ENT Gaming

Hello,

I wanted to post a complaint about beerlord, which is also very similar to my ban appeals, and I thought I would post a complaint either way. I wanted to show an example of how he;

1) Banned me unfairly because he was upset at dying so much
2) Didn't ban bara on time
3) Shows an extreme lack of judgement in a game he is playing, while letting an obvious game ruiner play and ruin the game

None of these issues were addressed in the appeal, and I think it's important to demonstrate.

Update: he denied my first appeal for no clear reason, but the second one is viewtopic.php?f=7&t=113312.
Update2: Av1oN denied my second appeal, concluding;

"I know you didn't quite find the rule you violated in this appeal, so I'd take this time to look over them again, get a better understanding"
I copied and pasted the exact rule in the appeal post previously

He claims, "it's moments in these types of games where team battles matter the most"
but the moment was not crucial since that happened when mid rax was pushed and my actions would have resulted in only feeding the enemy team with minimal damage and no effect on the outcome of the game.

Here is a link to the replay: https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=9530854

Ban time: 30:05
I was at fountain for only < 2 min

I was not refusing to defend, was active and present at every major battle, and placed over 8 wards in the game. I only went to fountain after mid rax was pushed, and bara continued to refuse defending! Instead of kicking bara - beerlord didn't kick bara on time, and as a result he also ruined the game despite his in-game privileges (as I will show below):

So bara dies around 20 min, and gets mad. He goes to jungle and starts afk farming creeps and doesn't help the team in a crucial battle mid. (At this point he should have been kicked by beerlord). I noticed this and called bara out:

I warned bara multiple times to get in the game while he is afk farming;
(21:52 / Allied) sd.em: bara
(21:53 / Allied) sd.em: slark
(21:54 / Allied) sd.em: combo
(22:21 / Allied) sd.em: charge
(22:22 / Allied) sd.em: bara
(22:51) LOOP killed stAhrz
(22:55 / Allied) sd.em: charge
(22:55 / Allied) sd.em: bara
(22:59 / Allied) sd.em: guys
(23:01 / Allied) sd.em: look
(23:09 / Allied) LOOP: k

(23:48 / Allied) sd.em: bara is throwing

...

(24:06 / Allied) kukki23: i dont charge in... no help!!!!

...

And then bara refuses all together and basically let's them push mid uncontested. Although the rest of the team was out of position. Still, beerlord didn't kick him after clear indications in his game play and text. Instead he says,

(24:34 / Allied) BeerLord: stop ur crying and play bara

Then bara decides to just charge in and die.

After, they went top, and bara still wouldn't charge until I said;

(28:30 / All) sd.em: team just gave up i guess (referring to team being out of position and bara refusing to charge)
(28:34 / All) sd.em: bara refuse
(28:44 / All) kukki23: refuse what???????????????????

And beerlord says,
(28:47 / Allied) BeerLord: play or ban

At which point bara charges in and dies again.

My hero is paper thin, they had warlock (heavy pusher) and weaver could have killed me very easily (3 hits)?, so w/o proper charge or a tank (beerlord fed them while defending mid and couldn't tank when they pushed top) I did not want to feed. The game was over when beerlord died defending mid rax @28:00 (where bara was clearly refusing to help him, unlike me where I stopped tiny @28:11) and as a result we had no tank to stop warlock top. The game was over because there was nothing we could do to stop the enemy team. After bara dies again top, beerlord gets angry, after himself dying again (ends game 1/6), and bans both us.

I do not think this was a fair ban. He has bad judgement, doesn't use his in-game privileges to help players play a fair game and unfairly bans people out of anger. What's the point of in-game priveleges if you cant even use them to stop a clear game ruiner (bara) and instead do a useless anger ban at the end?

Also, I don't think Av1oN even knew what I meant by feeding. I would appreciate another look at this. Thank you.

@r3515t_ Hi, would you mind linking to all ban requests and ban appeals this complaint is based on?

I'll gladly post them myself.

Ban request: viewtopic.php?t=113315 (If you'll notice, both himself and the bara of that game were banned.)
Here is his first appeal: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=113304 which was denied by the original banning moderator for lack of cooperation, bad attitude and what not.
His second appeal: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=113312 which was both reviewed and denied by myself for pretty much the same reasons all around.

I myself tried on multiple accounts to explain to him what exactly it is he did wrong and he refused to see this. He kept trying to fuel arguments and jump on the defensive rather than treating his ban appeal as an appeal especially when 2 moderators tell him what he did was wrong. I have no issue having the department or a 3rd moderator review this because his violation is as clear as day if you ask me.

