After listening to both the victem and the admin's vieuw and checking the provided proof im deciding to deny this post.
The victem is telling a slightly different story as the admin but there is no valid proof to support the story of the victem + rule 2.2 wasn't followed which declares the kills as RDM and so the warning is valid.
Even if this warning wasn't valid the ban would still apply as you had a recent ban + 3 recent warnings after that ban, and as cranky claims he warned you about getting more recents.
I have already explained evrything to you on steam but this summarize should help you with any questions left. I sugest you take my advice on using a screencapture so you could proof your story if something like this happens in the future.

[attachment=5882]denied.png[/attachment]

Thank you for appealing - this can be locked

After listening to both the victem and the admin's vieuw and checking the provided proof im deciding to deny this post. The victem is telling a slightly different story as the admin but there is no valid proof to support the story of the victem + rule 2.2 wasn't followed which declares the kills as RDM and so the warning is valid. Even if this warning wasn't valid the ban would still apply as you had a recent ban + 3 recent warnings after that ban, and as cranky claims he warned you about getting more recents. I have already explained evrything to you on steam but this summarize should help you with any questions left. I sugest you take my advice on using a screencapture so you could proof your story if something like this happens in the future. [attachment=5882]denied.png[/attachment] Thank you for appealing - this can be locked