Nexxushost Forums

General Category => Politika & Bans Appeal => Topic started by: CherryBerry on August 05, 2015, 08:06:48 PM

Title: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 05, 2015, 08:06:48 PM
You're a bit fucking late for april fools, Familiar. Explain.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Familiar on August 05, 2015, 08:24:40 PM
Just taking out some old garbage that was beginning to smell.

(http://i.imgur.com/PbbIyL7.gif)
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 05, 2015, 08:26:49 PM
You may or may not be completely mistaken in that baseless accusation train. Do you have any proof of.. whatever it was I did wrong?

Edit: Also, with how you mistreat your users instead of acting like an adult (proof: See above) I can't help but wonder how you're still a global.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Rom Spaceknight on August 05, 2015, 10:24:28 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/cxGls5W.gif)
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 06, 2015, 10:58:52 AM
It's a sad sight to see when a user can't even get proof of what they've supposedly done, and instead gets ignored.

Familiar, I'd like you to give me something to go on here aside from "just taking out the trash." Which I might add, is rather rude.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 07, 2015, 12:20:51 AM
There's a lot of stories about this floating around. 

Supposedly Cheri was supposedly someone previously banned.

Asking that previously banned person, they say they were banned for "harassing" someone that refused to leave them alone, by banning the person from multiple user rooms they were popping into.

Whether or not current person is said person is open to various debate.

I do think it's reasonable for them to ask of any sort of proof of it.   This is a devil's advocate position, however.

I don't think it's by any stretch professional to respond to a user like that, whether or not they "deserved" being extracted from TK.  It's just bad image.  It's also a bit ironic because this seems to be a bit personal when the same moderators have been asked for answers on many things before and it went ignored for weeks.  Now, this one earns replies in minutes and the others go unanswered.

I know there's been issues lifting bans, but placing them is a different matter.

It does strike me as a bit strange.


Edit:  Looking back, the previous ban appeal for the person they supposedly were was never even answered.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: mysterymegz on August 07, 2015, 12:31:51 AM
I always thought that when you banned someone you had to have proof. I have been banned once ages ago and they were able to show me proof of what I have done. It isn't right to just ban someone because rumours are floating around.

I agree with what Crest is saying.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: AsinineVulpine on August 07, 2015, 01:26:31 PM
I always thought that when you banned someone you had to have proof. I have been banned once ages ago and they were able to show me proof of what I have done. It isn't right to just ban someone because rumours are floating around.

I agree with what Crest is saying.

1 post
registered literally today.
this is their first and only post

??


(https://blog.vanillaforums.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Sock_puppet.jpg) ???


?????
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Furr on August 07, 2015, 02:54:34 PM
Well, it looks like it's a permanent ban that slipped through the cracks and was properly reinstated again, so there's that.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 07, 2015, 02:55:54 PM
Furr - Do you have proof of this? or a screenshot? Or anything?
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 07, 2015, 03:20:58 PM
Aaaand he logs off instead of responding.

If you don't have proof of anything, this is a baseless ban.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Furr on August 07, 2015, 04:21:06 PM
I logged off, because it's past midnight at this point in time.

But from what I've seen on the reasons, you implicated yourself to someone who then relayed the information to the staff, who then took action.

Proof will come out, but I won't be the one posting it here, I'll let the moderators do that.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 07, 2015, 04:22:29 PM
And until then I'll wait for said proof. Otherwise, I'm going to believe it's a baseless ban. A screenshot from the person I supposedly implicated myself to would be nice, instead of the globals going on word of mouth.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 07, 2015, 04:31:01 PM
Plus, even then - Even if I was who you think I am. Crest's post has details that make me believe the person in question didn't deserve to be banned in the first place. Who was the person banned by? Familiar. As far as I care, she's been banning people left and right for next to no reason and getting away with it with the same snide, smug attitude she gave me when I asked her why in the first place.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Auvic on August 07, 2015, 07:25:03 PM
Hi, Ombudsman weighing in.

1. Person who provided evidence has asked to remain anonymous, and the staff has a policy of complying with such wishes.
2. Your attitude, Cherry, is completely in line with what any reasonable staff member would expect from someone who's been banned/permabanned in the past, and you're doing a very good job of reinforcing any opinions as to why you should remain banned with said attitude.
3. Mods and Ombuds have enough visual proof to stand by your banning.

@Crest:
Given the user's current behavior, it's not exactly difficult to guess who they were. And if you know who they are, please, feel free to name them :)
The original ban was in place for a reason; the current ban is in place for a similar reason.
The request for proof is always valid, but we don't have any strong precedent for providing it, especially when people have asked to remain anonymous.


If you have any further questions, feel free to ask, but unless something significant changes, we have no reason to reverse the ban.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 07, 2015, 07:41:41 PM
1. I can understand that, but that alone has given me more than enough insight as to who it was.
2. My attitude is completely in line with what anyone would expect from one who was wrongly banished.
3. If you do have visual proof, I would like to see it instead of just saying you have it. Even a PM would work.
Edit: 4. Lists are dumb.

I honestly don't care WHO gave the proof. Since I'm supposedly perma'd, I won't be able to speak with them anymore anyways. But I would like to see that visual proof you're speaking about. If you'd please.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 07, 2015, 07:47:57 PM
Hi, Ombudsman weighing in.

1. Person who provided evidence has asked to remain anonymous, and the staff has a policy of complying with such wishes.
2. Your attitude, Cherry, is completely in line with what any reasonable staff member would expect from someone who's been banned/permabanned in the past, and you're doing a very good job of reinforcing any opinions as to why you should remain banned with said attitude.
3. Mods and Ombuds have enough visual proof to stand by your banning.

@Crest:
Given the user's current behavior, it's not exactly difficult to guess who they were. And if you know who they are, please, feel free to name them :)
The original ban was in place for a reason; the current ban is in place for a similar reason.
The request for proof is always valid, but we don't have any strong precedent for providing it, especially when people have asked to remain anonymous.


If you have any further questions, feel free to ask, but unless something significant changes, we have no reason to reverse the ban.

And what of the public behavior and lack of professionality?
Similarly, I know that the /accusation/ is they're Nazu, who asked about their ban right after the first server crash and was never replied to. 
Why can staff be bothered to give snarky, gif-trendy, unprofessional replies to the users they ban but not reply to questions?
This still stands regardless of if Nazu is or isn't Cheriwhatever.  I went to Nazu to ask him because he tends to lurk in Szurane since his ban.  I think I've chewed him out myself a few times.  But that doesn't mean that the public face of the staff can't use some better handling.

I'm curious about the original ban, regardless of if they are Nazu or aren't.  Like - I hear one story.  I'd love to know if the staff are really banning people over... banning people from user rooms. Or if it was something else.

At this point it just reads like a staff member executing a distaste for someone, and the lack of professional public face doesn't help.

Edit: Also, it's a shallow argument to say a distressed user should stay banned because they show they are distressed.  If they are guilty of a crime (or in this case, a series of crimes, if the original would ever be answered), sure, ban them.  But that's like saying someone with a life sentence who might not have done anything should stay in prison forever because they're upset and it proves they're worth being in prison.

All they're asking for is proof.  If this is a reliable source, that shouldn't be hard.

Similarly, all I've asked is why this gets so much response but the original ban that supposedly sources it still doesn't a year later.

There's bizarre double standards going on here.

Considering I'm pretty sure I know who submitted the information, that might be them being buttrumpled knowing someone has logs of him performing sexual stuff with both an IC and OOC minor.

But hey, what would I know?

Edit edit: The idea that someone is irrational or guilty for asking for proof made me think of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qahB7mYhLxs
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Nazu_Knapp on August 07, 2015, 08:03:20 PM
Alright. Alright. What the fuck is this. I've been gone for like -- what, two years now? Lemme sort some shit. God.

Crest, you tried to help me on my ban appeal, but it appears to be an ongoing theme for the GM's to ignore the people they've banned, not give proof of anything - etc etc etc. There's a whole fuckin' PLATTER of wrongness going on here that's honestly made me happy I'm on Szurane instead of TK, because the mods there aren't pants-on-head retarded.

I got banned for "harassing" some dude by banning him from rooms I WAS A MODERATOR IN four, five times. Know why? HE WOULDN'T LEAVE ME ALONE. That in and of itself counts as fucking harassment, if I'm not mistaken. Then.. now, I guess, Cherry gets banned... on the false assumption that SHE IS ME?!?! This shit has got to stop. Familiar. Someone. ANYONE with access to see the IP's associated with her and I. Go check. We're not the same people. Jesus christ on the cross hanging from a sidecar FUCK.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go back to Szurane. Seems I've got a new friend there for now.

EDIT: Actually no. Familiar can stay the fuck away from this. All she does for me is cause problems and headaches even after I've been banned for two goddamned years.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Vivi on August 07, 2015, 08:24:28 PM
Chiming in as well - making this about Fam's behavior and whether or not its good won't really get you anyplace. If thats a discussion that you want to have, sure have it, but its not really relevant to this particular ban.

If we had reason to think she was doing this out of personal spite rather than for a reason, I do not believe webby and rook would hesitate to drop her as a mod, and if I believed the same I'd be advocating such. I agree with Fam's actions in reinstating this ban based on what I have seen.

As far as the original ban goes it was at one point reviewed by ombudsmen and upheld if I recall before everything got wiped, the user getting back in was just a matter of losing prior bans.

As far as proof goes we don't go handing it out because those who turn it in often do not want it to be known it was them and not without reason.

Also this:
Quote
Considering I'm pretty sure I know who submitted the information, that might be them being buttrumpled knowing someone has logs of him performing sexual stuff with both an IC and OOC minor.

Should probably be brought to someone's attention if there is proof of it. As far as I am aware none of the staff have this. If a person is below the age of consent OOCly thats pretty explicitly covered in the AUP
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 07, 2015, 08:30:17 PM
Chiming in as well - making this about Fam's behavior and whether or not its good won't really get you anyplace. If thats a discussion that you want to have, sure have it, but its not really relevant to this particular ban.

If we had reason to think she was doing this out of personal spite rather than for a reason, I do not believe webby and rook would hesitate to drop her as a mod, and if I believed the same I'd be advocating such. I agree with Fam's actions in reinstating this ban based on what I have seen.

As far as the original ban goes it was at one point reviewed by ombudsmen and upheld if I recall before everything got wiped, the user getting back in was just a matter of losing prior bans.

As far as proof goes we don't go handing it out because those who turn it in often do not want it to be known it was them and not without reason.

Also this:
Quote
Considering I'm pretty sure I know who submitted the information, that might be them being buttrumpled knowing someone has logs of him performing sexual stuff with both an IC and OOC minor.

Should probably be brought to someone's attention if there is proof of it. As far as I am aware none of the staff have this. If a person is below the age of consent OOCly thats pretty explicitly covered in the AUP

The user was never answered.  A user that is never answered never knows what they did.   The question has been sitting unanswered on the forums. That never got a reply.  This did.  In a very, very inappropriate way for that matter that reeks of personal distaste rather than professionality.

If you have a screencap of something, you can just edit out a username and set the scheme to monochrome to hide color.
If you have a text log that's easier to remove, but similarly is the most arguable piece of evidence on this kind of affair.

If the ombuds reigned in already, honestly, I can't even see that as at all level considering the ombuds response on this forum.  Her behavior was on this thread, and thus there is every right and warrant to discuss this behavior on this thread.  This is not an independent event being brought into the thread.

As for the whole him blackmailing a minor to have digital anal sex with him, let me try to talk to them about it to present those logs.

I could stand to see the true guilty party get erased from this site.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 07, 2015, 08:42:40 PM
I PM'd Vivi, but if there are any other staff/ombuds that want it, I have logs of him knowingly and forcefully engaging underaged players in sexual encounters. I have the logs of three of these encounters and I am indeed underaged. He has also blackmailed my friends into doing this - it's not attached to this incident, and is a completely private and personal incident. One such player that he did this with was only 14 years old. I have a screenshot of that one and I can send it as well.

