TOPIC: [SSRP] Ban Appeal - Sinz

Name - What is your in-game name?
Sinz
STEAM-ID - What is your STEAM-ID?
STEAM_0:0:3818233
Admins Name - Who banned you/who might it be?
Jawson
Reason - What is/might be the reason that you got banned?
(FAdmin) Jawson_ (STEAM_0:0:134507104) Banned lWl Super Golden Sinz #Back (STEAM_0:0:3818233) (permanent) (Ban Updated - Exploiting Has had multiple chances to not Exploit)
Server - What server did you get banned from?
s1
Time - How long were you banned for?
Perm
Story - What happened?
so my two-week ban turns into a perm ban, that's why I'm making a new call to express my point of view on this subject and explain in detail

First of all, the two exploits that I had compared to the previous ones over a long period of time were still classified as minor since a real exploit and when we take advantage of what we abuse in the server as before the event where we could restart the timer and many others, these are two exploits the first by callum which I had very clearly justified on this subject of which 1 I did not know that it was classified as such and two which I had not abused it before since the event itself and turn to what happens without purpose and involuntarily hence the fact that Callum did not pay attention to the whole event and not to a precise moment whereas in addition I had no case of a warning before and the behavior of callum which makes this pass for an exploit whereas it is very clearly minor and does not deserve to be casified as such with the information that I I said previously.

Then coming to this feat where there was between the first and the second almost 1 week or more so it was not all in the same week what jawson had said at the moment this one is more minor than the other , I am caught by jawson that placing props to have better visibility for the ores is considered an exploit while basicly I did not know and two the game in itself makes this job very complicated or even impossible to be able to take pleasure in playing it since no one wants to play this profession because of its faults so for me the fact of wanting to make life easier for this profession by making ores more accessible for everyone is a feat, which I qualifies as minor since in what way wanting to make the ores more visually accessible can constitute the basis of the word "exploit" and given that the water of the server is like base naturally and that we cannot modify it said callum I think that it's not something to qualify in itself even if I was understandable with jawson and told him that I wouldn't do that anymore but since he took into account Callum's warn "exploit in event" without even know the context and the level of it in detail he prefers to ban me directly for two weeks.

Finally this one is updated in perm as the reason I cite "Exploiting Has had multiple chances to not Exploit" like this I was doing base on purpose to want exploit at all costs for my own gain while its last exploit known in no case I Did you win something? or lost something or even the fact of having done it intentionally knowing that it was an exploit when that was not the case for me.

This is why I would like to say sorry but I still tried after 1 year to stop this type of thing which torments me but as they say humans are imperfect and moreover I discussed with dutchcat through in relation to this and the fact that this is running in perm is because of my past which dates back 1 year or more and I find it totally unfair to want to link this type of thing which earns me a perm ban instead of two weeks I didn't say that it's not worth a ban but at least not a permanent one
Extra Information - Any thing you think may be relevant to your ban.
the fact that I discussed with dutchcat in relation to his and that jawson I simply do not want to listen to my version of doing and treat me as a "moron" as if I did this voluntarily and not taking into consideration the fact that I respect the rules even if I make mistakes this does not give the right to link it to the past it is as if I were saying that he cannot be a moderator because he was banned for 8 months 5 years ago for cheat while the person is qualified to be a moderator because the person has shown it is proof it is the same for me we cannot judge me on my past which dates back 1 year or more instead of focusing on the moment and on my opinion/cooperation that I had

"Jawson — Today at 21:17
His ban isnt being changed if he wants to be a moron again and again he pays the price."

this kind of sentence very clearly shows hatred towards me and not towards the ban because it defines me like this without even wanting to understand me and making me look like the bad guy instead of being aware that staff is not supposed to be lenient with everyone and treated in an egalitarian manner something because that's not what happened here he banned me for my past instead of banning me for two weeks for what I did which was not voluntary and the explanation which was given for the second was clearly not my attentions in itself

"It's not intended to go AFK mine etc, Its intended as high risk high reward, you placed a prop so you made it 'easier' than intended.
If the thing was annoying you should've suggested it before and not placed those props. Putting those props to get better vision is also considered gaining an unfair advantage over a user who can't place props. You should've made a suggestion about changing the miner
I'm currently talking with faihtful jawson etc and they say that its intended as a hard job, high risk high reward and by doing that what you done is exploited by gaining an unintended unfair advantage by increasing spawnrates of the best possible ore"

it was clearly pushing the complex that we were giving my opinion on this I very clearly explained that in no case its reasons which is considered an exploit were totally logical for me, in no case thought about this kind of something that could look like an exploit but it's totally different for me

I would like to add what was said which qualifies as an exploit that "Putting those props to get better vision is also considered gaining an unfair advantage over a user who can't place props." while everyone basically has the ability to place a prop to make use of this so why is the only way to tell me that it's unfair because others can't place props when they just have to open the prop table and posing

PS: and also how having placed props can increase the rate of ores while it is the same without or with props you can explain to me because the two arguments which show that it is an exploit are reduced to nothing because false accusation when I just basically wanted to use this to have better visibility and everything that was said before and clearly not my attention and as I said before linking this to my background makes it ban again stupider than it was already since I said before that it was valid but after verification I remove what I said

callum/faith/dutchcat/jawson can't handle
the staff who handle my call who contacted me on discord to get the whole version of the story