TOPIC: [TS3] Kyber's Ban Appeal

Nick0GR wrote: What TOU did he break?

Ashur. wrote: Ear rape

Nick0GR wrote: You gave consent that a link can be sent to you. You specified that it must not break TOU though. The victim did not know if it broke TOU and so went through TOU to check if it met that condition. He didn't see anything that he might be at risk of breaking and thus sent it to you. A 24 hours ban was not a proper action to take if you believe that it broke TOU.

Love how you avoided my previous post btw

Ramen wrote: I am on my phone now so I don't know which post you mean, kyber didn't check to see if it broke TOU and even sent the link to viking who clearly stated his discomfort on team speak and told me to do something about it, so yes I will ban him for a day

Nick0GR wrote: I did check to see if it broke tou, clearly stating " lemme check if it breaks tou then". And it was a joke between me and Viking because I know he is ok with messing around, hence why I asked you if you were alright with it

Nick0GR wrote:
As far as I'm aware from both Kyber's POV and what I have gathered from multiple chat logs, he did check TOU as I really see no reason why he wouldn't especially when it came to anything involving yourself. Viking said that he knew how you would react and that you might decide to ban him for it but unless he says otherwise, he didn't say 'to do something about it'. None of which still justifies a 24 hours ban .

Here's an example from what I can find when to ban someone for a day:which you can find in the TS3 rules unlike your reason of 'ear rape' unless that falls under another rule.

Ramen wrote: The regular TOU also applies on the Teamspeak. This falls under disruptive behaviour.

To conclude this with my opinion, Nick over exaggerated the duration of the ban due to past history with the victim. The 24 hours ban was not needed at all and could have simply been a 1-3 hours ban as well as a kick from TS which would have been justifiable due to the possible disruptive nature of the link which ended up being against TOU. I hope that your appeal gets handled as soon as possible to rectify this blatant mistake and get it shorten.

My take on the issue

1. Kyber is in the wrong here

2. Punishment given by Nickolas is harsh but valid

3. Since there is beef between these 2 in the past it is reasonable to believe that the punishment given by Nickolas is at least partly based on emotion

4. Because of the reason 3 kyber is in right to appeal this even though I would disagree on accepting the appeal due to Kybers behavior recently in the community

Banned for two days? Fucking cry. If you would have sent that shit to me I would have banned you for atleast a week lol.

LonelyDodo wrote: I'm confused on what behaviour you are talking about as I haven't been punished on any server in like 3 weeks and the fact it is first offense and the fact when I asked him if I could send it to him, he replied with if it wasnt against tou. I looked at the ts tou and saw no rule against this so I sent Nick the link as it was supposed to be a light hearted joke that no one was supposed to be offended by

Getzco wrote: It was one day, actually

Getzco wrote: My point being I only sent it to people I knew would be fine with it, with me being unsure whether Nick would be alright with it, I asked for consent so I would know whether he was fine with this or not, in hindsight I probably should have sent It on steam or not sent it at all.

Don’t see how a day ban is valid. I’d simply talk with the user and tell him to never send me shit again. And if I were to feel like a ban is needed it would’ve been for an hour.

To those saying I was too harsh: I really wasn't, this isn't kyber's first time being banned on team speak and not last as well. He has had plenty of time to understand how team speak and the TOU works but yet he decides to do that again. Please do remember that if a user is banned Zarp staff ethos doesn't apply on them as they are clearly there to break rules if they reach to the point of being banned.

Nick0GR wrote: This is my first time being banned on anything on Zarp?

I will handle this when I get back from school later today unless someone else can handle it before me.

Just to say my opinion here, Kyber doesn't seem to have intentionally broken TOU, even if it was a TOU breaking image/link to have sent you he clearly has stated on this appeal he didn't mean to break the TOU. If we apply that to the Ethos then he is still kinda protected due to him not intentionally trying to break the TOU. However I will talk to Nick later and see if I have misunderstood this from his perspective.

Nick0GR wrote: Wait what do you mean it won’t be his last either, how can you know that? Also, I’m pretty sure Kyber has never been banned before so the ethos should have been applied

Getzco wrote: if i sent you that link you would call me bad racism words

@Eddie wrote:
Kyber has never been banned before as far as I've been told and thus the ethos should still apply. As evident, Nick was clearly influenced by past 'disagreements' (a much lighter term) when he was giving out this punishment. I agree to an extent that Kyber's attitude may have been notable in the past but that was the past and he has shown great improvement in it for a while now. It pretty much looks like you're making up shit in an attempt to justify your actions at this point.