rocknrolled@uswest banned unfairly

[donewithdota]

Your Warcraft III username: rocknrolled@west
Realm/Gateway: west
Why are you banned: flaming/sending solo 1 level to recover some value
Why you should be unbanned: I apologize for flaming it was wrong. Hard to contain rage when people go holder with units not good for holding ie chief...i agree with my ban for flaming and accept that ban it was wrong, but i did reason with the op at first and tried to communicate but he decided to do as he please and not consider that going holder with chief is a bad idea. still no reason to flame him so i was wrong.

however , you are banning me for 2 days with no chance to appeal for sending one level solo to recover income in a game were i need to send because of mortar yolo fail. It had no impact on the game at all because it was early on and it was clearly done to recover value and not to ruin game as you claim. how you decide this is game ruining i dont know but I am questioning that claim. people send 1 milita frequently , are you going to start banning all these people also?

why is the ban for game ruining unapealable? i would like a more experienced ltd player to judge if sending 100 wood solo at level 9 1 time in fact has any impact on a game enough to ruin it as you claim. many games have failed yolo attempts and require some unplanned sending to recover, it is part of the game. can you ban all these ppl?

[Mercy]

It's your -behavior- that gets you into this mess. I'm more experienced than you realize. If you want someone else to judge, fine. But leave 'experience' out of it. How you played at 9 was feeding and that's why I banned for 2 days. 1 militia for true income reasons isn't feed. I've @nabo. in the deleted post. I don't dislike you, I just am tired of your arrogance ingames and feel that you know better, and I know that you do.

[donewithdota]

i agreed with you ban for flame. i do accept that. i was wrong. however i disagree with you banning for a very small send on 1 level for very clear attempt at recovery in a game where i clearly needed recovery from a fail yolo. the send was very low it was 1 time and somehow you judged this to be a clear act of ruining game. If that was my intention i would have send solo more then once this game which i didnt. it was 1 time prior to 10 for some recovery. this is the purpose of my disagreement.
and why make this questionable call and then make it unappealable....
do you know how many games can be reported for a small solo send ? are you trying to set a precedent to ban these people with no appeals?

[Mercy]

That send that you did at 9 included several archers and several militia, well more than 100 lumber.
16:44 <rocknrolled> 0x10: Immediate order: [Militia] (flags: 0x0040)
16:44 <rocknrolled> 0x10: Immediate order: [Militia] (flags: 0x0040)
16:44 <CrushOrange> 0x12: Target order: smart (X: 3928.7, Y: -2991.0, Target: 0x00027F04000D7279, flags: 0x0001)
16:44 <CrushOrange> 0x12: Target order: smart (X: 3928.7, Y: -2991.0, Target: 0x00027F04000D7279, flags: 0x0001)
16:44 <rocknrolled> 0x10: Immediate order: [Militia] (flags: 0x0040)
16:45 <CrushOrange> 0x12: Target order: smart (X: 3965.9, Y: -3046.6, Target: 0x000267AC000D50A6, flags: 0x0001)
16:45 <CrushOrange> 0x12: Target order: smart (X: 3993.1, Y: -3112.4, Target: 0x00027E49000D716B, flags: 0x0001)
16:45 <rocknrolled> 0x10: Immediate order: [Militia] (flags: 0x0040)
16:45 <CrushOrange> 0x12: Target order: smart (X: 4002.2, Y: -3171.9, Target: 0x00027EE4000D7258, flags: 0x0001)
16:45 <rocknrolled> 0x10: Immediate order: [Militia] (flags: 0x0040)
16:46 <CrushOrange> 0x12: Target order: smart (X: 4007.8, Y: -3241.2, Target: 0x00027667000D6641, flags: 0x0001)
16:46 <CrushOrange> 0x12: Target order: smart (X: 4007.8, Y: -3241.2, Target: 0x00027667000D6641, flags: 0x0001)
16:46 <rocknrolled> 0x10: Immediate order: [Bowman] (flags: 0x0040)
16:46 <rocknrolled> 0x10: Immediate order: [Bowman] (flags: 0x0040)
16:46 <CrushOrange> 0x12: Target order: smart (X: 4008.1, Y: -3303.2, Target: 0x00026C44000D5735, flags: 0x0001)
16:46 <rocknrolled> 0x10: Immediate order: [Bowman] (flags: 0x0040)

You just skate off free (reductions or appeals) for things you know are wrong. That's why no appeal, you need to serve at least one of your bans. Some respect might help your case, and if I see you understand, I'll reduce it, personally. I'm not doing this to be 'impartial' like you believe, but to hold you to the same standards as I would hold anyone else.
I.E.
https://entgaming.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=53795 (Reduction)
https://entgaming.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=50756 (reduction)
https://entgaming.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=47858 (Unban)

[donewithdota]

thats 220 lumber 1 time send for recovery. the same thing happens when people send at arena furb commander = 260 or ballisa=340 wood to recover pre 11. Are you sure this is bannable behavior? Are you sure it is game ruining? That quite a strong stand to take and will be funny if you will drop banned hammer on all such cases of solo send pre 11 aimed at recovery. I think your position is untenable and this should be considered by someone else. My intention is quite clearly recovery and not game ruin.