Edit: I truly believe this is him trying to cover his own ass, because it was me and the other user in question that were banned recently.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Vivi on August 07, 2015, 09:03:06 PM
Quote
The user was never answered.  A user that is never answered never knows what they did.   The question has been sitting unanswered on the forums. That never got a reply.  This did.  In a very, very inappropriate way for that matter that reeks of personal distaste rather than professionality.

They were made aware of what they did when they were originally banned. This is receiving more attention as if there is a slim possibility we have the wrong person, which at this moment I do not believe we do, it is worth knowing and correcting. At least thats why I'm here, I cannot speak for the rest.

Quote
If the ombuds reigned in already, honestly, I can't even see that as at all level considering the ombuds response on this forum.  Her behavior was on this thread, and thus there is every right and warrant to discuss this behavior on this thread.  This is not an independent event being brought into the thread.

I meant more its not going to impact our decision as a whole on what to do about this incident. I understand I was not completely clear on that part. You are, of course, free to discuss it when and where you want, but I'm not here for that.

Quote
If you have a screencap of something, you can just edit out a username and set the scheme to monochrome to hide color.
If you have a text log that's easier to remove, but similarly is the most arguable piece of evidence on this kind of affair.

Still nope. Its easier to ID people by typing mannerisms than you'd think, and its as much to not let the guilty party know who shared info as anything, who may remember the conversation. They can guess, sure, but we will not confirm or deny.

Quote
As for the whole him blackmailing a minor to have digital anal sex with him, let me try to talk to them about it to present those logs.

Please do. I'll be monitoring this thread (though PMing me in TK is more effective, I do check here sometimes) for any new information about this or the ban, otherwise, I'm out for now.

Speaking of as I type this I got a PM.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 07, 2015, 09:06:23 PM
Quote
(though PMing me in TK is more effective, I do check here sometimes)

....

I CANNOT PM YOU IN TK.

I was banned, if you may recall.

Edit: Which, by the way, was uncalled for
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Vivi on August 07, 2015, 09:07:48 PM
I was not sure at the time of typing that if he was referring to you or some other minor.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 07, 2015, 09:08:55 PM
Both of the minors in question here were banned from TK and thus cannot contact you there.

I sent you a PM on the forums, though.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: mysterymegz on August 08, 2015, 02:48:23 AM
I still have to agree with a lot of what Crest is saying. One thing is you can show the person that has been banned the information. All you do is take out the name of the person sending the information as Crest has stated in his post. It is unfair that Fam suddenly banned Cherry and someone saying she is someone else. Did anyone check the IP address?

Well I guess not because as Nazu says: ANYONE with access to see the IP's associated with her and I. Go check. We're not the same people"

Assuming someone is someone else without checking is quite bad. Cherry has the right to see the information that has got her banned because right now it seems she has been banned unfairly by Fam. I do agree with a few others too that Fam has been banning people left and right with no reason.

This ban seems to have been action-ed wrongly. Show the proof instead of saying so an so sent us proof. It doesn't mean you actually have proof until the one that has been banned see's that proof. It needs to be fixed because The keep is starting to fall because of random bans and people not being answered when they ask questions.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 08, 2015, 03:58:56 AM
This ban seems to have been action-ed wrongly. Show the proof instead of saying so an so sent us proof. It doesn't mean you actually have proof until the one that has been banned see's that proof. It needs to be fixed because The keep is starting to fall because of random bans and people not being answered when they ask questions.

Again, it's sort of this logic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qahB7mYhLxs

But it's true.  After this ban happened a giant phone call started discussing the same issue. The people being banned used to be content generators and RPers, the people who are actual shitlords are still lurking around.

I kinda wanna know even IF this person is who they say they are, what they were actually doing to disrupt anything. I know the answer is going to be "ban evading", but then the original ban was just as questionable. Banning someone forbanning someone from user rooms.  What?  So can I get Ezekiel banned for him going around doing that to me? No? Didn't think so.

Now the child porn, that's something different.

Hell, I don't even trust logs and screenshots unless it's profuse amounts of interactive text like they wrote a small novel just to prove something. Inspect Element and MSPaint are a thing.  So this kind of accusation becomes what?  "They type kind of like this other person"?  I dunno, it's just five flavors of questionable. 
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: TheSinisterMinister on August 08, 2015, 06:28:07 AM
Just a casual observation...the fact you're ready to initiate a witch hunt against someone you only THINK it was, is a good reason for them not to tell you who it was.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: TheSinisterMinister on August 08, 2015, 06:30:31 AM
And as I recall...wasn't part of the reason Nazu banned not just the whole banning people from his room thing, but a campaign of harassment, and attempting to fake screenshots/logs himself?
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 08, 2015, 07:05:11 AM
Just a casual observation...the fact you're ready to initiate a witch hunt against someone you only THINK it was, is a good reason for them not to tell you who it was.

No, it's a witchhunt against who I already know it is, and have said logs of doing these things, which have already been submitted to the staff by the victim whether they call his name or not.

I don't know why Nazu supposedly got banned, because the thread never got answered and thus Nazu says he has no idea.  I really only know him from him resultingly swinging through my chat.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: TheSinisterMinister on August 08, 2015, 07:07:25 AM
Problem is, you can't possibly know for a fact who it was unless the globals went against their own word/rules/whatever and told you who it was.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: TheSinisterMinister on August 08, 2015, 07:09:49 AM
And let me clarify...I'm not a hundred percent sure that's why Nazu got banned. It may have been Pyroflame, who was a good friend of Nazu. I'm just basing my question on sheer hearsay.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Auvic on August 08, 2015, 07:19:34 AM
The fact that so many people can't understand that proof can't be tossed around without compromising anonymity is pretty strange. Amusing, but strange.
If you think removing a name from a log or screenshot is enough to maintain anonymity, you're either tech-deficient or willfully ignorant about other people's technological capabilities.

It is unfair that Fam suddenly banned Cherry and someone saying she is someone else. Did anyone check the IP address?
Well I guess not because as Nazu says: ANYONE with access to see the IP's associated with her and I. Go check. We're not the same people"
>assuming we don't check things
Well, okay.

The people being banned used to be content generators and RPers, the people who are actual shitlords are still lurking around.
>implying content generators and RPers can't be shitlords
Well, okay.

No, it's a witchhunt against who I already know it is, and have said logs of doing these things, which have already been submitted to the staff by the victim whether they call his name or not.
I don't know why Nazu supposedly got banned, because the thread never got answered and thus Nazu says he has no idea.  I really only know him from him resultingly swinging through my chat.
>dropping "victim" heedless of word connotation
>assuming banned users will be forthcoming with the reasons for their having been banned
Well, okay.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: MEGAMADMUSICIAN on August 08, 2015, 01:01:37 PM
Let me tell you a tale, from the days of Bnet, a place which was the wild wild west of RP. A client full of intrigue and danger, and where a roleplayer's first 2 weeks there was their trial through fire. A place where it was the users who ultimately ran the community, and nobody else.

And in this land, once there was a dragon known as Tambrath Anon. When most roleplayers think dragons, they think of monsters with a capital M, breathing death upon their enemies. Or in regards to some piss poor players, what every noob wants to play, because it's the thing that is a monster with a capital M. When a noob was playing one of these creatures, let me tell you. It was a sight to behold. Every bnetter with half a brain would be lining up to kill the stupid son of a bitch because they were fucking retarded. There were few dragons that were exceptions being the rule. The first, and foremost exception was Vire, who was nothing less than absolutely fucking scary in combat. The second biggest exception was a young dragon named Kesson, who was known to be brutal and batshit insane, as he sometimes went out of his way to pick fights with powerful enemies. Ones that should kill him, and live to talk about it.

As you may have figured out, this story is about a dragon, but it's not about either of those dragons. It's about a third dragon. The absolutely most notorious dragon of battle.net. A name that if you say to nearly any bnet roleplayer who was anyone when this dragon was around, their hearts would drop into the pits of their stomach. A dragon which so deeply scarred me, 10 years later, I still remember his name.

That dragon, was Tambrath Anon.

Oh, Tambrath Anon. How we cannot forget you so! It's not because you were so good. It was because you were so bad. Horrible beyond reproach. You bought a new meaning of faggoty to bnet that before than many could not even start to comprehend. While I could get into all the exploits of Tambrath Anon, this story is not only about him alone. There was another important player in this story.

One who is called SearingJustice. A not bad, but not great roleplayer; but he stood out because he was a remarkable troll. This was before many people on Bnet realized just how competent he was at a sustained troll operations that were simple, but required a particular set of skills. And just what was this set of skills?

The ability to change your writing style, and mimic another user's writing style.

Tambrath was by far not a bright user, but he was in the camp that if he saw a few posts with a user, he could identify just who they were. But Tambrath had a vulnerability. You see, Tambrath had many people who played with him which were also dragon faggots but had disappeared for a time, for reasons along the lines of 'fuck if I know.' Perhaps they finally realized the player was as crazy as a madhouse, or perhaps their own folks took them to one. On the subject of Tambrath...just trust me when I say I have not even scratched the surface of this guy. Let's just call him Dragon Faggot though, because that's what it boils down to. He really was fucking crazy.

At any rate, where were we? Oh right! People he wants to see + battle.net username deletion policy (Six months I believe. I forgot. This is before the battle.net many of you know now. This was the OLDSCHOOL shit.) = a way in. Searing Justice saw an opportunity. He jumped on the vacant names of Tambrath's friends faster than I could say "Yo what the shit are you doing again?" He managed to uncover just how batshit insane this person was during his operation, Tambrath believing that each name that SearingJustice had snatched up was the user in honest. The skill that Searing Justice puppeteered multiple accounts at once was more than just with a sockpuppet. I did not even know what to call it than. I know what to call it now though. It was nothing less than a full-blown hall-of-mirrors attack. And with it, SearingJustice dug up so much dirt that I believe even Tambrath left Bnet for the longest time after that incident.

At the conclusion of this incident, Searing had become nothing less than infamous on Battle.net. Everyone was afraid. This was a true social chameleon that had let itself be seen, if only for a moment. People knew he was out there now, and that he could be literally anyone, and that simple 'I recognize the writing' is not enough to defend against him; as he could change his writing style, his mannerisms on the drop of a dime, to mimic other users. The point I'm getting across here is that 'I recognize the writing style' is not an absolute defense or way of finding something out: I mess with friends on TK all the time on accounts they do not know are mine, and they do not recognize me because I've learned how to tweak my writing styles in small ways. As such, it's not a fingerprint: While there may be many ways to say things, there's still a finite number. While there are opinions about things, people usually only see things one way or another: It's not impossible for multiple people to come up with the same conclusion. As such, while the margin of error may be 1 to 30, that margin for error is still there. And people are going to be angry for getting banned, especially if they did nothing to deserve it. As I do not know the situation in full, and only know one side of the story, I'm going to keep my opinion about that matter with me.

Oh. But SearingJustice? The one who is capable of performing a full-blown Hall of Mirrors attack? Yeah, he's on TK. He does not have good things to say about most TKers, but he comes to get his laughs. Just pray though, that nobody rouses his ire like how Tambrath_Anon did.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: MEGAMADMUSICIAN on August 08, 2015, 01:41:35 PM
Story being told, time to move to the second issue here.

You see, this is what happens when there's a lack of transparency. It does not matter if you are the best mods in the world or not. In this day and age, people want transparency, because they do not, simply put, trust people. They do not trust leaders. They don't trust anyone. They want at the very least, a window to look into the operation. Mecha-hitler with transparency is better in the eyes of many hipster children than neo-matrix jesus with no transparency.

Give them a window. I'm not even going to try to go over this anymore. I've been over this so many times, and have had shit derailed because of whatever reason that I'm not even going to waste my time anyone the easiest way to do it. Just...my god, just do something.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 08, 2015, 03:27:48 PM
Problem is, you can't possibly know for a fact who it was unless the globals went against their own word/rules/whatever and told you who it was.

