I do not believe this was handled correctly.

Processed complaints will be moved here.

Moderator: Oversight Staff

MagicEdFunHands
Aura Tree
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 1:44 am

I do not believe this was handled correctly.

Postby MagicEdFunHands » Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:00 am

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=114901&p=449719#p449719

I do not mean the outcome of ban or no ban. That is up to you guys. But I was warned, which means next time if I am "warned" about an AS it actually means I get a ban because of priors. I did nothing wrong in the replay. In the BRQ I clearly showed, which the violator typed on his/her own will that, they were fucking around.
Spoiler!
(02:49 / Allied) filthy.: why
(02:51 / Allied) filthy.: why'
(02:53 / Allied) filthy.: did u do that
(02:54 / Allied) filthy.: wtf
(02:56 / Allied) filthy.: green
(02:57 / Allied) squig: pink n green likely crossed
(03:01 / Allied) ._.: y
(03:02 / Allied) filthy.: dont fuck with my units like that again
(03:09 / Allied) squig: green val no doubt
(03:13 / Allied) squig: pink is fucking terrible
(03:19 / Allied) filthy.: there was no reason other than deception
(03:21 / Allied) filthy.: to anti me
(03:24 / Allied) TowerDefender: !scores
(03:25 / Allied) Shambles.: i didnt know
(03:26 / Allied) Shambles.: mb


I did not think mods can actually ban/warn a BRQ poster. Beyond that I did nothing wrong. I have almost 2k games on this account and now would be a weird time to be an AS troll. I think if the mod actually watched the game instead of using 3rd party programs, to fast pass a BRQ, he would see that chat relates to the fact that he ASed my units so they never went to mid. Instead of me trying to catch an allies leak and waiting for mid tp. Which would have showed my units and defeats the purpose of this mods warning. I actually, angrily tell the ally not to do such a thing. Cause its illegal.

Instead I get left with this...
This request is denied, and you have been [Warned] for hiding your own units be it intentional or unintentional.

Processing.
WTH does that even mean. This moderator did not watch the replay.

User avatar
aRt)Y
Protector of Nature
Posts: 13142
Joined: Fri May 03, 2013 9:15 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 174 times
Contact:

Re: I do not believe this was handled correctly.

Postby aRt)Y » Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:36 am

Moderators may ban OPs in the most offensive cases or if OP trys to intentionally avoid being reported/banned by posting it himself. With that said, warnings may be enforced, too, to keep track of offensive patterns.

Generally though, you do not get banned for posting ban requests.

@Unitil FYI. Another moderator shall review it.
    Information, Rules, Guides and everything else you need to know about ENT is on the ENT Wiki.
      Ignorantia juris non excusat • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? • Fallacy of composition

Unitil
Oversight Staff
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:56 am
Location: Canada
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: I do not believe this was handled correctly.

Postby Unitil » Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:07 pm

As mentioned in the appeal portion of the forum, I did review the game first with DRM (Dota Replay Manager) and then with the actual replay of the game to confirm my findings. From what was observed on my initial review of the game, it would appear that you were hiding your units since you were so close to the teleport area already. However, it would seem I missed the important part of you only wanting to catch the potential leaks from your ally should his unit have died. The health on his unit was fairly low, and I understand now that if the unit had not used its Fan of Knives he would have leaked during that round which is what you were trying to catch.

The Warning I provided may have been given out in haste as I missed the reason why you used anti-stuck in the first place. When first observed I only saw that your ally had held his lane, and not that you were trying to catch any of his potential leaks.

User avatar
aRt)Y
Protector of Nature
Posts: 13142
Joined: Fri May 03, 2013 9:15 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 174 times
Contact:

Re: I do not believe this was handled correctly.

Postby aRt)Y » Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:04 pm

So tl;dr; the user was not banned but merely warned for what - as it turns out - was no wrongdoing.

@MagicEdFunHands Is this outcome enough for you?
    Information, Rules, Guides and everything else you need to know about ENT is on the ENT Wiki.
      Ignorantia juris non excusat • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? • Fallacy of composition

MagicEdFunHands
Aura Tree
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 1:44 am

Re: I do not believe this was handled correctly.

Postby MagicEdFunHands » Sun Aug 20, 2017 12:21 am

I just didn't want the warning on my record. That was all. I know some think it is not a big deal but as the moderator stated in another thread
The warning I issued during your Ban Request carries no time value, and is mainly used for Staff members to reflect back on.


I just did not want a situation a week or months from now with a different moderator who sees this warning and reflects back on it in a negative way. Possibly hurting my chances at an appeal or something at a later date. You guys were fast and responsive, thank you for all the help. Unitil was nothing but nice and professional, helping me with this. I am sorry I posted it in appeals, I thought I could not write it in complaints but possibly just misunderstood there is some sort of timer/approval setup. I just do not want the warning on my record because 6 months from now no mod is going to remember this thread and I do not want to have to defend myself about cheating strategies that I know I do not do.

User avatar
HazarDous
Staff Department
Posts: 9051
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 227 times

Re: I do not believe this was handled correctly.

Postby HazarDous » Sun Aug 20, 2017 2:39 am

Thanks for your civilized behaviour on this complaint. You seem to understand that moderators can make mistakes sometimes, even though it is obviously not their intention.

Warning has been removed from your history.

Processing.


Return to “Processed Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests