal this ban again pursuant to the permanent ban appeal policy listed in the appeal section.