nabo. unfairly pardoning a Clan High member

[Zippilyzap]

I have been ban requesting many players since I joined the ENT community, proving myself to be quite an ENT asset. Recently, nabo. had pardoned a particular player who was a member of Clan High, in which I had gotten banned.


This is the link to the official ban:
https://entgaming.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=53003

This is the player that was pardoned:
king_of_bongo@useast

This is the ban appeal:
https://entgaming.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=53281


Player king_of_bongo@useast was banned for failing to kick a player who was throwing the game. king_of_bongo@useast claims that he was unaware of the situation. These were a few lines in which stated the purpose of the votekick:
(24:53 / All) isuppose: we need to kick blue
(24:59 / All) isuppose: he's not even playing
(28:19 / All) isuppose: We've all agreed
(28:23 / All) isuppose: he's throwing
(28:27 / All) isuppose: scourge needs to kick now
(28:35 / All) isuppose: he's just following me
(28:41 / All) isuppose: enjoy your ban then

All team members of the Sentinel have already voted to kick the desired player, including one member from the Scourge. In the 'Votekick Rule' stated in this forum, it states that "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" and "If you are unsure that someone on the opposite team is game ruining, ask the other team for clarification via all chat." In this case, none of the members from Scourge were cooperating to investigate. In fact, player king_of_bongo@useast constantly responded to my pleading with unrelated comments, even stating once "not gonna happen" as the votekick was initiated. Clearly, Scourge failed to further inspect the situation in which I attempted multiple times to clarify. Player king_of_bongo@useast simply refused to learn of the situation and then claimed a lack of evidence in the ban appeal.

Also, an excuse used for not kicking was that the desired player was new to the game. Another rule states "It is possible to game ruin by being new. In this case, votekick will only be valid if the new player refuses to learn and cooperate. Just because someone is a newbie or bad does not mean he is intentionally game ruining." Again, all team members of the desired player have voted, indicating that the desired player wasn't cooperating with the team. Even so, Scourge never once questioned the situation, they just ignored Sentinel comments and refused to participate in the votekick.

nabo. responded to the ban appeal by blunting stating that I was "Wrong."
nabo. also stated that "Sa wasnt really afk. (afk from 25-28min)"
Times of AFK also included: 2:40-3:30, 3:35-4:00, 4:05-4:20, 6:15-6:30 (nabo. is experienced with replays, I don't believe he missed these AFK times, but rather, he just didn't want to mention them)

[matdas]

I find this complaint pointless.

The guy has: Total games 387

With 7 auto bans total. 8 bans including the one mentioned.

He deserved the unban for his game history.

[nabo.]

You alone telilng people that sa is folowing you... doesnt show much. Sa was refusing to play, but wasnt suiciding.

Your team can see what he was doing, but the other team could not see anything since sa was invis and following you in your own jungle. Go watch the replay from the other team's point of view and you tell me what you see.

You tell people that they should kick someone now. You think that is enough to convince them about your situation when they cannot see anything? You did not repeat about your situation nor did you votekick more than once.

Soon after you told the other team to kick, you guys had a team fight where blue actually attacked sniper and was visible. Not very convincing.

Yes, scourge team could have actively tried to ask what was going on. But, I can say the same about your team.

Generally, just because majority of your team wants to kick someone, it does not mean a votekick is valid. So, saying that someone should be kicked because most of your team wants to = bad reason.
For this case, the vk was valid, but the opposite team were free to refuse to kick him since there wasnt much visible evidence.

20-30 seconds standing aint being "afk". If you want to ban someone for afk grieving, you gonna need more than that. SA did get banned for "refusing to play", so what is it that you are arguing?