To clear up some concerns regarding his initial complaints -

1) Banned me unfairly because he was upset at dying so much

False.. The moderator in question acted appropriately in my opinion and reflected nothing on K/D.

2) Didn't ban bara on time

Like I said, bara was banned around the same time as this guy but if you look in the replay before the bans, he had sat fountain while bara continued to charge.

3) Shows an extreme lack of judgement in a game he is playing, while letting an obvious game ruiner play and ruin the game

I guess we're circling around to concern #1.. A proper warning was initiated by the moderator and it was ignored. There is no lack of judgement in this case since both were in the wrong but honestly, I'd lean more on this guy than the bara.

Again, most of these concerns and most of what he's complaining about can be cleared up with appeal #2 and a look into the replay. I see no reason why another complaint had to arise especially since I both review and play dota and have taken the time to try and explain to this person what it is they did wrong, as a secondary moderator on the case.

@aRt)Y I was celebrating July 4th (yesterday), so I didn't see your message until now. I believe Av1on has answered your questions, but please let me know if you needed more info as I will actively check my account (at least once per day) to resolve this complaint.

@Av1on I do not intend to argue with you because it is clear you have a bias interest in this case. Just take a look at my 2nd appeal, where you didn't address one point I made about "refusing to feed" vs "refusing to defend", made outrageous declarations about my lack of team support (99% false), and you didn't even understand a very common DotA term, "feeding". Instead, you just artificially repeated that I violated a rule, agreed with beerlord, which I contested without any meaningful reply.

You didn't even address my respond to your appeal in this complaint:

"I know you didn't quite find the rule you violated in this appeal, so I'd take this time to look over them again, get a better understanding"
I copied and pasted the exact rule in the appeal post previously

He claims, "it's moments in these types of games where team battles matter the most"
but the moment was not crucial since that happened when mid rax was pushed and my actions would have resulted in only feeding the enemy team with minimal damage and no effect on the outcome of the game.

Anyways, I am not here to talk about my unfair ban, and anyone can refer to the appeal to see our discussion. I just want you guys to see how beerlord let an admitted game ruiner - blatantly ruining the game - play until the end.

Also please recognize these key points;
1) If he would [b]kick[\b] bara we could have won.
2) If bara would start playing right we could have won
3) The fact that I didn't defend top rax was irrelevant to the outcome of the game. Based on previous battles I knew that bara would die, slark would run away and I would be left to feed.
4) The only reason beerlord banned me was because he was upset. You can see this clearly in his ban of bara, who [b]literally[\b] heeded beerlord's [b]every[\b] warning, but still found a way to ruin the game (by feeding) because he was admittedly angry.

Av1on even said above (in-reply to bara's participation) "he had sat fountain while bara continued to charge.", so bara should not have been banned in Av1on's opinion, already making beerlord's decision partially wrong. But, the fact that bara kept dying the same way every time didn't even enter in to Av1on's discussion because Av1on doesn't understand that someone can ruin a game by playing carelessly and just pretending to play to avoid a ban. Also, just to clarify Av1on's repeatedly ambiguous statement, the only battle that I "had sat fountain" was the last battle for about 1.5 min before the game was over. Please stop making such misleading statements about others!

5) The warning from beerlord was, "play or ban", but that was after mid rax was pushed and the game was over, so it was way over due to make any difference in the game. Why didn't he just ban after the game? He was angry! If beerlord hadn't died right before the ban I might believe it wasn't out of frustration that he kept dying, and that bara refused to defend mid. However, I defended mid, but after beerlord died, the game was over and it was impossible to change the outcome.

It's not fair that beerlord can participate in these games with in-game privileges and not even use them to kick clear ruiners, but instead to make a useless anger ban at the end.

Would you please stop repeating your assertion that I was angry? There was no anger on my end, then, or now.

Hi, let me start off by saying i aint no fan of ent staffs my self.

That being said i watched the replay/read all the text. and i have to agree with beerlords decision, but beerlord maybe you should have made it more clear he was going to be banned(for me it was clear, but others might not) maybe a 2nd time. as for the other he was banned aswell, so that parts not needed no more eh?

greets
Zin.

Considering this was open rather long, it will be reviewed and judged tomorrow.

Moderator's actions were fully within the boundaries. I do not have anything else to add to Av1on's decision on this case.

Denied.