Intentional TK?!

[bratmi]

Your Warcraft III username: Ivan.bratmi
Realm/Gateway: server.eurobattle.net
Why are you banned: intentional tk
Why you should be unbanned: There wasn't intentional tk in the game.

I am banned for intentional tk here:
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=124665

The closest rule is this:
°Refusing to build in attempt to teamkill.
http://wiki.entgaming.net/index.php?tit ... g:LTDRules

Reasons why I should be unbanned:

1. I didn't respond to the ridiculous claim in the ban request, so let me point it out here:

He had 1200 value Cavalier which would helped 12 massively and he just sold everything.

In fact I had 2 cavs worth 840 val+ zeus. There is a big difference between 1200 and 840.
Was this noticed by the moderator?

2. I announced:
(21:20 / Allied) Ivan.bratmi: i should sell
(21:23 / Allied) Ivan.bratmi: im not mid
There was no reaction from anyone in the team.
Was this noticed by the moderator?

3. Selling is the right move in the position. I can get maximum 4 cavs on 12 and I probably even have to sell the zeus to get 4. With 4 cavs I cant kill any balista from their send. By selling I assure that some of the balistas will reach the king early and be killed. The creeps are not a problem because we can kill them with wave. To have a chance to get 4, I have to stay 6 2.
-Do you think we have a better chance to win with 7-5 7-4 7-5 6-2 on arena?
-Do you disagree that selling is the right move in the position?
-To what point does it matter which is the right move, as long as it is not done with intent to tk?

4. We could hold 12 with better control of the king, then with my extra wood we could have a good chance win the game. I couldn't control the king well because I wasn't holding it from the beginning. With wave you need to create a hole from the bottom side of the king to make balistas stuck. When the first wave was cast on the top I couldn't cast the next waves properly and this made balistas being able to attack.
Do you agree that we could hold 12 with better control?
Do you agree that if we held 12 we had very good chance to win the game with my extra wood?
If yes, would that mean that my decision to sell improved our winning chances?

5. On lvl 5 I was our only holder. I wanted to get 2 cavs to hold 5. The guy who reported me spammed me non-stop to push instead. In the end, to avoid confrontation, I pushed and get 1 cav only for 5. As a result we lost heals on 5 and from that point on we were at a huge disadvantage.
Was this noticed by the moderator?

6. On lvl 1 we have an ygg, and the guy who reported me starts building wolverines holder. This creates a huge weakness on 12. I point out the weakness to him.
(01:05 / Allied) Ivan.bratmi: wolvs are crap
(01:08 / Allied) Ivan.bratmi: dont you have anything else
(01:11 / Allied) WhyEvenBother: black people are crap
(01:13 / Allied) Ivan.bratmi: wolvs are weak on all lvls
(01:17 / Allied) Ivan.bratmi: -rolls
(01:18 / Allied) Lionking_: ?
(01:21 / Allied) Ivan.bratmi: pls anything else
(01:22 / Allied) Lionking_: not really
(01:26 / Allied) Ivan.bratmi: ok
(01:30 / Allied) b0zata: -rolls
(01:31 / Allied) Ivan.bratmi: be 7 4 on 7 pls
(01:32 / Allied) Lionking_: i play them always well
(01:35 / Allied) Lionking_: -
(01:39 / Allied) Ivan.bratmi: ???!?!
(01:40 / All) GiveMeMyPoints: ANNOUNCEMENT: ENT is looking for new staff members! (entgaming.net)
(01:46 / Allied) Ivan.bratmi: are you holding 12? 14? 15?
(01:48 / Allied) WhyEvenBother: r i p p p p p p
(01:51 / Allied) Lionking_: y
(02:00 / Allied) Ivan.bratmi: ok
He ensures me we have no problem on 12.
Edit: Note that in the game he is super fed, but he still doesn't hold anything on 12. So we have ygg holder who doesnt hold anything on 12, and wolverines holder who doesnt have anything on 12.
How many holders are we supposed to have?
Was this noticed by the moderator? (Unrelated to the ban: note racism on 01:11).

7. Very often in my 1200+ games I get people who suicide and are 7 6 or even sometimes 7 5 on lvl 10 with 0 val. Just because they don't suicide right. When I try to ban them I receive a response that "suicide is a valid strat". They never ask me, hey can we hold 12? Can we hold 14? They just suicide with low income and make the others suffer. This game is an absolute disaster for me, but I still get 7 8 by 10.
Why is it that I cant ban people who are 7 6 0 val on 10, but I get banned when I announce that I will sell my value and get 7 8?

@AmnoN Accusing me of intentional TK is a huge attack on me, so please answer questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 when you have the time.