Okay.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Fenris on August 08, 2015, 06:43:08 PM
If I say this Searing Justice guy's name three times in the mirror in a dark room will he come out and shim me?
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: MEGAMADMUSICIAN on August 08, 2015, 08:37:21 PM
No, but if you light 12 candles in a perfect circle around you than log into a chat client, absolutely every person in that chat client will be him.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Nazu_Knapp on August 08, 2015, 09:31:59 PM
>assuming banned users will be forthcoming with the reasons for their having been banned
Well, okay.

...You didn't even fucking read my appeal did you.

You didn't even fucking read the appeal, holy shit.

Alright looky here. I explained in THIS thread too!
I'll put it in greentext form so you can understand since it seems all you do is ghost in rooms on TK and post nonsense on the forums.

>Be me
>Other asshole be Satoshi
>Other asshole won't leave me alone
>Ban him from four rooms because he keeps fucking harassing me and won't leave me alone/won't stop whispering/won't stop being a little bitch
>Get banned for "harassing" him because LolFamiliar

That is it, in short, fucking POINT FORM for you, buddy.

Don't say I'm not forthcoming, because that's what fucking happened.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: MEGAMADMUSICIAN on August 08, 2015, 09:48:36 PM
Wait, Satoshi, the TK version of Tambrath?

...

...

...

HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHFKLDNWEIO:FBNDJSK:FBGHUEIOQWBNFDUIEWFBUIJDB

ahem, excuse me.

Not laughing at you Nazu. Not laughing at you.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: MEGAMADMUSICIAN on August 08, 2015, 09:54:07 PM
I'll say this. There are users that have gone into hiding and left TK altogether to try to get away from Satoshi, because he does -not- leave them alone and actively tries to find them, which is against their wishes. Remember that....hive...weird....bee room? Remember how they just up and disappeared one day? There's two examples of people running like hell from Satoshi right there.

Granted, those mooks arn't high on the totem pole of much of anything. In fact, I would like to see their weird asses gone too, but still.

Edit: In fact, I recall lurking on TK and seeing one of them enter the room, and request for people to NOT tell Satoshi that they've been on. That says something.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Nazu_Knapp on August 08, 2015, 09:55:14 PM
I could use some laughter for once. Szurane's dark.

...and cold.

...I miss you guys

-qq's eternally-

Also. No, I don't remember the hive weird bee room. As it just so happens I've been banned for two years.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: mysterymegz on August 08, 2015, 11:01:34 PM
Also they assumed that Nazu and Cherry were the same person. Shouldn't they check the IP address before assuming this?
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Ix on August 09, 2015, 02:13:48 AM
>assuming banned users will be forthcoming with the reasons for their having been banned
Well, okay.

...You didn't even fucking read my appeal did you.

You didn't even fucking read the appeal, holy shit.

Alright looky here. I explained in THIS thread too!
I'll put it in greentext form so you can understand since it seems all you do is ghost in rooms on TK and post nonsense on the forums.

>Be me
>Other asshole be Satoshi
>Other asshole won't leave me alone
>Ban him from four rooms because he keeps fucking harassing me and won't leave me alone/won't stop whispering/won't stop being a little bitch
>Get banned for "harassing" him because LolFamiliar

That is it, in short, fucking POINT FORM for you, buddy.

Don't say I'm not forthcoming, because that's what fucking happened.

I certainly did read your appeal. I'm sure Auvic did, too.

We actually had already talked about it before you ever posted it, on the order of 'several months ahead of time.' Well, the others did; I abstained from the decision. Obviously, it came up as 'No,' and I (being the one that's usually the one who does the messaging) forgot to inform you. Probably. I forget if I forgot, to be honest. This was not intentional, though it's always unpleasant news to bear - procrastination just means I'll have to do it later. To be frank, your appeal was one of the more interesting ones I've seen...though it did wrap up several months before you ever actually made it, one of only two or three we've done ahead of time in that manner.

I'll make it known now, though: If a ban appeal is requested on these boards, it is investigated. Proof is reviewed. Information is gathered. It is discussed. A lot of the time, we can find a way to spin it to make the sentence lighter, and will most often argue for leniency. Auvic, in particular, is really good at playing Devil's Advocate and holding us to our Ombudsman duties even if, as is inevitably sometimes the case, we all being human, we simply don't like a person, for one reason or another.

The peanut gallery seems to be of the opinion that the staff doesn't even bother to have the faintest glimmer of certainty that the person they're banning for ban-evasion is, in fact, ban-evading. Claims the staff should check IP addresses. Seemingly expects proof to be waved around. 'Transparency,' when said transparency could compromise resources and methods. If you know a particular test is performed in a particular way to check for a particular thing, it's much easier to fake a positive or negative result. Telling how something was learned, in this context, can cause problems with learning it later.

Doesn't, seemingly, consider something glaringly obvious: Permanent bans on grounds of simple harassment are exceedingly rare, simply because it takes a special kind of rock stupid to push it to that point. Usually, it's one or two counts of harassment, one count of ban-evasion a day or two later, or they simply break several rules while they're breaking that one and get cleaned out.
Maybe, just maybe, things aren't quite as simple as they're made out to be.
Does that mean I'm going to explain the entirety of this situation to anyone on these boards who doesn't already know it? No. Don't care who asks. But anyone claiming, and I'll just summarize from the other thread, that "I was using a command I thought I was well within my rights to use to deal with someone, and after four or so rooms I removed them from, they went to the staff and I got permanently banned," should be subject to, perhaps, a bit of extra scrutiny.
Since when does simple use of a room-mod tool, even targeted at one specific person in several rooms, warrant a perma on tK?
What could possibly cause the Ombudsmen to perform an investigation months before the appeal?

Funny story, by the way: The staff actually do check IPs, but the database simply doesn't include every IP address of every name that's ever been logged into tK, and names used to de-reg after thirty days - before the crash that killed, among other things, the forums. So, what, check the current IP against the one on record from the time of banning? What if they moved? Some of these records go back years. What if they're altering their IP address by some other means? It's not like it's difficult. Ask real nice and hope what they say is the truth? Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. It's actually far more frequent that they're spotted by other means. One guy would most often ban-evade into the Lobby during football season and talk 'ball with some of the regulars; he didn't even bother to hide his identity, honestly, and I'd often spot him hours before he said anything and got, subsequently, rebanned.

All that said, I've seen the proof, and it holds; it doesn't get much clearer.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Auvic on August 09, 2015, 03:32:15 AM
[inquisitor freeing intensifies]
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Nazu_Knapp on August 09, 2015, 12:07:04 PM
Since when does simple use of a room-mod tool, even targeted at one specific person in several rooms, warrant a perma on tK?
What could possibly cause the Ombudsmen to perform an investigation months before the appeal?

Your guess is as good as mine.

The first question has a simple answer; IT FUCKING DOESN'T.

Second one? Not entirely sure what the hell you're going on about. Please, feel free to explain it to me. It's kind of common knowledge Pyro and I shared accounts. I logged into his the fourth (and final) time to do the deed, because he'd forgotten to promote me before he went to bed, and after he left Tambrath Satoshi showed up and starting fucking around like he usually does.

Regardless, this isn't about my ban. I'm happy on Szurane. If that was the response to my appeal you could've done it in the other thread. This is for Cherry's ban/appeal/thing. You really need to sort your shit and make sure someone is who you think they are before banning them.

To be perfectly honest, this is getting ridiculous. "We DO have proof, but you can't see any of it even though you're involved in it." That just leads me - and probably a few others - to believe you have a lack of proof as a whole.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: MEGAMADMUSICIAN on August 09, 2015, 01:24:44 PM


I certainly did read your appeal. I'm sure Auvic did, too.

We actually had already talked about it before you ever posted it, on the order of 'several months ahead of time.' Well, the others did; I abstained from the decision. Obviously, it came up as 'No,' and I (being the one that's usually the one who does the messaging) forgot to inform you. Probably. I forget if I forgot, to be honest. This was not intentional, though it's always unpleasant news to bear - procrastination just means I'll have to do it later. To be frank, your appeal was one of the more interesting ones I've seen...though it did wrap up several months before you ever actually made it, one of only two or three we've done ahead of time in that manner.

I'll make it known now, though: If a ban appeal is requested on these boards, it is investigated. Proof is reviewed. Information is gathered. It is discussed. A lot of the time, we can find a way to spin it to make the sentence lighter, and will most often argue for leniency. Auvic, in particular, is really good at playing Devil's Advocate and holding us to our Ombudsman duties even if, as is inevitably sometimes the case, we all being human, we simply don't like a person, for one reason or another.

The peanut gallery seems to be of the opinion that the staff doesn't even bother to have the faintest glimmer of certainty that the person they're banning for ban-evasion is, in fact, ban-evading. Claims the staff should check IP addresses. Seemingly expects proof to be waved around. 'Transparency,' when said transparency could compromise resources and methods. If you know a particular test is performed in a particular way to check for a particular thing, it's much easier to fake a positive or negative result. Telling how something was learned, in this context, can cause problems with learning it later.

Doesn't, seemingly, consider something glaringly obvious: Permanent bans on grounds of simple harassment are exceedingly rare, simply because it takes a special kind of rock stupid to push it to that point. Usually, it's one or two counts of harassment, one count of ban-evasion a day or two later, or they simply break several rules while they're breaking that one and get cleaned out.
Maybe, just maybe, things aren't quite as simple as they're made out to be.
Does that mean I'm going to explain the entirety of this situation to anyone on these boards who doesn't already know it? No. Don't care who asks. But anyone claiming, and I'll just summarize from the other thread, that "I was using a command I thought I was well within my rights to use to deal with someone, and after four or so rooms I removed them from, they went to the staff and I got permanently banned," should be subject to, perhaps, a bit of extra scrutiny.
Since when does simple use of a room-mod tool, even targeted at one specific person in several rooms, warrant a perma on tK?
What could possibly cause the Ombudsmen to perform an investigation months before the appeal?

Funny story, by the way: The staff actually do check IPs, but the database simply doesn't include every IP address of every name that's ever been logged into tK, and names used to de-reg after thirty days - before the crash that killed, among other things, the forums. So, what, check the current IP against the one on record from the time of banning? What if they moved? Some of these records go back years. What if they're altering their IP address by some other means? It's not like it's difficult. Ask real nice and hope what they say is the truth? Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. It's actually far more frequent that they're spotted by other means. One guy would most often ban-evade into the Lobby during football season and talk 'ball with some of the regulars; he didn't even bother to hide his identity, honestly, and I'd often spot him hours before he said anything and got, subsequently, rebanned.

All that said, I've seen the proof, and it holds; it doesn't get much clearer.

Thank you for the response to multiple issues.

Now Nazu, i do understand their position position. You see, they don't want to just put everybody's business out there. At least, they supposedly don't want to. I'm not going to question it unless they give me a reason to. I will give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume the are doing it in the interests of you know, not trying to be complete shitlords. They might be doing something you don't like, but it doesn't always make them bad people. Yes, this shit can get upsetting, but we should try to at least keep calm.

At any rate...

Considering the caliber of person of people that seem to be involved in these things...well...you know what? I like being as mysterious as the dark side of the moon. I can safely tell you though that some users on TK really are blackmailing other users on TK. And that others are scared shitless of other users because they supposedly are able to talk to the mods and get you banned.

I'm done.



Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Vivi on August 09, 2015, 01:45:55 PM
Quote
And that others are scared shitless of other users because they supposedly are able to talk to the mods and get you banned.

Well then there's two possibilities:
1. They're lying and it should be brought to our attention so it can be dealt with
2. They are not lying and it should be brought to our attention because then a staff member needs to go.

Either way, consider letting ombudsmen know if you feel you can't talk to a mod on this when it occurs. They exist to keep us in check.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 09, 2015, 03:23:01 PM
Quote
And that others are scared shitless of other users because they supposedly are able to talk to the mods and get you banned.

Well then there's two possibilities:
1. They're lying and it should be brought to our attention so it can be dealt with
2. They are not lying and it should be brought to our attention because then a staff member needs to go.