[donewithdota]

in any case i am sorry for flaming and believe i deserve the ban for it. Having learned my lesson , ill chooose to ignore next time in this situation and preemptively ignore ifserendipity in particular to avoid more drama in the future.
However, I have made my case that I did not send to ruin game on level 9 but to recover and remain at your mercy for an unban. Thanks

[Mercy]

We are given few options for categories for bans. You solo sent and upped king, alone, primarily. Upping king is middle ground, but, sending alone w refusal to teamplay (solo upping of king, solo sending, infused with your actions), can you see what im saying? Solo sending, refusal to teamplay, etc.. is bannable. One militia to get a tower or an agreed upon dino at 2 is somewhat different.

Im looking for an understanding of ent's rules here. We have covered flaming but not what appeared as solo play.

[donewithdota]

well regarding upping king at level 4...i explained in game that blue going chief holder is a poor decision which he was not ready to consider so I was forced to up king at level 4 as a result as a precaution for this holder build failing.
RE: teamplay. apart from this send of 220 wood on 9 for recovery I did send with team entire game and we all sent as a team at 15. I explained that sometimes after fail yolo for individuals having low value , solo send at arena is typical (furb 140 comm 120 ballista 340). people try to boost income/value 1 time by sending arena solo in order to survive long saves to 15 or 17. in this case, i chose to slightly earlier at 9 with 220 wood. harldy enough to change my ability to send with team at 15 which i did .

if someone sends solo after level 10 ie at 12 or 14 alone that is substantially more harmful to team because it cripples a team send. This should be bannable or considered game ruining. this is not what i did.

aside:
but imo this is a difficult area to make rules for "solo sending" and yet it happens too often to ignore. Someone decides that 14 is good and they go ahead and send. forcing entire team to send for sake of unity even tho its a bad decision. Not uncommon at all on 1100. Hard to ban for bad decision making. the best thing ive noticed is quick and constant team communication to reach the best possible decision.

[Mercy]

They asked you to stop, though. Thats the only reason this is an issue, as well as the combination of flaming. But, do you understand where i am coming from as well?

[donewithdota]

well lets separate 2 distinct issues and not lump them.
i understand and agree to your ban for flaming. so thats not an issue.

i do not understand why ban for 1 time solo send aimed at recovery on level 9 for the reasons ive posted. Only blue asked me to stop as he was not considering my game and need for value or income to recover. You should also see clearly his selfish actions which although cannot be banned are just as toxic to game play. My initial conservation with blue was helpful and nice but at some point he decided he would play his own game as holder with 1 wisp at level 5, very selfish decision also worthy of being game ruining

[Mercy]

You were the only one who showed aggravation towards him holding. Past that, i saw no offense from him, he even ignored you when you were being toxic.

How it appeared to me was you missent 3 militia on 9 instead of 8, which happens.. When serendipity noticed that there were 3 militia, roughly maybe mid 8, you send more after flaming him when he asks you not to solo send, which indicates something else as you dropped limber right after the fact. I guess i should have remembered to bring that observation in. Everyone else was fine with him playing to hold, only you had issues with it, and continued to make that known. Whether you cooperated or not after this isnt the issue, its your attitude and the refusal to teamplay early on which impacts the overall atmosphere of the game and the game itself.

Since you are not inclined to admit the rule that you had broken, aside from flaming, i am not willing to beat a dead horse.

Reappeal in 24 hours, i will again reference another mod at that time.

[nabo.]

"...failed mortars and trying to recover" sounds like an excuse since it is not an optimal play. Wouldnt have mattered much in terms of income even if he decided to sent lvl 10 instead.

-Refusal to cooperate rule only counts when one refuses to teamwork for several lvls, not sending with team to win.
-Half recommended value rule will only be considered as a measurement to decide whether a player "intentional" clogs or not. If no clog, we do not care about what value you have.

Warning is enough for either stated cases. You guys need to understand what these rules exactly mean.

Ban will expire in 24 hrs from now.