[AmnoN]

1) Largely irrelevant
2) Nobody agreed with your decision - should have asked again since that is such a drastic plan
3) You sold all of your units - cannot come back from that - again, drastic strategy that your team never agreed to
4) Irrelevant
5) Irrelevant
6) Irrelevant
7) You have not submitted any ban requests against people who have tried to sell - I did a quick check. Also, irrelevant.

The items that are irrelevant have nothing to do with your ban - simply you trying to distract from the discussion. I would suggest you read the game-specific rules and general rules, then copy and paste the ones that you broke. That will be a good start.

[bratmi]

1. Its not irrelevant how much value I have. This determines how many balistas I can kill on 12.
2. Nobody disagreed for a minute and a half after I asked. I disagree this decision is more drastic than the decision on lvl 1 to play with ygg holder and wolverine holder, where I did disagree immideately, but he still did it.
Edit: Also, b0zata is staying next to me, so in the worst case its 2 on 2 vote.
3. See above. And if you think we have better chance to win the game with 6 2 and all balistas coming to the king together, I don't value your judgment on what is good and what isn't.
4. It is not irrelevant, because my ban is for intentional tk, not for not cooperating with the team. If my decision is proved to increase our chances of winning, it makes it a valid claim that I didn't intent to tk.
5. The point of this is to show how I could've had more value to hold 12, and how we couldve had more heals to hold 12, if it wasn't for Lionking's constant spamming. I had to chose between cooperating and doing the right thing. I chose cooperating to avoid confrontation.
6. Again, if you consider my decision drastic, I don't understand why the decision to go wolv holder pluys ygg holder is not drastic.
7. I haven't submitted ban requests because I've been told by ENT staff members that suicide is a valid strat. And of course they won't be banned for playing bad. The point is that I announced that I suicide, noone reacted, and i did. I did it better than many others, despite having an awful game.

The items that are irrelevant have nothing to do with your ban - simply you trying to distract from the discussion. I would suggest you read the game-specific rules and general rules, then copy and paste the ones that you broke. That will be a good start.

I don't understand this passive agressiveness towards me. On the opposite, I am trying to have a discussion, and you refuse to have it. You never stated why you considered my actions TK, and why you considered them intentional TK. I tried to disprove both points, but you denied to answer. At least you could have read the "good start" of my post where I copy pasted the rule that you believe I have broken.
Edit: there is actually one more similar rule in the general section, but it states pretty much the same thing, hence I posted only one.

I request independent opinion on this ban.
@Jabba41 Can I bother you again

Edit:
PS: "should have asked again" LMAO

[AmnoN]

@bratmi There is no passive aggression at all. I am simply stating that you need to read the rules and copy and paste the ones that you broke below and despite being "clever" about finding the rule, you have the wrong one - try again.

As you wish, another mod will look at this as well, but you are banned for selling all of your towers which I thought was pretty clear - teammates clearly did not agree as this was submitted in the form of a ban request.

[bratmi]

despite being "clever" about finding the rule, you have the wrong one - try again

I don't see a substantial difference between not building towers, and selling and then not building towers when I have 2 towers of importance to start with and the end result is the same: not having enough towers to hold. To me building/selling towers is specific to tower defense game, hence I post the game specific rule and not the general one which states pretty much the same thing (as stated in my 2nd post).

teammates clearly did not agree as this was submitted in the form of a ban request.

Don't say teammates did not agree when it was only one teammate. Another teammate did agree (b0zata), which makes it 2vs1 votes. On top of that, he didn't disagree until AFTER i sold my units.

Edit: Sorry, my bad. Deleted some stuff.

Edit 2: @AmnoN, in your posts, you indicate that my decision to sell 840 value of cavs is drastic and must be a team decision. Which decisions in your opinion are drastic enough to require team voting? I do believe that selling 2 cavs in that situation is not obvious, hence I announced it in team chat despite b0zata already agreeing with me, making it 2v2 at the worst, and only sold after noone disagreed. I don't understand why my decision to sell 2 cavs is considered drastic, when the impact to our chances to hold 12 is minimal (and arguably positive!!!), but the reporter's decision to go wolvs holder + ygg holder which has huge implications to our ability to hold lvl 12 is far far more drastic. I immidiately disagreed to that on level 1, but he did it anyway. Why is he not held up to the same standard as I am?

Edit 4: Since AmnoN marked my posts regarding the game situation as irrelevant, then according to him the situation is the following: I announce that I am going to sell. One person answers late with no. I get banned for selling. Do you understand the implications of this? Every time someone announce that he's going to suicide I can say no and then ban request him and he is supposed to get banned? This is completely ridiculous of course.

Edit 3: To summarize:
1. Why am I banned when the votes were 2vs0, or 2vs1 if in your opinion I have to wait minutes for an answer?
2. Why is my decision considered a TK, when the impact of it to holding 12 was arguably positive, but minimal at the worst case, and impact is definitely positive overall.
3. Why are my actions considered drastic to require a team vote in the first place, but the reporter's actions on level 1 are not held up to the same standard when the impact is much greater. How do you decide what is drastic and what is not if the impact is "irrelevant"? Are we going to start reporting every play?