Either way, consider letting ombudsmen know if you feel you can't talk to a mod on this when it occurs. They exist to keep us in check.

It's been on open display in the Lazy Lounge for a few years now.

This has become a circus ring.

Really, I just read a lot of text continuing to tell the user that is supposedly guilty they won't even get a legitimate explanation, and the same old same old.

This is outright sad.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Auvic on August 09, 2015, 05:00:31 PM
 There's a lot of things in open display in the Lounge, Crest. Unless it gets reported to a mod/ombuds, however, generally the staff has a hands-off approach to things.
And yes, this is a circus ring. As is most drama that erupts from the Lounge - which you would know, if you were as informed on the issues as you make yourself out to be.

Legitimate explanation for why Nazu was initially banned: Harassment.
Legitimate explanation for why Nazu was permabanned: Ban-evasion.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 09, 2015, 05:03:34 PM
Legitimate explanation/proof for why Cherry was initially banned:
Legitimate explanation/proof for why Cherry was permabanned:

You can't fill in the blanks, because you have nothing to go off of. This is what people are going to believe until you post proof you don't have. I sent Vivi screenshots and logs of something earlier today. THAT is proof. Hearsay is not.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Auvic on August 09, 2015, 05:56:13 PM
Not agreeing with an explanation doesn't de-legitimize it. :)

Thank you for sending the logs, though!
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 09, 2015, 05:59:33 PM
Not having proof for an explanation makes it pretty shifty, though. I think you would agree with me if you were in my shoes.

"You're banned."

"Why?"

"Because you're ban evading."

"You have no proof."

"Yes we do."

"Can I see it?"

"No."
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: SilverStreak on August 09, 2015, 06:41:23 PM
Man, I go on vacation for a week and you kids can't even keep the floors clean. For all the time Rusti spends wearing that maid's uniform... I swear...

Also, I'm going to presume the mods are pretty good at reading through the lines, but all the same... am I the only one seeing this?

> User gets permabanned
> User complains
> User's complaints go without vindication

Now, right about this time, said user colluded with other users who hold a shared grudge against a specific individual, something I'm privy to because they all requested an audience with me. A few hours later...

> User now suddenly has logs that implicate the user they hold a grudge against

I'm not gonna say it; I'll just gently point everyone to the "deliberate" part of rule #5 of the AUP, invoke something to the tune of "Burden of Proof" and be on my way.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 09, 2015, 06:47:43 PM
He knew full well that said user was 14. It'd been said time and time again.

As for the other chat - that had been going on for a solid week and half of it was waiting for you. As far as I understand you were vacationing with your family - that's fine. I understand. If I have RL stuff to do the rest can wait. But the chat didn't just pop up when I was banished.

Edit: And it's not "user" in this case. Since people can't tell who's who, Nazu's been brought into this as well. He appealed MONTHS ago and didn't get a single reply aside from Crest until now. I'm pretty sure there's something fishy going on here involving users taking advantage of emotion-driven global mods to get other users that they don't like banned.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 09, 2015, 07:26:33 PM
There's a lot of things in open display in the Lounge, Crest. Unless it gets reported to a mod/ombuds, however, generally the staff has a hands-off approach to things.
And yes, this is a circus ring. As is most drama that erupts from the Lounge - which you would know, if you were as informed on the issues as you make yourself out to be.

Legitimate explanation for why Nazu was initially banned: Harassment.
Legitimate explanation for why Nazu was permabanned: Ban-evasion.

I'm informed on what matters.  Moderation issues, however, are something I hung up my hat on a decade ago and chose to avoid.  So whatever cloistered little forums you guys are using, patting each other on the back and saying it makes perfect sense? No, I don't have access to that.

Now I will say there are aspects of Cherry's behavior on this front that are sketchy, but it could even be a matter of how they naturally word things, being a minor.  (I don't see an innocent adult saying "you have no proof" on something they didn't do, due to implicative psychology blahblahblah).

There's still not a legitimate answer on Nazu.  I've already stayed neutral on if Nazu is or isn't Cherry, but I also see nothing but the God As A Car method coming from the staff, and Ezekiel running in here yelling that nobody can know who reported it, which was incredibly funny, by the way.

I'm the one that told Cherry to get those logs together, because Zeke has gone too far.  Unfortunately the other user doesn't have logs of their "adventures" as far as I know.

What I do know is it's an ongoing habit and I'm about two steps from calling some TV show that's going to check Zeke out until he shows he's a massive inappropriate perv to the nation.  This show actually exists.  This show actually tends to involve ending in jail.  The only reason I haven't is the bad press TK would get.  And I'm still fond of TK.  But at this point, Zeke has done a wonderful job of getting a bunch of his naysayers banned and disregarded.  It's a habit.   It's a pattern.  And at this point, the site is harboring a paedophile willfully.

I'm tired of it.

I could give two clucks and a damn if Nazu is or isnt Cherry. Cherry just wants evidence on what you claim.  Nazu still wants an answer on how what he did is harassment.  You say that banning people from user rooms isn't harassment - Great! We can all agree on that now!  You still didn't say what Nazu did.  Even if Nazu IS Cherry - and this is a devil's advocate position -  this is "You were evading a ban for harassment that wasn't harassment except some stuff we said we saw that we won't explain." Uh - what?

PS:  Perma-bans are some awfully extreme shit.  Why are these just becoming the default answer now?

PPS:  This whole "Well nobody told the staff" is bullshit.  The option is generally Familiar, which half the people I know consider a giant problem.  Vivi and Moon exist, but are rarely around, and finding the ombuds in person is ridic.  Then there's no complaints form anymore,so the option is to come to the forums and 1) PM you guys and hope you notice, if they know your forum username or 2) post a public shitfit for Zeke to get his buttminions to crawl up their ass over.  It's a lose-lose situation you guys have arranged here.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: SilverStreak on August 09, 2015, 07:54:59 PM
Cher, I have no quarrel with you, and I don't intend to start one. I'm merely laying out the skeleton of a theory that fits the facts as I see them.

1 - The allegation that has led to your ban is hardly news. It's been secretly rumored for months that you're a previously perma'ed user who's been moonlighting under a new alias. Many of us were simply waiting for "the other shoe to drop" as it were, to see if any concrete evidence would be discovered that would link this rumor to a fact. Given this, I don't think you have a whole lot of license to act surprised that this has been brought forward.

2 - Perhaps I'm drawing false connections here, but it is very telling that you would suddenly shift the tone of a thread that you started: to stop using it to discuss your ban, and shift it to focus on someone you'd like to see banned instead. It is also, to use your word, "fishy" that this shift would occur immediately (as in a few hours) following you and your group's audience with me, after which it would have been quite clear that I wasn't taking things quite as seriously as you all hoped I would. Perhaps, with your last avenue of "legitimate" vindication uncertain, you chose to collude with your comrades about other avenues you could explore that would see this individual in the crosshairs of a very different kind of vindictive strike.
 -- 2a - It's also very telling that even though my decision on what you guys brought to my attention was pending, there were still people gloating about the outcome... an outcome that hasn't even been decided. I'm not sure how much obviously one can imply "grudge," than this.

I genuinely believe most people are drawing the lines through the dots on points 1 & 2.

What concerns me, however, is this next bit:

Quote
He knew full well that said user was 14. It'd been said time and time again.

I'm not going to pretend that TK justice conducts itself in any way akin to "actual" justice in the respect that someone accused of something is presumed innocent until proven guilty, however...

* Saying something is "common knowledge" is not good enough.
* You have to prove that this person was fully, cognitively aware that their partner was underage and then proceeded anyway

... and just for good measure, if this were my decision? I'd want you to prove that this happened recently, because it is beyond dubious that you would keep logs of something that happened that was both: illegal, and against the AUP, and then only bring it up, wielding it like ammunition, once you were backed into a corner, with it abundantly clear that you weren't getting unbanned. If you want to talk about things that are fishy, that shit reeks to high heaven.

Oh, and as a final point here. I was a part of the group of users that helped rewrite the AUP itself. While I cannot remember the specific details of who all contributed what to specific parts of the AUP, I do recall contributing to rule #5, specifically the phrasing here:

Quote
Deliberate sexual contact with any person considered underage, or where sexual interactions are prohibited in any pertinent jurisdiction, is strictly prohibited in all rooms, both public and private.

TK mods once made a big thing about abiding by the "spirit of the rules" and not the "letter of the rules," and if this is still the case, then the spirit of this rule is as I've just outlined to you, since I can tell you definitively that's how I intended for it to be interpreted.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 09, 2015, 11:49:15 PM
* You have to prove that this person was fully, cognitively aware that their partner was underage and then proceeded anyway

You pushing the matter is making me want to pursue this more and more. I've said to multiple people that I wasn't going to contact anyone about it. If I WAS going to, it'd take nothing more than a lie detector test. "Did you know this individual was underage at the time you did things with him?" and it'd go from there.

Thank you, Sherlock.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 09, 2015, 11:57:09 PM
And no- I'm not trying to shift the mood of the thread. My last posts aside from the last two replies had nothing to do with Ezekiel, and I'd still like to see some proof, despite me not being able to because it doesn't exist.

Before you respond with more shoddy detective work pertaining to Zeke and your own personal issues about you doing the most idiotic thing I've seen a while and promoting him and the subsequent split that made in the room; Don't. Make a new thread for it.

So yeah, anyways. No proof has been posted because there is none and apparently people are thinking I'm;
Nazu
Crest
MysteryMegz
MegaMadMusician

and it's honestly got to stop. I am me.
Not Nazu. Or Crest. Or Megz.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 09, 2015, 11:57:39 PM
Cher, I have no quarrel with you, and I don't intend to start one. I'm merely laying out the skeleton of a theory that fits the facts as I see them.

1 - The allegation that has led to your ban is hardly news. It's been secretly rumored for months that you're a previously perma'ed user who's been moonlighting under a new alias. Many of us were simply waiting for "the other shoe to drop" as it were, to see if any concrete evidence would be discovered that would link this rumor to a fact. Given this, I don't think you have a whole lot of license to act surprised that this has been brought forward.

2 - Perhaps I'm drawing false connections here, but it is very telling that you would suddenly shift the tone of a thread that you started: to stop using it to discuss your ban, and shift it to focus on someone you'd like to see banned instead. It is also, to use your word, "fishy" that this shift would occur immediately (as in a few hours) following you and your group's audience with me, after which it would have been quite clear that I wasn't taking things quite as seriously as you all hoped I would. Perhaps, with your last avenue of "legitimate" vindication uncertain, you chose to collude with your comrades about other avenues you could explore that would see this individual in the crosshairs of a very different kind of vindictive strike.
 -- 2a - It's also very telling that even though my decision on what you guys brought to my attention was pending, there were still people gloating about the outcome... an outcome that hasn't even been decided. I'm not sure how much obviously one can imply "grudge," than this.

I genuinely believe most people are drawing the lines through the dots on points 1 & 2.

What concerns me, however, is this next bit:

Quote
He knew full well that said user was 14. It'd been said time and time again.

I'm not going to pretend that TK justice conducts itself in any way akin to "actual" justice in the respect that someone accused of something is presumed innocent until proven guilty, however...

* Saying something is "common knowledge" is not good enough.
* You have to prove that this person was fully, cognitively aware that their partner was underage and then proceeded anyway

... and just for good measure, if this were my decision? I'd want you to prove that this happened recently, because it is beyond dubious that you would keep logs of something that happened that was both: illegal, and against the AUP, and then only bring it up, wielding it like ammunition, once you were backed into a corner, with it abundantly clear that you weren't getting unbanned. If you want to talk about things that are fishy, that shit reeks to high heaven.

Oh, and as a final point here. I was a part of the group of users that helped rewrite the AUP itself. While I cannot remember the specific details of who all contributed what to specific parts of the AUP, I do recall contributing to rule #5, specifically the phrasing here:

Quote
Deliberate sexual contact with any person considered underage, or where sexual interactions are prohibited in any pertinent jurisdiction, is strictly prohibited in all rooms, both public and private.

