ENT Gaming

Dew. breaks the rules, I prove it clearly but the posts get moved to processing because of staff who are too intellectually limited to see the validity of my claim. One gives me reasons that are clearly false in support of denying my ban requests, then another staff member bring up completely irrelevant shit that has nothing to do with the issues brought up. I then get threatened with a forum ban if I bring it up again, smells like cover up. Post below.

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.

I would hardly call it a cover-up if both ban requests have been denied and are archived for record. Therefore, have you considered that your request might simply not warrant bans under ENT's rules and regulations as interpreted by staff?

Also, here's the second ban request which has been denied: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=116890 (havent seen it in your post).

Lets start from the beginning.

Dew.'s brq on you: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=116819
Your brq on Dew.: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=116821

I agree with Av1oN's opinion here that there was no definite proof of Oj being afk. And seeing you both talked childish to each other he probably denied both to let you move on. However.. If you refuse to do so, know this. If Dew. would repost banrequest on you asking for second opinion and it would come to my attention, I would ban you for refusing to votekick game ruiner. And FalenGa seems to have similar thinking as he stated it here: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=116890 (Your 2nd brq on Dew.) Reason for it being: that you are obligated to question/check about the situation/claim if someone or several indicate that a particular player is game ruining. Both green and yellow indicated it. You didn't make a single effort (apart from typing !afk, which can be avoided by simply pressing any key on keyboard every 2 mins), you didn't see any leak, but could see him not (OJ) defending himself what would most likely happened if the votekick was being abusive. You could ask orange to confirm he is not afk, you could make any effort to get more information out of yellow and orange. You didn't, instead you immediately started ranting about rules and your obligations and rights. Worst part of it, you are actually wrong:
-WRONG
-WRONG
- WORNG
So your almost final statement: - also WRONG
Issuing a ban more than being a punishment is to teach player the rules. That's why I would ban you, so you can re-read it with more understanding.
---------------

DrCoxie wrote: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.

This is your whole chat since the beginning of 1st votekick:

At which point did you question/check situation/claim apart from easily avoidable !afk command? Please DO TELL me. I can see only immediate start of an argument about rules.
---------------
Being that sure of knowing the rules and following them, you should have included both your team members for voting !yes in what you think is abusive VK.
---------------
Another thing is in your 2nd brq on Dew. you wrote this:

DrCoxie wrote: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?

Please do tell me what is the difference between this and that:

Maybe I am also "intellectually limited" to see the difference here.
---------------
Your 3rd brq on Dew.: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=116916 is a clear spam, since both previous were denied. There is no threat, just fact stating. For spam you might get banned.
---------------
5 completely visible for public topics you call "cover up"? Being you, I'd get out of your bomb shelter and enjoy the world outside.
---------------
Finally after plenty of mods shared theirs opinion on your banrequests and complaint and all we get is 0 logic ranting and reposting with such:




I would close this topic and move on.

I was wrong in that there was no rule that forced me to kick, freely admit that, luckily there happens to be a rule that exempts me from the above rule, i.e. When there is reasonable doubt as to whether the kick is warranted. There are more than enough people who don't speak english very well so orange not saying anything isn't an indication of anything, he could simply be a polish dude who doesn't understand whats going on. As I clearly stated earlier greens aggressive push for a kick put his word in question so obviously I'm less inclined to believe him, yellow may simply be a friend of his who backs his buddy or wants to bully orange out. I'm not and will never just listen to the majority in spite of my own judgement.
Oh and on the point of not reading the rules; I read the rules that were linked to me, I did not see any votekick rules i.e. The link in the text as it has nearly the same color as the rest of the text. Am I lucky that I happened to follow the rules because they happened to go along the same lines as my own judgement? sure I am, that doesn't make it any less valid that I did.

The difference between be threatening him with a ban and him threatening me with a ban is that I threaten him rightly, i.e. He actually broke a rule by telling me I have to kick him, turns out I didn't have to kick him because I had reasonable and confirmed doubts. He on the other hand threatens me in order to pressure me into kicking orange even though, as stated above, I don't have to. You can't just apply 20/20 hind sight and go "yeah dhu he was afk" easy to see that from the post battle results.
So why not ban Dew. The one who actually read the votekick rules, that weren't linked to me by staff the first time I got banned, and still tried to break them? There is your difference, he knew the rules and tried to break them, I didn't know those particular rules and still followed them, so please, do tell me how I need a ban to learn the rules.

So your final argument summed up is; if enough people are wrong it makes them right. Cool story bro.

@DrCoxie Could you shortly summarize (tl;dr;) what exactly you hope to achieve from the complaint?

You are still trying to pursue some punishment for me, based on a a loophole in a rule, that you were unaware of, at the time of the game....
Orange WAS afk/game ruining.
I asked you to kick.
We both communicated poorly.
I was not lying about orange which you can now see clearly.
Meaning I was 100% in the right to inform you he was game ruining and ask for a kick.
You were 100% in the wrong to not kick.
There is no "cover up" just mod after mod agreeing that I informed you of the correct rules and if anything you could get a ban if I resubmit. Which I have not done because this is already enough headache for mods. I play by the rules 100%. My only ban ever is a disconnect during countdown. You're upset that a high elo was "trying to boss you around" or something. It turns out I wasn't trying to force you to do anything except make it a fair game and follow the rules. I did in fact have a game ruiner on my team and just wanted a fair game. Unfortunately you refused to allow one. Even now knowing orange WAS breaking the rules, you are here trying to accomplish who knows what. At the least, you should now know all the rules going forward. I did nothing wrong except communicate poorly. Let it go.

aRt)Y: I've decided not to answer anymore seeing as my posts pointing out how you aren't transparent at all aren't getting approved (isn't that ironic) they got disapproved because I apparently put a link in there for a link to some pirated content or something (lol). But this was your intent all along, just get rid of those who point out your errors, hide behind each other and the admin rights you so freely abuse.

Dew.: learn to read buddy, the rules clearly state that I don't have to kick if I'm not satisfied with the evidence that he really is ruining the game (afk). There were no such indications other than your word, which again, doesn't and didn't mean shit to me after you put your trash attitude on display.
And again with the delusional assumptions, how bigoted are you to lead everything back to your ELO rating, is that really all you can show for yourself, is that the one thing you have to use as both a shield and weapon? It's pathetic. Hind sight is a nice thing, if he had been afk or leaked I would have gladly kicked, unlike you I love long games, a perfect game isn't one you win crushingly or never leaking or top score, to me it's reaching lvl30, everyone holding and it going down to a never ending stream of units. Never get that anymore because of you ELO guys who just care so much about how good the number looks. I couldn't give less of a fuck about your or my ELO.

Based on @thinu 's review, it seems that you are entirely wrong with regards to the complaint at hand. I would therefore invite you to head over to our wiki and re-read our rules in order not to misinterpret them again in the future.

DrCoxie wrote:aRt)Y: I've decided not to answer anymore seeing as my posts pointing out how you aren't transparent at all aren't getting approved (isn't that ironic)

Not too sure what that's about. You seem to believe we aren't transparent..? Yet, here you are. You've received the entire spotlight necessary to 'denounce' oh every "errors" done by our staff. Unfortunately, that spotlight was only a waste, as you've done nothing with it but shine through your incompetence to comprehend simple rules. I guess you're someone who simply likes to complain about nothing and everything.

As you don't wish to participate in your own complaint any longer, it shall be denied and processed.