PTOX Appeal

[avaster]

1 hour ago, StaticCG said:

 during the sit why you said it, you answered: because he said dm'd f_ saying they want to unban someone who was just unbanned for pedo accusations

That wasn't me replying about the p*do shit itself, but rather that they twist and make jokes about serious topics.

I mentioned this earlier in the appeal.

 

They feigns seriousness about the topics when it suits them, but will joke about them and the people around the topics in game. That’s what I was replying to, nothing more.

Edited August 26 by avaster

[StaticCG]

3 minutes ago, avaster said:

That wasn't me replying about the p*do shit itself, but rather that they twist and make jokes about serious topics.

I mentioned this earlier in the appeal.

You did mention it earlier, that's fair. It doesn't change the outcome though.

Even on that reading, the behaviour you were labeling "average ownu member" was joking about a pedophilia unban, and you applied that label to a named group of players. "They are", "they defend", "they make light of it" it's the same subject being used to put a group down, and that's what PTOX covers. The rule isn't about which precise accusation you had in mind.

 

-1 stands from me. It's with the higher-ups now. I'll leave the rest of the team to make their votes.

[avaster]

47 minutes ago, StaticCG said:

You did mention it earlier, that's fair. It doesn't change the outcome though.

Even on that reading, the behaviour you were labeling "average ownu member" was joking about a pedophilia unban, and you applied that label to a named group of players. "They are", "they defend", "they make light of it" it's the same subject being used to put a group down, and that's what PTOX covers. The rule isn't about which precise accusation you had in mind.

 

-1 stands from me. It's with the higher-ups now. I'll leave the rest of the team to make their votes.

But you went off TOS 0.3. The original ban you gave me was 'TOS 0.3'.

You realized you made a mistake and changed my ban reason to PTOX.

Edited August 26 by avaster

[StaticCG]

Just now, avaster said:

The original ban you gave me was 'TOS 0.3'. You went off TOS 0.3.

You quickly realized your mistake and then changed my ban reason to PTOX.

Sure I put ToS 0.3.3 at first after discussing, and a senior moderator told me to update it just to PTOX, which I did. Don't see the relevance here since this is a PTOX discussion.

[avaster]

1 hour ago, StaticCG said:

Sure I put ToS 0.3.3 at first after discussing, and a senior moderator told me to update it just to PTOX, which I did. Don't see the relevance here since this is a PTOX discussion.

Because the reason you banned me was based on TOS 0.3, not PTOX

Edited August 26 by avaster

[ChefSoda]

The ‘handbook’ doesn’t say 2w minimum even if it was a full fledged pedo accusation.

 

Pedophile accusations

(First offense) warn - 2 week ban depending on the situation

(Second offense) 1 month ban with no chance of appeal

(Third offense) Permaban 

 

If the offense is saying“Average Ownu member” in response to statement from F_, a 7d ban is disproportional IMO.
 

Avastar’s statement derives its context from the one before it made by F. While both comments were highly inappropriate, IF “Bro likes pedos” does not warrant a 7d ban then neither does the response “Average Ownu member”. To me neither of those comments are pedo accusations per se because the text doesn’t read “bro is a pedo”; regardless it is adjacent to them and should not be said. 

 

I am going to be +1 for Avastar’s punishment to match the one given to F_

[Miami mint vape]

17 minutes ago, ChefSoda said:

If the offense is saying“Average Ownu member” in response to statement from F_, a 7d ban is disproportional IMO.

Its not what he said its the context behind it and the insinuation of what he meant by that statement. Grammatically what he said according to his response  he meant to reply to F__ response to xoxt message doesn't make sense at all. He already has an unnecessary amount of animosity against me and my group of friends the nature of the statement can easily be derived by what he said and this has been stated previously by other staff members here. 

 

20 minutes ago, ChefSoda said:

Avastar’s statement derives its context from the one before it made by F. While both comments were highly inappropriate, IF “Bro likes pedos” does not warrant a 7d ban then neither does the response “Average Ownu member”. To me neither of those comments are pedo accusations per se because the text doesn’t read “bro is a pedo”; regardless it is adjacent to them and should not be said. 

As i previously said in my response before the other staff had handled f__ unnecessary comments in ooc but the direct accusation from avaster cannot be unseen here. i cannot be the only one who sees the absurd and slanderous statement by saying Average ownu member in response to someone saying bro likes pedo's and nonetheless he was given multiple opportunities to clarify and rectify what he had said to f__ regarding my group of friends and to the other staff he double downed without doubling down.

RELEVENT I WAS THE REPORTER IN SAID BAN

[ChefSoda]

53 minutes ago, Miami mint vape said:

Grammatically what he said according to his response  he meant to reply to F__ response to xoxt message doesn't make sense at all.

I am granting the point that their reply was to the “Bro likes pedophiles” line. Avastar’s defense was obfuscation. However, that is ultimately irrelevant to my contention of the ban.

54 minutes ago, Miami mint vape said:

but the direct accusation from avaster cannot be unseen here. i cannot be the only one who sees the absurd and slanderous statement by saying Average ownu member in response to someone saying bro likes pedo's

“Average Ownu member” was an inappropriate response to an already inappropriate comment, but it was not a direct pedo accusation. There is more credence to support that F_’s initial comment was a direct accusation against ‘NOCLIP RAIDER’. 
 

My reasoning for supporting the reduction is threefold:

1.) Avastar’s punishment is disproportionate to the one given to F_
2.) Their comment was not a direct pedophile accusation-BUT I do recognize that it was adjacent (i.e. XYZ are pedo sympathizers)

3.)  Even for direct pedophile accusations the guidelines specify that the first infraction is a warn up to a 2w ban. While the staff member handling the situation has the ultimate discretion,  I procedurally disagree that this should have been treated the same as a direct pedo accusation.

 

[Miami mint vape]

so in a much more drastic case and i might start doing some unequal inequivalence. If i went around saying "damn player 1 supports what happened at Epstein's island" that doesn't constitute player toxicity behavior??

Edited August 26 by Miami mint vape
Grammar fixes

[Vex]

While I understand why this is blown out of proportion, Avaster said his remark to OWNU as a whole calling them essentially Pedo sympathisers or he calls them people who abuse staff to get people banned/unbanned. So for the ban - All bans have to be valid, for 1304 to have Comm removed someone means there was legitimate evidence as to why they were banned. Following that to unban someone who is Perm banned or Comm removed, it is not just a simple click of a button so again, that is simply just a baseless false claim.

 

What F said was plain stupid, you replying to it was especially stupid since you and for some reason all of OWNU have beef. F is an ex-Admin and you are new, so from my point of view, this is not an accusation, it is as Chef said, more of a Pedo sympathiser claim. Still sick but this is not accusing someone of predatory behaviour. This should have been a warn, considering F has recieved no punishment and you recieved a ban.

 

It's not hard not to engage and start drama, so in future maybe avoid hot topics, especially when it is something very closely adjacent that can get you permanently banned. Do note that this will still fall under P-Tox Pedo punishment, so whether this gets reduced or it stays your next punishment will be a 1 month unappealable ban or permanent ban. Even as a new player you would have seen all the recent punishments for people claiming others are Pedos or even true accounts of Community removed players names being brought up, we tell people to stop it. The only reason that this appeal can happen is due to the fact that punishments were botched, you cannot punish one player for this and not the other.

 

+1 for both yourself and F___ to recieve a warn and and your ban to be removed.