TK mods once made a big thing about abiding by the "spirit of the rules" and not the "letter of the rules," and if this is still the case, then the spirit of this rule is as I've just outlined to you, since I can tell you definitively that's how I intended for it to be interpreted.

All of this is completely irrelevant with a few points:

1) "Rumored." It's also rumored that I'm half the chat.  Today, some random toads even started rumoring that I am Nazu, and anyone with two brain cells knows better.
2) There's a high chance of several reasons - > They wanted to just let bygones be bygones > they feared the person, as they said > they found it difficult to contact the staff who have made it evident they only occasionally reply on the forums.
2a) Still irrelevant.  People will feel smug if they feel justice might be done.  This substantiates nothing.

The rest is a bunch of pseudo-intellectual distracting jargon to put excessive burden of proof on the victim.  It isn't enough for you to see proof that a minor was abused, you want proof that it was recent, because why would children ever be unwisely intimidated into keeping their mouths shut for an unknown period over a method of abuse?  Of course kids never do that - am I right?  ...Is this relevant in any way?  No.

I don't know what's in the logs, but I did hear that it was also blackmail. Which in no way, shape, or form - minor or otherwise - is alright.  It's extortion.

At this point there's straw grabbing over trying to defend a known predator.

Oh.

22:01:34 [Kirkus] Because of the whole forum shit, Fam?
22:01:50 [Familiar] Admittedly I kind of stirred the shit, Kirkus.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: SilverStreak on August 10, 2015, 12:27:07 AM
@ Cherry

I'm sorry you feel like I'm defending Zeke specifically, but in this case I'm really just trying to defend due process; in this specific instance you're at the heart of something I took a very invested, and very passionate stance against when the time came to rewrite the AUP. I wanted to make sure that the AUP was open enough to allow for the (quite common) allowance of underaged users misrepresenting their age, so that users who unknowingly engaged in explicit contact with them could be recognized with a certain degree of impunity. The specific circumstances of your dealings here are unknown to me, but I felt it was my responsibility to add my voice to the interpretation of Rule #5 of the AUP, since that's at the heart of the matter, AND since I helped write it.

There was no "sleuthing" involved here, kiddo.

@Crest/Min

Quote
The rest is a bunch of pseudo-intellectual distracting jargon to put excessive burden of proof on the victim.


Actually, yes? The last time I checked, under most civilized systems an aggressor is presumed innocent, or at least not guilty until the victim can substantiate significant enough evidence to prove otherwise. As I stated before, I realize that TK is no bastion of criminal justice (God help us if it were,) but I adamantly believe that the burden of proof in this case is far from excessive.

Quote
It isn't enough for you to see proof that a minor was abused, you want proof that it was recent, because why would children ever be unwisely intimidated into keeping their mouths shut for an unknown period over a method of abuse?  Of course kids never do that - am I right?

Of course, kids would never lie either, right?

Am I saying that minors are never abused, and that they're never intimidated into silence? Of course not.

All I'm saying is that that I personally find the circumstances surrounding these allegations to be particularly suspicious (and yes, that is an opinion for the folks keeping score at home.)

Nice Appeal to Emotion by the way.

Quote
I don't know what's in the logs

...and neither do I, so let's leave it at that. Anything we say here is purely speculative,

If you wish to label my justified skepticism as "straw grabbing" then I guess I can't really help you, lol.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 10, 2015, 12:30:43 AM
I sent the logs to Vivi and he's going to speak with me further, I suppose. Simply put - what's going to happen is going to happen regardless of what you post on the forums.

Again - you act like lying is the be-all-end-all IRL like lie detectors don't even EXIST and if they do they're horrible and inaccurate.

"Are you lying about this person manipulating you in an inappropriate manner?"

That's all anyone would need to say.

Again, this whole fiasco with Zeke deserves its own thread. This right here is me arguing a rather unjust ban, not discussing the intricacies and horrific details of child abuse. Try not to shift the tone of the thread, Matt.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 10, 2015, 01:03:48 AM
(A bunch of crap broken apart to remove context)

That's all there is to say about that.  The fact that you would demand proof it is recent proves you're defending scum.  "Well sure he might have - but if it was a while ago it shouldn't matter!" means jack schitt.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Fenris on August 10, 2015, 03:22:44 PM
This has to be the most appropriate name for a thread title ever.

Well known users doing the e-nasty with minors. (Would not be surprised considering Zeke.)

Accusations of "mod corruption"

Urban legends and folk-heros from B-net, garnering respect as "amazing troll".

People claiming general shenanigans on the users.


You know I gotta fucking say, that whole month long thing in the arena where like 10 people shared 8 names for the sole purpose of stirring shit up, while allowing other users who were already banned in the names kinda seems like it relates to this whole disaster. Not sure how its relevant, and I admittedly got lost trying to read. But I do feel like there's some sort of lesson to be learned here, or maybe a few. One of them is, TK is not the wild-west chat-client many wish it to be. There are consequences to actions, and even if some people may feel there is "favoritism" or "unfairness" in how things are handled by the staff, the fact of the matter is that's just how the cookie crumbles.

I also want to point out, maybe the problem lies in people doing petty shit to get back at people through taking advantage of TK's perceived "technical weaknesses" then flipping out when those same technical weaknesses bite them in the ass (Which fucking amuses the shit out of me btw.)

Also as someone whose been on the receiving end of Mod-ire my best suggestion is to curl up into fetal and wait for it to pass or leave TK. Arguing the point (Much less in a situation where they are probably right.) is not going to get you anywhere, they only answer to themselves and probably have no interest in your concept of "fairness" when there are shenanigans afoot.

Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: MEGAMADMUSICIAN on August 10, 2015, 04:59:42 PM
Some wise words from a third party.

Quote
The cornerstone of a functional government is:

Assume that people WILL try to game the system. Assume that people are assholes. Because some of them will, and some of them are, and when you don't stop them, non-assholes have very limited options.

1:  Welp, I guess I'll just hafta take more precautions and wade through it.

2: Hey, if they can  do this shit and get away with it scot-free, why aren't I doing it?
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Kade on August 10, 2015, 05:20:59 PM
You realize that it's actually fucking asinine to not be able to face your accuser, right?

This is a debate that the worlds of ethics and law settled as far back as English Common Law and even Roman law.

I'm saying this because I'm actually in shock that TK staff thinks it's better to protect their "resources and methods" (-Ix) than it is to actually pursue justice for their users. And this isn't hyperbole... It's literally an injustice to not be able to face your accuser - in the sense of the 6th amendment, that means knowing your accuser's identity, cross-examining them, knowing the evidence against you, etc. The whole shebang.

And this isn't just some fancy right that "pro, supr srs" courts provide. Inevitably, when this right isn't present, accusers will systemically abuse the process. [see: Reddit, Imgur, Tumblr, Russia, Zimbabwe, Revolutionary France, etc.]





Even North Korea fancies itself a Republic.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Kade on August 10, 2015, 05:28:40 PM
ps; I told you guys Familiar was shit.

pss; LMFAO @ SilverStreak defending a known pedophile. Give it up dude. Ezekiel was doing that shit even way back when I was still around. LOL
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 10, 2015, 07:15:31 PM
This is totally unrelated but

what's your forum gif from, Kade?
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: jesus on August 11, 2015, 01:21:04 AM
LOL so everything i've predicted has come to pass?


@ Kade, If this was done in a court, they'd totally laugh at the jury and judges for being so inept. If the prosecutors had proof and that proof was either lost or someshit in court, even if the accused was absolutely guilty, they'd have to be let go because there is no evidence.


(http://memecrunch.com/meme/3MOET/out-fucking-standing/image.jpg)

Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 11, 2015, 01:29:56 AM
@ jesus

That.. certification thing. THAT's some proof right there. Mods, take note.

(http://i.imgur.com/xgz9nkR.gif)
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 11, 2015, 01:34:16 AM
I'm saying this because I'm actually in shock that TK staff thinks it's better to protect their "resources and methods" (-Ix) than it is to actually pursue justice for their users. And this isn't hyperbole... It's literally an injustice to not be able to face your accuser - in the sense of the 6th amendment, that means knowing your accuser's identity, cross-examining them, knowing the evidence against you, etc. The whole shebang.

Agreed.  This is a bit like being "tried for murder" and the court just saying "we have evidence, but we can't let anyone see the evidence, but totally trust us that we have evidence. And a witness.  It's absurd that you might want to see the evidence, then you might know what method we actually use!" Presuming there is a method. Instead there's just some clandestine Illuminati shit where everyone nods sagely and concurs over questionable evidence that may or may not exist. Even REAL COURTS trying REAL MURDERERS display their evidence and have their witnesses speak up, and these are REAL LIFE situations, where REAL LIVES are involved.  Here, system abusers can have complete liberty to twist things under anonymity and no accountability, as if the accused can reach through the digital screen and choke them to death.  What are they gonna do, bug them on skype?

...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO![/i] /Vader

...Block command solves that fast.  Repeated harassment report to Microsoft and they'll get charged appropriately. That's it.

Or basically this is like some fucking Zulu town hearing word that some kid stole a loaf of bread because someone said so, and they saw bread in his house, so just going out and dropping the sword over his neck.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: jesus on August 11, 2015, 01:49:43 AM
Thanks uh Cherry.

I agree with Crest. Like why keep them anonymous for? Because they might get harassed outside of TK parameters? When they already harassed me outside of TK parameters themselves. nikka plz.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 11, 2015, 01:57:38 AM
Thanks uh Cherry.

I agree with Crest. Like why keep them anonymous for? Because they might get harassed outside of TK parameters? When they already harassed me outside of TK parameters themselves. nikka plz.

Oh and Rei,

While I can appreciate you coming out here to support Cherry, can you try NOT to make this about you, your military status, or whatever the hell else? Because that's just going to derail this thread.  That's not what this thread is about.  If you want to go prove to someone somewhere that you are in fact whatever level of military you claim, do it in your own thread.  In fact, I would appreciate it if you just go and edit that crap out of your reply here RIGHT NOW before this devolves into a clusterfuck of arguing unrelated to the topic.

You may notice, Kade pointed out everything wrong with this without ever having to self-reference once.   You could take a lesson or two from that.  He too is perma'ed, but he realizes this isn't about him.  This is about Cherry, and possibly Nazu, and definitely the mods and this broken ass system.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: jesus on August 11, 2015, 02:03:39 AM
noted, but i'm here to just add more accounts to the BS, actually people should come and post their stuff so they can all just complain together?
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 11, 2015, 02:04:50 AM
Or they could make a thread about the shit they wanna complain about instead of coming into individual appeal threads and showing it up.
I do like that you actually have proof unlike the mods. Wasn't being sarcastic or anything and I apologize if that's how I sounded, but I agree with Crest. You should take that stuff down or put it in a different thread, please-and-thank-you.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 11, 2015, 02:06:11 AM
noted, but i'm here to just add more accounts to the BS, actually people should come and post their stuff so they can all just complain together?
But your military crap has zero relevance to this.  Out of respect for the person pursuing justice, can you please review your post and remove the unrelated banter that is only going to serve to distract?
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: jesus on August 11, 2015, 02:07:45 AM
noted and will do. =P
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 11, 2015, 02:09:46 AM
Thankyouuuu.

Also, it's funny how nobody in a position of power has replied after they pretty basically got told to nut up or shut up about the proof they don't have. 
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 11, 2015, 02:12:13 AM
Thankyouuuu.

Also, it's funny how nobody in a position of power has replied after they pretty basically got told to nut up or shut up about the proof they don't have.

Well I think because they realized this.