[bratmi]

Sorry for post this, it is not my intention to spam.

Can I get an independent confirmation that another mod will look at this when he has enough time? My team has LTL game scheduled for this Saturday and I hope to know if we will be able to participate.

To make it easy to the next moderator, I'm accused of braking these rules:
°Do not teamkill (ex. blocking, maliciously using spells, destroying/hiding/stealing/massing items, selling towers, etc).
°Refusing to build in attempt to teamkill.
in my last post I've stated 3 separate reasons why I think the ban should not stand.

[osug]

Hello bratmi,
thank you for your patience.
I have reviewed that round and will now give a second opinion on this ban.

- In my opinion it doesn't matter if Lionking_ told you at round 1 that he holds 12 or not. This game is way to dynamic on all calls (especially if they are at the very beginning). Every send/upgrade/leak can alter the game.

- Selling 1k of value without a clear communication is a bad move. you should have made sure that your team was fine with that decision
(like mentioned: asking again or pausing for a short time to communicate would have been a good idea in that case. You cannot expect people to answer immediately. If you felt like it was a good idea to sell you should have asked atleast 1 round earlier)

- b0zata didn't really participated in this 'teamvote'. Therefore I cannot count any argument regarding "staying next to me". Ltd is a teamgame: everyone needs to know b0zata 'voted' for selling your units. He didn't communicated it tho.

- for me it seems like you intention was not to teamkill - you truly thought selling was a good idea. Nevertheless: you should have communicated in a better way.

Because of this I'd support a ban reduction.

[bratmi]

Hello @osug,
Respect for taking the time to review this. I honestly expected this was going to expire and be processed without a decision

- In my opinion it doesn't matter if Lionking_ told you at round 1 that he holds 12 or not. This game is way to dynamic on all calls (especially if they are at the very beginning). Every send/upgrade/leak can alter the game.

The point I made with this level 1 stuff is that far more game changing stuff occurred in the game without it being considered drastic enough to require a vote. It is very likely that when you go ygg holder + wolverine holder you will have a bad time. And absolutely, the send did in fact alter the game, otherwise I would probably be the one to secure 12.

- Selling 1k of value without a clear communication is a bad move. you should have made sure that your team was fine with that decision
(like mentioned: asking again or pausing for a short time to communicate would have been a good idea in that case. You cannot expect people to answer immediately. If you felt like it was a good idea to sell you should have asked atleast 1 round earlier)

Imo this is the first comment in support to the ban that makes sense. However, it should be noted that it takes time for me to make the decision as well. It is especially hard decision to sell my cavs when I know they are going for 12. I informed the team as early as I could

- b0zata didn't really participated in this 'teamvote'. Therefore I cannot count any argument regarding "staying next to me". Ltd is a teamgame: everyone needs to know b0zata 'voted' for selling your units. He didn't communicated it tho.

He would've voted, if his vote was required. But he probably didn't see a reason to after no one voted against the move. Perhaps I should've given some more time for votes to come, but we were far behind in the game, and particularly in push, so I didn't want to delay our push even more. Edit: Especially, since I knew that in the worst case the votes would be 2v2.
Edit: As it stands, the votes were 1v1, so i don't see that as sufficient enough for a ban.

- for me it seems like you intention was not to teamkill - you truly thought selling was a good idea. Nevertheless: you should have communicated in a better way.

I still think it is the right move. I don't see it as a risk that didn't pay off. It is unclear to me if you and AmnoN consider it a bad move in how the game went. Edit: if I had 4 cavs, I would still leak most if not all balistas, and all the waves will go to the king at the same time. I would also have to be about 7 2 all that time, making it impossible for us to contest any level. Regardless, it seems to me that the ban is more about the lack of cooperation than the impact on the game. I've expressed my views on that above.

I'd be thankful if my ban can be lifted by tomorrow, because we have a game scheduled 15 CET tomorrow in LTL and I don't like to break the fun of 7 other people.

[Merex]

Nevertheless, two moderators have both addressed the issue at hand and I will not be the 3rd to try and make clear of that.

Team communication, especially involving high risk decisions such as the one preformed is best to be agreed upon rather then acted on solo. Every decision that stands in 1200+ is, for the most part, communicated and agreed on. That's why the bot requires 1200+ elo to get in.

I'm not a fan of the fact that you continuously fail to realize that your lack of communication severely hurt your team, however given this specific situation, I'm inclined to believe that this fell under miscommunication and poor judgement. That being said, and taken into account that you've served already 3 days, I will reduce it to 12 hours from now.

Please do note that cooperation and, yes, communication is both necessary and appreciated when trying to appeal. If it's stated by 2 moderators that you're in the wrong, then you are in the wrong.

Processed.