Dew. EU

Approved or denied ban requests are archived here.

Moderator: ENT Staff

DrCoxie
Aura Tree
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2017 10:22 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Dew. EU

Postby DrCoxie » Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:04 pm

Replay Link: https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=9752418
Game Name: [ENT] HELLHALT TD #68
Your Warcraft III Username: DrCoxie
Violator's Warcraft III Username: Dew.
Violated Rule(s): Trying to deceive me about kicking rules
Time of Violation (in-game or replay): 44 minutes
Any further thoughts: I'm reposting this request because within the reasons for denying my first request there were two errors, it was stated that "..and in no way did green state you'll be banned directly."- this is false as proven by "(46:42 / All) Dew.: votekick now u do tho, or get a nice ban, either way" "...or get a nice ban..." that's not directly telling me I'll get banned if I don't vote !yes?

It was also stated "While west may have had limited proof on this AFK, what green was saying wasn't false. You are required to !yes when a game ruiner is present" yes, correct, if he was leaking and showed up as afk using the !afk command green wouldn't have been lying. However he said, as proven above, that I have to vote !yes even though I clearly stated my doubt on whether he was really afk, THIS constitutes a clear attempt at deception regarding the conditions under which I have to vote !yes as per "You are free to refuse to votekick someone when there is lack of evidence/visible rule violation. However, communicate your decision via all chat, too.".
Further more: "You are obligated to !votekick any player that has broken any of ENT's rules. If someone or several indicate that a particular player is game ruining, you, as a player in the game, are obligated to question/check about the situation/claim." states that I have the OBLIGATION to check greens claims.

The evidence here is clear and Dew. was in fact trying to make me vote yes even though I was not convinced of the validity of the vote. Not only that but he tried to persuade me to disregard part of the very rule he bases his whole case on "...you, as a player in the game, are obligated to question/check about the situation/claim."

The original request:
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=116821&p=455670&hilit=drcoxie&sid=4a82de0cedd159935707c8018741f16d#p455670

ps: To FalenGa; don't reply to my posts when you don't know what you're talking about, just adds another repost because you closed it.

User avatar
Panopticon
Treant Protector
Posts: 851
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 3:03 am
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Dew. EU

Postby Panopticon » Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:18 pm

And reposting after it's closed just adds a forum ban for spamming.

Your ban request was denied twice, by two different mods.
PSA: Bigtits = Iambackk

tinker_666 = ta-ta

User avatar
Quentin
Treant
Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:42 pm
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Dew. EU

Postby Quentin » Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:33 pm

Already denied by 2 different mods.
Please do not spam again if you do not want to be forum banned.

Processing.


Return to “Processed Requests”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 74 guests