22:01:34 [Kirkus] Because of the whole forum shit, Fam?
22:01:50 [Familiar] Admittedly I kind of stirred the shit, Kirkus.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: TheSupremeBeing on August 11, 2015, 02:26:07 AM
If you don't address the situation of a guy who is a known and proven Online Predator, you're not doing your jobs. In fact you fucking suck at them. I believe that due to recent actions the Mods of this site are accepting of predators and even HARBORING them on this site. If something is not done soon..I think the minors on the site should be protected by it being shut down. I find it amazing that you'd ban somebody over ban evading and other shit..yet I see a global mod sitting in a room with a known online predator EVERY DAY. Get your shit together.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 11, 2015, 02:31:00 AM
And before you accuse me of being TheSupremeBeing as well; yes. Yes, I'm him - and Crest, and Jesus, and Kade, and MegaMadMusician, AND Nazu AND MysteryMegz. I have more sockpuppets than I do hands, apparently.

I'm You as well. I am everyone.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: TheSupremeBeing on August 11, 2015, 02:32:08 AM
You can only strive to be TheSupremeBeing.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 11, 2015, 02:32:16 AM
And before you accuse me of being TheSupremeBeing as well; yes. Yes, I'm him - and Crest, and Jesus, and Kade, and MegaMadMusician, AND Nazu AND MysteryMegz. I have more sockpuppets than I do hands, apparently.

I'm You as well. I am everyone.

But that can't be!  I am everyone! But wait.  If you're me, and I'm you that makes sense!

...I smell a new persona in the works.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 11, 2015, 02:33:03 AM
You can only strive to be TheSupremeBeing.

But I AM You! I just said.  8)
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 11, 2015, 02:55:04 AM
You can only strive to be TheSupremeBeing.

But I AM You! I just said.  8)

Careful now, don't go getting You banned.  Then again You is apparently everyone, so maybe he should be banned, but then the whole chat should be too.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Prismatic Expression on August 11, 2015, 03:11:04 AM
If you don't address the situation of a guy who is a known and proven Online Predator, you're not doing your jobs. In fact you fucking suck at them. I believe that due to recent actions the Mods of this site are accepting of predators and even HARBORING them on this site. If something is not done soon..I think the minors on the site should be protected by it being shut down. I find it amazing that you'd ban somebody over ban evading and other shit..yet I see a global mod sitting in a room with a known online predator EVERY DAY. Get your shit together.

I don't know about this whole shitstorm, as I generally try to stay out of this sort of thing. I've barely ever interracted with Ezekiel, either. But I have observed him acting beyond creepy around certain people. And I do agree that a Online Predator shouldn't be harbored.

That's my opinion, though. And it's admittedly somewhat removed from the whole "political situation" so to say. Not that I believe there should be a political situation about a such a thing to begin with.

But I like to think it's objective?
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 11, 2015, 04:24:16 AM
If you don't address the situation of a guy who is a known and proven Online Predator, you're not doing your jobs. In fact you fucking suck at them. I believe that due to recent actions the Mods of this site are accepting of predators and even HARBORING them on this site. If something is not done soon..I think the minors on the site should be protected by it being shut down. I find it amazing that you'd ban somebody over ban evading and other shit..yet I see a global mod sitting in a room with a known online predator EVERY DAY. Get your shit together.

I don't know about this whole shitstorm, as I generally try to stay out of this sort of thing. I've barely ever interracted with Ezekiel, either. But I have observed him acting beyond creepy around certain people. And I do agree that a Online Predator shouldn't be harbored.

That's my opinion, though. And it's admittedly somewhat removed from the whole "political situation" so to say. Not that I believe there should be a political situation about a such a thing to begin with.

But I like to think it's objective?

WHEN THE PASSIVE SWEDE EVEN ADMITS THIS IS SCREWY SOMETHING IS SERIOUSLY WRONG.

This is so bad a Canadian wouldn't even apologize for their opinion.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 11, 2015, 05:20:06 AM
Actually, let me pull something right out of Zeke's own profile that he's proudly flaunted and no mods have commented on, despite them and some of the ombuds engaged in this thread hanging out in there frequently.

19:38:46 [Ezekiel`] Met a girl, thought she was grand, had some drinks, she put my hand down her pants for a minute or two, brought it up all covered with goo. Thought she had a juicy puss, but it kinda smelled like shit...but then I started to realize...her vayjayjay was tattered and wide. Her pussy hates me...She gave me VD! I drank too much and forgot to use a prophylactic! TOOK HER HOME AFTER JUST ONE HOUR, STARTED TO GO DOWN, BUT IT WAS SOUR! THOUGHT SHE HAD A JUICY PUSSY, BUT IT KINDA SMELLED LIKE SHIT, THEN I STARTED TO REALIZE, HER VAYJAYJAY WAS TATTERED AND WIDE!

19:40:06 [Cloverfield-Monster] o.o

19:40:28 [Rovod] You're a moderator again, aren't you.

19:40:46 [Ezekiel`] Yep.

19:41:09 [Rovod] Yeah.

19:41:10 [Hexian] ...Ew, dog liqui-shitted all over the living room.

19:42:18 [Crawford] ...

19:42:25 [Crawford] What the lord?

19:42:39 Ceto enters this room

19:42:49 Ezekiel` chortles nefariously

19:42:53 [Rovod] Eze is a mod again, so he's being vulgar.

19:43:01 [Crawford] ...

19:43:11 [Crawford] He was vulgar before he was ever a mod.

19:43:13 [Ezekiel`] I was always vulgar, ass.

19:43:28 [Crawford] Believe me, he doesn't do it because he can. He does it because he can't stop himself. =/

19:43:58 [Rovod] And I continue to wonder why we make the raging alcoholic wife-beater a cop.

19:44:23 [Crawford] Just because he verbally abuses people doesn't mean anything.

19:44:34 [Crawford] He doesn't abuse his power.

19:44:53 [Ezekiel`] I am not alcoholic >_>

19:45:03 [Crawford] He's only done that twice, and the second was justified because... Well Kade, that's enough of an explanation.





Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: TheHarbinger on August 11, 2015, 01:01:33 PM
Actually, let me pull something right out of Zeke's own profile that he's proudly flaunted and no mods have commented on, despite them and some of the ombuds engaged in this thread hanging out in there frequently.

19:38:46 [Ezekiel`] Met a girl, thought she was grand, had some drinks, she put my hand down her pants for a minute or two, brought it up all covered with goo. Thought she had a juicy puss, but it kinda smelled like shit...but then I started to realize...her vayjayjay was tattered and wide. Her pussy hates me...She gave me VD! I drank too much and forgot to use a prophylactic! TOOK HER HOME AFTER JUST ONE HOUR, STARTED TO GO DOWN, BUT IT WAS SOUR! THOUGHT SHE HAD A JUICY PUSSY, BUT IT KINDA SMELLED LIKE SHIT, THEN I STARTED TO REALIZE, HER VAYJAYJAY WAS TATTERED AND WIDE!

19:40:06 [Cloverfield-Monster] o.o

19:40:28 [Rovod] You're a moderator again, aren't you.

19:40:46 [Ezekiel`] Yep.

19:41:09 [Rovod] Yeah.

19:41:10 [Hexian] ...Ew, dog liqui-shitted all over the living room.

19:42:18 [Crawford] ...

19:42:25 [Crawford] What the lord?

19:42:39 Ceto enters this room

19:42:49 Ezekiel` chortles nefariously

19:42:53 [Rovod] Eze is a mod again, so he's being vulgar.

19:43:01 [Crawford] ...

19:43:11 [Crawford] He was vulgar before he was ever a mod.

19:43:13 [Ezekiel`] I was always vulgar, ass.

19:43:28 [Crawford] Believe me, he doesn't do it because he can. He does it because he can't stop himself. =/

19:43:58 [Rovod] And I continue to wonder why we make the raging alcoholic wife-beater a cop.

19:44:23 [Crawford] Just because he verbally abuses people doesn't mean anything.

19:44:34 [Crawford] He doesn't abuse his power.

19:44:53 [Ezekiel`] I am not alcoholic >_>

19:45:03 [Crawford] He's only done that twice, and the second was justified because... Well Kade, that's enough of an explanation.








To put my two cents in, this is why a majority of people don't bother with Zeke. Based on what I've seen, he comes across as significantly creepy when it comes to some people, arrogant, and beyond vulgar, but because the mods don't seem to be doing their jobs and are exuding some double standards by banishing people from hearsay, yet practically harboring a known pedophile (like Supreme has said) when they have been given solid proof, players that have encountered him think that he's untouchable and I believe that even he thinks that himself. I'm certain that a good number of people (including myself) would feel relieved to see him gone, which can make my viewpoint seem a little biased, but these are severe accusations and this is a significant situation. Based on what I've been told, this has been happening for years, which solidifies the "harboring" portion of what I have typed. I am hoping that the moderators see the severity of these occurrences before the situation becomes even more distasteful.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Kade on August 11, 2015, 04:44:31 PM
19:45:03 [Crawford] He's only done that twice, and the second was justified because... Well Kade, that's enough of an explanation.

For the record, I don't know this person, nor do I know wtf they're talking about.

Also, my gif is from Senyuu.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Kade on August 11, 2015, 04:48:35 PM
, but these are severe accusations and this is a significant situation. Based on what I've been told, this has been happening for years,
Even when I was around TK zeke was pushing people's nudes around and generally doing shit that could get him banned at any given moment. divulging personal information, rl threats, stuff with minors, public erp, harassment, ban evasion, the works. I'm surprised he's lasted this long, honestly. Even the laziest, surface-skimming investigation of this guy would've cleansed him from the general population ages ago.

and I don't have any personal issues with the dude. I don't know him. Just seemed like everyone inevitably got some collateral exposure to some bs he was doing, whether you hung out with him or not.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: silkeperson on August 11, 2015, 05:17:37 PM
This is A LOT of accusations. A lot. Some serious ones too, but...they're just accusations and off-the-cuff insults to the mods.
I'm not sure whether to applaud this strategy or continue to scratch my head and wait for anything at all to sound like something more than just an escalation of what another has said.
Thus far, I don't really get it. I keep seeing big buzzwords like "KNOWN PEDOPHILE" and things like "Even terrible mods could find proof of this behavior..." and those are indirect quotes, but capture the spirit of what keeps showing up here.
What I'm getting at is:
That's not how justice works, guys. I could pick a random person and go on a tirade about them myself, and if enough people decided they wanted to see where it went or had a grudge against that person and chimed in, should the sheer weight of the number of complaints suddenly mean that we're telling the truth?

No. No it doesn't.
In fact, the more ridiculous this gets the more I wonder if any of this (Yes, ANY of it) is even true. This sounds like a vendetta, not a plaintiff pleading a case. I don't see victims, I see angry villagers.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Naudia on August 11, 2015, 05:23:20 PM
This is A LOT of accusations. A lot. Some serious ones too, but...they're just accusations and off-the-cuff insults to the mods.
I'm not sure whether to applaud this strategy or continue to scratch my head and wait for anything at all to sound like something more than just an escalation of what another has said.
Thus far, I don't really get it. I keep seeing big buzzwords like "KNOWN PEDOPHILE" and things like "Even terrible mods could find proof of this behavior..." and those are indirect quotes, but capture the spirit of what keeps showing up here.
What I'm getting at is:
That's not how justice works, guys. I could pick a random person and go on a tirade about them myself, and if enough people decided they wanted to see where it went or had a grudge against that person and chimed in, should the sheer weight of the number of complaints suddenly mean that we're telling the truth?

No. No it doesn't.
In fact, the more ridiculous this gets the more I wonder if any of this (Yes, ANY of it) is even true. This sounds like a vendetta, not a plaintiff pleading a case. I don't see victims, I see angry villagers.

I second this. There's a lot of personal vendetta and typical rage going on versus actual proof of anything. I'm just seeing a lot of -wah wah wah - towards Zeke and a lot of -wah wah wah- towards being banned off TK. You don't just randomly get banned because Mods felt like it.

Besides being the little tyrant we all know and love, Zeke hasn't done any real damage, as far as I'm concerned and I've known him 5ever. All this bs being nitpicked is just, again, I feel, a personal vendetta.

Protip: Get lives people. Maybe this is an omen for you to go outside and enjoy the real world.. yep, there's a real world out there. Go see! 8)
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 11, 2015, 05:29:52 PM
I've been trying to plead my case, but in the end it's gone in circles.

"Unban me, I didn't do anything wrong" > "Yes you did" > "You have no proof" > "Yes we do" > "Show me" > "No" > Repeat from step 3 onwards, ad infinium.

I have no personal quarrel with any of the mods, save for Familiar. She banned me on false accusations and hearsay, and from what I've heard from Nazu it was much of the same with his case. False accusations, and hearsay.

Also. Want to defend Familiar?

22:01:34 [Kirkus] Because of the whole forum shit, Fam?

22:01:50 [Familiar] Admittedly I kind of stirred the shit, Kirkus.

Go right ahead.

@Naudia

"There's a lot of personal vendetta and typical rage going on versus actual proof of anything."

I agree. While Zeke and I haven't had much beef, it seems rather convenient that I get the hammer dropped on me a day or two after he finds out something that doesn't quite tickle his fancy.

Even more convenient that Myah gets the hammer dropped on HIM after he calls Zeke on his shit.

Time and time again, whenever someone tries to stand up to Zeke, it seems more common than not that they get banned on fucking hearsay and baseless accusations.

"He hasn't done any real damage"

Do you want me to send you the screenshots of him cybering with a minor or do you want to remain willingly blind to that, too?
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Jinxxy on August 11, 2015, 05:31:25 PM
This is A LOT of accusations. A lot. Some serious ones too, but...they're just accusations and off-the-cuff insults to the mods.
I'm not sure whether to applaud this strategy or continue to scratch my head and wait for anything at all to sound like something more than just an escalation of what another has said.
Thus far, I don't really get it. I keep seeing big buzzwords like "KNOWN PEDOPHILE" and things like "Even terrible mods could find proof of this behavior..." and those are indirect quotes, but capture the spirit of what keeps showing up here.
What I'm getting at is:
That's not how justice works, guys. I could pick a random person and go on a tirade about them myself, and if enough people decided they wanted to see where it went or had a grudge against that person and chimed in, should the sheer weight of the number of complaints suddenly mean that we're telling the truth?

No. No it doesn't.
In fact, the more ridiculous this gets the more I wonder if any of this (Yes, ANY of it) is even true. This sounds like a vendetta, not a plaintiff pleading a case. I don't see victims, I see angry villagers.

I guess no one expected the myriad of people who actually know Zeke. This lot of "he said, she said" crap proves absolutely nothing.

I like how every person here who "knows what they're talking about" has been banned. You sound like a lot of bitter children.

Oh and Cherry, Svae got Myah banned. He admitted to that, and you saw it. So try that one on again.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 11, 2015, 05:34:05 PM
@Jinxxy

Svae only said he asked the mods if Myah was supposed to be banned. That could be it, but I'm willing to believe it was Zeke.

Nice to see how you pull a complete 180 after two days, btw.  ;D
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Jinxxy on August 11, 2015, 05:36:07 PM
I didn't pull a 180.
I saw you manipulating my friend. Maybe if you checked Skype you'd see me calling you out on that.

I told you that I was concerned, but I can't be friends with a hypocrite.

What was it? "Child abuse" ?
Isn't mental abuse child abuse too? Like manipulating a child to do what you want them to?
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 11, 2015, 05:39:35 PM
You saw what you wanted to. I saw the messages you sent me on Skype. All I'm seeing is you defending a scumbag.
It's child abuse to cyber with a minor.
It's not child abuse to convince a minor to show screenshots of said abuse.

If it was, nobody would get anywhere because trying to convince a child that was abused to testify would count as abuse as well.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Naudia on August 11, 2015, 05:41:33 PM
I've been trying to plead my case, but in the end it's gone in circles.

"Unban me, I didn't do anything wrong" > "Yes you did" > "You have no proof" > "Yes we do" > "Show me" > "No" > Repeat from step 3 onwards, ad infinium.

I have no personal quarrel with any of the mods, save for Familiar. She banned me on false accusations and hearsay, and from what I've heard from Nazu it was much of the same with his case. False accusations, and hearsay.

Also. Want to defend Familiar?

22:01:34 [Kirkus] Because of the whole forum shit, Fam?

22:01:50 [Familiar] Admittedly I kind of stirred the shit, Kirkus.

Go right ahead.

@Naudia

"There's a lot of personal vendetta and typical rage going on versus actual proof of anything."

I agree. While Zeke and I haven't had much beef, it seems rather convenient that I get the hammer dropped on me a day or two after he finds out something that doesn't quite tickle his fancy.

Even more convenient that Myah gets the hammer dropped on HIM after he calls Zeke on his shit.

Time and time again, whenever someone tries to stand up to Zeke, it seems more common than not that they get banned on fucking hearsay and baseless accusations.

"He hasn't done any real damage"

Do you want me to send you the screenshots of him cybering with a minor or do you want to remain willingly blind to that, too?

Jinxx already said her part about the ban thing about Svae vs Myah, so I don't even gotta say nuttin' aboot dat.

Zeke did not know he was cybering with a minor. Also, what is truly more disgusting? Unknowingly cybering with a minor or a fucking minor cybering with grown men? I'm more concerned about the child who's engaging in sexual acts. But that's just me.

Also, Fami may of 'stirred shit' (I'm going off what you keep repeating) but at the end of the day, he's a global mod. This is The Keep, not prison, and all this bantering is not going to get you unbanned, it just makes you look like a tattletaling cuntwaffle (Here you go, Ringo!). So why is this still happening/being spoken about? There may be a lot more than I know here because I'm not as deep in this as others, but.. really.

Pointless pointing of fingers is pointless.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Jinxxy on August 11, 2015, 05:43:21 PM
Um. Sweetie. I never mentioned Zeke when I called you out. And the same "victim" that you're blabbering about has admitted that you're manipulating them. Please. Please. Find me some proof that Zeke knew that this was a child. A screenshot since you have so many? Yes?

Maybe some proof. That would do some good here.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: silkeperson on August 11, 2015, 05:44:00 PM
Yes, I'll take those screenshots, Cherry.
I don't remember trying to defend Familiar as I don't know him/her other than a few indirect interactions.
I'm talking about this whole "It's not a vendetta he's a pedo" rage happening in the very same forum that you're trying to appeal your own ban.

You think he got you banned so you're launching this crusade. I get it. If you're going down (and you already have) you want to try and take someone with you. Who better than the polarizing mod that has plenty of grudged against him to draw on? I mean, the blame has to go somewhere anyway, right?

As for cybering with a minor, nevermind whether or not it happened.

How are you going to prove that he knew they were a minor? It's the internet, and there's a huge difference between characters getting it on and no one knowing ages, and telling someone to "come do me irl".

You've probably cybered a minor. Hell, I probably have and have no way of knowing to this day.

Even asking "Are you at least 18" doesn't yield a guaranteed truthful answer.

If you wanna dispute your own ban, go for it. Good luck.

Stop trying to pin a disgusting tag on someone who we both know doesn't deserve it.
Does he need a kick in the balls every so often? (Referring to Zeke) Sure. Does he need to be called a pedophile for an alleged mistake that honestly any of us could have made? Absolutely not. He can be a perv, but he's no predator.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 11, 2015, 05:45:26 PM
Zeke did not know he was cybering with a minor. Also, what is truly more disgusting? Unknowingly cybering with a minor or a fucking minor cybering with grown men? I'm more concerned about the child who's engaging in sexual acts. But that's just me.

...are you..

Are you seriously trying to turn this around on the minor?

Are you fucking dense?

@Silke Add me on Skype if you haven't already. It's Neda.Valencia. I'll give you the screenshots.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 11, 2015, 05:49:52 PM
Also also!

There's countless reports of men getting jailtime for doing 16-year olds that claimed they were older. Whether Myah lied or not means shit-all. He's 14. Zeke's... what, late twenties?

It's still illegal.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Jinxxy on August 11, 2015, 05:51:33 PM
It was online. Where is your proof that he knew? Or are we going on baseless claims now?
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 11, 2015, 05:53:25 PM
Wow, I see the LL is getting pretty desparate.  It's pretty nice when they can turn reality around so much.  Various logs becomes "no proof", law becomes "irrelevent", calling someone out on their deplorable behavior is somehow "child abuse" even when they're adults, and somehow minors are the guilty ones instead of their offenders.

Holy shit.

Can I get whatever kind of drugs people are on to be this detached from reality?

PS: Whether they knew or not still doesn't necessarily matter to the law, so try again.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 11, 2015, 05:53:41 PM
Refer to my replies to Matt.

"All it takes is two lie detector tests."

'Sir, did you know the user in question was underage before you engaged in sexual activities with him?'

'Little boy, did he know you were underage before he did this?'

Simple. As. That.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 11, 2015, 05:55:13 PM
But oh my good god we're getting off-track again.

I HAVE SAID IT TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT I AM NOT GOING TO THE AUTHORITIES, NOR IS MYAH.

Stop derailing shit. This is an appeal thread.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: MEGAMADMUSICIAN on August 11, 2015, 05:55:58 PM
It was online. Where is your proof that he knew? Or are we going on baseless claims now?

the level of irony

i cannot stop laughing
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Jinxxy on August 11, 2015, 05:56:58 PM
Crest, you insufferable Twat.

If only you knew that every time you type something we all collectively roll our eyes.
It's cute that you and Cherry suddenly get along to get on the "We hate Zeke" bandwagon, but your new found friendship doesn't mean that he's guilty.

It just means there are a lot of bitter people on this thread.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 11, 2015, 05:57:51 PM
Crest, you insufferable Twat.

If only you knew that every time you type something we all collectively roll our eyes.
It's cute that you and Cherry suddenly get along to get on the "We hate Zeke" bandwagon, but your new found friendship doesn't mean that he's guilty.

It just means there are a lot of bitter people on this thread.

You're right. The friendship doesn't mean he's guilty. The proof does, though. ;D

Oh and. What you said there about it being online. That could be used in my case word-for-fucking-word. Get over yourself, honey.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 11, 2015, 05:58:41 PM
It was online. Where is your proof that he knew? Or are we going on baseless claims now?

the level of irony

i cannot stop laughing


LOL


Jinxx: While that's a lovely point to make, none of what you said has any consequence in anything, nor is it relevant, nor does it have any actual bearing on what's going on instead of going "BAWWW YOU GUYS LIKE EACH OTHER AND DONT LIKE ZEKE!"

Thanks, no.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Jackalope on August 11, 2015, 06:01:20 PM
Cherish you embittered snot, all you're doing is stirring up some shit based on an accusation that as yet you have provided no proof for. I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that you've made your point about Zeke with resounding clarity but regardless, you have been banned because the mods saw it fit that you were banned, take it, deal with it (without being butthurt to the point of anal prolapse), and move on with your life.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: TheHarbinger on August 11, 2015, 06:02:04 PM
, but these are severe accusations and this is a significant situation. Based on what I've been told, this has been happening for years,
Even when I was around TK zeke was pushing people's nudes around and generally doing shit that could get him banned at any given moment. divulging personal information, rl threats, stuff with minors, public erp, harassment, ban evasion, the works. I'm surprised he's lasted this long, honestly. Even the laziest, surface-skimming investigation of this guy would've cleansed him from the general population ages ago.

and I don't have any personal issues with the dude. I don't know him. Just seemed like everyone inevitably got some collateral exposure to some bs he was doing, whether you hung out with him or not.

You know that there is something amiss when even Kade is saying something; the irony. I also find hilarity in the obvious LL people that are now defending him. At the current rate things are going, even a murderer would be safe on TK.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 11, 2015, 06:02:26 PM
Cherish you embittered snot, all you're doing is stirring up some shit based on an accusation that as yet you have provided no proof for. I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that you've made your point about Zeke with resounding clarity but regardless, you have been banned because the mods saw it fit that you were banned, take it, deal with it (without being butthurt to the point of anal prolapse), and move on with your life.

Too bad they already sent the logs to the staff, making this point moot.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Ringo on August 11, 2015, 06:04:16 PM
But oh my good god we're getting off-track again.

I HAVE SAID IT TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT I AM NOT GOING TO THE AUTHORITIES, NOR IS MYAH.

Stop derailing shit. This is an appeal thread.

If this is an appeal, then why are you starting shit and throwing around threats and claims and acting like an unberated toddler? You and Crest are doing nothing but playing the elementary school tattletaler game like a duo of insufferable cuntwaffles. Wanna appeal your ban, appeal it. But don't throw a tantrum in a public place and get butthurt when people chime in to berate and roll their eyes at you both.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: MEGAMADMUSICIAN on August 11, 2015, 06:07:06 PM
Cherish you embittered snot, all you're doing is stirring up some shit based on an accusation that as yet you have provided no proof for. I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that you've made your point about Zeke with resounding clarity but regardless, you have been banned because the mods saw it fit that you were banned, take it, deal with it (without being butthurt to the point of anal prolapse), and move on with your life.

Cherish is an idiot, yes. But that's because Cherish is a child. Childish things are to be expected of children. He said he provided proof the the mods: of the status of that, i don't fucking know. I'm just here for the tears. And my god, are they salty and tasty. This is why I love the internet.

Here's the trick though. If this was a first time accusation, a first time rumor, I would take a peak into it before walking away.

This is in fact, not. This warrants a much closer look.

I'm not one who likes slamming innocent people with shit, even if it is someone I feel is a waste of oxygen.

And while we're on it..are we seriously victim blaming?

Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: MEGAMADMUSICIAN on August 11, 2015, 06:08:10 PM
what the fuck did i just see
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: MEGAMADMUSICIAN on August 11, 2015, 06:10:39 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/uExGQ3z.gif)
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 11, 2015, 06:12:24 PM
But oh my good god we're getting off-track again.

I HAVE SAID IT TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT I AM NOT GOING TO THE AUTHORITIES, NOR IS MYAH.

Stop derailing shit. This is an appeal thread.

If this is an appeal, then why are you starting shit and throwing around threats and claims and acting like an unberated toddler? You and Crest are doing nothing but playing the elementary school tattletaler game like a duo of insufferable cuntwaffles. Wanna appeal your ban, appeal it. But don't throw a tantrum in a public place and get butthurt when people chime in to berate and roll their eyes at you both.

"Victimized person should just stay shut up on related material unless asked!"


So from the last few days of people sending me what they get out of the LL, here's what I've found.


18:01:37 [Bekz] Familiar DOES hate you.
18:01:51 [Ezekiel`] Nah, me and Fam are cool now.


05:51:20 [Wendill] So the logs they're talking about aren't real?
05:52:11 [Ezekiel`] They're real, but they're out of context. What my detractors aren't saying is at the time, I didn't know the player was a minor. When I found out, I put a stop to that shit.
05:52:21 [Ezekiel`] Or, I presume they're real
05:52:25 [Ezekiel`] I haven't seen them
05:52:57 [Ezekiel`] Unfortunately I never thought to take a screenshot/log the conversation where I was like "Yeah, no."
05:54:12 [Ezekiel`] And unfortunately, this is one of those cases where my reputation as ...well, a dick and a dillhole, have made people all too eager to jump on the bandwagon
05:54:17 [Wendill] Now don't take me as this hassling you I'm just trying to take straight word of it: What about them claiming blackmail?
05:54:28 [Ezekiel`] That's downright untrue
05:55:03 [Wendill] Hm. You'll have to forgive me if I don't believe you outright, but that doesn't mean I inherently disbelieve either. Neutrality, you know. Trying to figure out what the hell I walked into.
05:55:41 [Ezekiel`] I'll just let the fact that they've, so far, produced no proof of blackmail do the talking.
05:56:20 [Wendill] Yeah, but then one could argue the same thing about the staff banning Cherry. And we don't know what are in the logs they sent either, it may have the supposed blackmail.
05:56:56 Ezekiel` shrugs.


OR MOST CHARMINGLY, IN RESPONSE TO WHAT CHERRY JUST POSTED,

18:07:36 [Ezekiel`] Of all the horrible things I've done
18:07:45 [Ezekiel`] THAT"S the one that is outed.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: silkeperson on August 11, 2015, 06:12:36 PM
Stop derailing shit. This is an appeal thread.

Isn't this shit your slinging at Zeke a total and all-consuming derailing of your appeal?
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: silkeperson on August 11, 2015, 06:13:35 PM
And yes, that's a response to the low-level (D rank at best) screenshots you took.
There's nothing incriminating there.

Stop derailing shit. This is an appeals thread.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 11, 2015, 06:16:26 PM
Wow, you guys thought I was Wendill.

http://puu.sh/jygpC.png

Fail.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Naudia on August 11, 2015, 06:16:41 PM
Yes, I'm placing the blame on the idiot 'minor' (proof or gtfo that he/she is actually a minor, plox) who is deliberately cybering online. Zeke was unaware that this 'minor' was a 'minor'. It's not like he lennyface.jpg on this kid and snuck him/her to The Keep shack and got it on. Zeke got into an RP he thought was on the same balance. People do that shit all the time on The Keep (sex RP). You're nitpicking and trying to drag down your #1 love of your life (or so it seems, jesus) with you. How much do you want to guarantee that all those slave rooms are probably run by minors? If you truly care oh so deeply, you might want to start at the bottom, sweetie.

I'd like to point out that Jinxx claims your victim has confessed to you manipulating them.. gg Cherish. You are fucked. If this so called minor did cyber Zeke and all you fucking did was drill him/her into providing screenshots so you could thus start this useless trash? Fucked. You could have handled it better.. but from what I've heard about you, I'm not surprised.

Edit: Wow.. nice 'proof', Cherish. What the honest fuck is that? L O L ! On another note, holy fuck.

I am %100 worried about that so called 'minor' and what the fuck is going on through his/her head to do shit like that if she/he is as young as you claim her/him to be.

buzthaznoneofmybuznuz -sips tea-

Edit #2: Lmao good lord, really Crest?

What is this achieving.. you guys ain't getting unbanned, Zeke isn't getting banned.. y'all are wasting precious time when you could be doing something productive. (If you don't know the word, look it up.)


Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 11, 2015, 06:18:05 PM

Edit #2: Lmao good lord, really Crest?

What is this achieving.. you guys ain't getting unbanned, Zeke isn't getting banned.. y'all are wasting precious time when you could be doing something productive. (If you don't know the word, look it up.)

> Being so out of the loop on what the fuck is actually going on that they think I'm banned.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 11, 2015, 06:20:24 PM
Wow, Wendill still isn't back.  I think they're afk.  I bet they're going to be confused.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: silkeperson on August 11, 2015, 06:21:14 PM
Oh I get this strategy.
Get a ban evader to come in and help plead your appeals case.
Great idea.
Especially one who rips into people for posting off topic and then immediately drops posts of masturbatory self-praise for their ban-evading, and insults.
Genius.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: TheHarbinger on August 11, 2015, 06:21:42 PM
Yes, I'm placing the blame on the idiot 'minor' (proof or gtfo that he/she is actually a minor, plox) who is deliberately cybering online.

Well, my faith in humanity is now gone.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Ringo on August 11, 2015, 06:22:04 PM
This whole appeal has become a farce. I love it. I haven't laughed this much in a while, I was laughing so hard I had to make an account just to come join in on the party. Bravo Crest and Cherry.

Congrats on twat-waffling your way out of an appeal at all, and turning it into a petty attempt at revenge by tattletaling like a brat.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Jinxxy on August 11, 2015, 06:22:28 PM
05:52:11 [Ezekiel`] They're real, but they're out of context. What my detractors aren't saying is at the time, I didn't know the player was a minor. When I found out, I put a stop to that shit.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: TheHarbinger on August 11, 2015, 06:22:58 PM
Oh I get this strategy.
Get a ban evader to come in and help plead your appeals case.
Great idea.
Especially one who rips into people for posting off topic and then immediately drops posts of masturbatory self-praise for their ban-evading, and insults.
Genius.

You are sooooooooo far south, dude...lady...whoever you are.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 11, 2015, 06:23:06 PM
Oh I get this strategy.
Get a ban evader to come in and help plead your appeals case.
Great idea.
Especially one who rips into people for posting off topic and then immediately drops posts of masturbatory self-praise for their ban-evading, and insults.
Genius.

Who here is a ban evader?  Nobody. Except maybe Cherry, which is the unanswered argument to begin with.

But ya'll are so lost to this shit that you're witch hunting the wrong people at this point.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 11, 2015, 06:23:29 PM
@Jinxx

"DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE BUT I WON'T DO IT ANYMORE I PROMISE"

Okay.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 11, 2015, 06:23:40 PM
05:52:11 [Ezekiel`] They're real, but they're out of context. What my detractors aren't saying is at the time, I didn't know the player was a minor. When I found out, I put a stop to that shit.

Sure.  Pure claim.  Put it in context with the rest of the conversation and it's more relevant.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Jinxxy on August 11, 2015, 06:25:07 PM
As opposed to what? Your claim that he knew?
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 11, 2015, 06:26:29 PM
@Jinxx

Just...

(http://i.imgur.com/ceJoT4P.gif)
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Familiar on August 11, 2015, 06:26:42 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/kzKICpj.gif)
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: silkeperson on August 11, 2015, 06:27:22 PM
We're witch hunting?

That'd be worth a few chuckles if it wasn't such a sad example of failure to comprehend.

This was an appeal, and Cherry turned it into a big rally against Ezekiel`.

You don't care about doing justice to this 'victim' you care about getting someone in trouble.

It's so painfully clear it's...well, painful.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Naudia on August 11, 2015, 06:29:23 PM
We're witch hunting?

That'd be worth a few chuckles if it wasn't such a sad example of failure to comprehend.

This was an appeal, and Cherry turned it into a big rally against Ezekiel`.

You don't care about doing justice to this 'victim' you care about getting someone in trouble.

It's so painfully clear it's...well, painful.

This. ^

Also.. wait.. Crest.. are you literally sat here boasting about hiding in the LL? ... LOL
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: midnight_sparrow on August 11, 2015, 06:29:41 PM
Also, please do not have your lackeys come and pull logs from a room without context...

18:00:33 [Bekz] You know what amuses me?

18:00:43 [Bekz] That ANYONE thinks you are in-like-flint with the mods.

18:00:49 [Bekz] Don't the GMs like... hate you?

18:00:55 [Ezekiel`] YES

18:01:04 [Bekz] LOL

18:01:08 [Ezekiel`] Well, not hate

18:01:14 [Bekz] They honestly think you're tattling to them?

18:01:18 [Ezekiel`] But one of them openly admitted they didn't care for me

18:01:29 [Bekz] I'm like 99.99999% sure you're always the first to call bullshit with favoritism.

18:01:36 [Ezekiel`] Probably because I have gotten like...the vore/spam idiot banned, and one or two other creepers

18:01:37 [Bekz] Familiar DOES hate you.

18:01:51 [Ezekiel`] Nah, me and Fam are cool now.
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: CherryBerry on August 11, 2015, 06:30:14 PM
Familiar's back with another appropriate reaction gif. Thank god I thought something bad had happened. Oh well.

So, Fammy. Do you have no proof or do you have no proof?
Title: Re: Uh. What.
Post by: Crest on August 11, 2015, 06:31:14 PM
We're witch hunting?

That'd be worth a few chuckles if it wasn't such a sad example of failure to comprehend.

This was an appeal, and Cherry turned it into a big rally against Ezekiel`.

You don't care about doing justice to this 'victim' you care about getting someone in trouble.

It's so painfully clear it's...well, painful.


Except that you're wrong, and in the end, you're literally down to trying to shift blame onto the accusers rather than proving innocence to the accused, because you cant and you know he's deplorable.

Meanwhile, you're kicking poor random AFK people thinking they're me on some crazy witchhunt.

Please continue chasing monsters in the dark and kicking random people.

(http://i.imgur.com/nroVtHs.jpg)

Wait, I know it.  We're all me.  Everyone's me again.


PS:  That "context" changes nothing.