1) Include your ban Profile link: looona#6969
2) Explain what happened/why we should unban you:
I will be lumping these two categories in to a single one for brevity's sake as this will be a very long appeal.
Let's begin.
The Incident, and Relevant Information:
This morning, there was an alleged incident between me and another fairly well known user, wipeout. In my OPINION (!!) not only was I was not responsible for this incident, but wipeout was the direct instigator of this argument. In this appeal, I will make it clear that not only do my actions NOT justify a permanent isolation, but that the isolation itself is unjust, and potentially applied due to a very unfortunate occurrence of staff bias.
Let's begin with Exhibit A.
In this screenshot, you can very clearly see what appears to be the beginning of the incident in question. It is clear from the very beginning that wipeout only had intentions to argue, and responded to me in kind. I attempted to show how obviously silly this was by attaching a humorous gif, to no avail. wipeout then directly threatened me with administrative action (ironically, he was correct in the amount of time that this isolation should have been) and I made a comment about him no longer being staff.
Moving on to Exhibit B:
This very clearly shows that this incident was entirely wipeout's doing. I was outright clear on where I stood, posting humorous gifs and refusing to engage with wipeout further. You can also see here where he states his intentions for administrative action (again, with the correct amount of time, which is ironic). In this screenshot we can also see that there are very clearly staff members in the chat, one of whom (sorry tronger) outright insulted wipeout with no repercussions. What is most damning about this screenshot, however, is wipeout pinging smelvin to ask if he can't tell someone to kill themselves. This statement was very clearly intended to me, and none of the staff present nor the staff member pinged in his statement responded to his very clear attempt to tell me to kill myself. Given that this is a former member of staff, one would expect a bit higher of a standard for this individual.
We may now take a look at Exhibit C:
Here we see my attempts to remove myself from the conversation by reigning in my responses and attempting to engage in a different conversation than the one wipeout was attempting to have. You can clearly see his attempts to instigate as well as my responses to members of staff, which were comparatively tame, especially when compared to wipeout's behavior.
Exhibit D:
This is where wipeout crosses a line once more, instigating beyond anything I had said at this point. A staff member viewed this occurring, and chose to do nothing. Given this, I attempted to respond with not only an agreement but an agreement in the form of a humorous gif, in the hopes that this would indicate to wipeout that I am not interested in arguing. I also included a humorous statement about me being a "Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde" character, a clear attempt to de-fuse and bring humor to a now escalating situation. In this screenshot you can also see staff members choosing not to take action.
Exhibit E:
Here's where things get REALLY interesting. At this point, I have already attempted to disengage from the conversation. You can tell that I've done so, because shortly after wipeout (UNPROMPTED) attempts to take another very personal swing at me. No reply to a message, no reason to be doing so, nevertheless he chooses to take another very wild swing at me while I was already out of the conversation. FINALLY, a staff member speaks up and tells WIPEOUT (not me) to stop. wipeout then chose not to do so, doubling down on his engagement by accusing me of god only knows what.
Exhibit F:
Here, I will admit, I slipped up a bit. I did choose to engage with wipeout at this point due to his incessant attempts to bait me in to an argument. This is my responsibility and is on me entirely, I should not have chosen to engage with him by this point as I had already attempted to dis-engage in the conversation. I apologize for my actions in this particular screenshot.
That being said, my messages do ring true; I was attempting to enjoy my morning when wipeout decided to instigate further without cause. This, however, was the last few messages of the incident, and leads me directly in to exhibit G, which occurred immediately after this screenshot.
Exhibit G:
This is VERY CLEARLY evidence of me attempting to engage in a separate conversation and move on from this incident. Floot sent a message to gen chat that I engaged with in the hopes that we could move on with the chat and go about our day. This was the end of the incident, however, for certain members of staff, this was not.
Conclusion:
Given the situation, I must argue that this ban was implemented due to an inherent bias in staff leadership. The staff member in question at the moment is unfortunately ParaFlaX. Para has previously expressed and verbalized their distaste towards me, namely in private and amongst other staff members/trusted regulars - no hate, I don't take it personally and I absolutely respect ParaFlax's position as a moderator. However, it was clear that the choice to make this a permanent isolation was an intentional and biased one, and very much goes against the established norms for punishments. The discord punishment guidelines (https://wonderland.tf/threads/discord-punishment-guidelines-updated-feb-2-2022.15269/) very clearly state that repeated one day isos is justification for a permanent iso, which is NOT the case in this incident. I have never been warned in the discord for anything beyond speaking in a report, and the report in question was something I was personally involved in (shout out to those who had to deal with the Primus incident). I do everything I can to behave myself in the discord, and my punishment history both in-game and in the discord should very clearly reflect that.
I am also aware that Para has specifically requested that Muffin view this appeal - due to this particular request, I would like to request a second opinion from that an independent member of staff that was not outright requested to handle this.
I would like to make it clear that I am NOT requesting that this isolation be removed completely - however, given that this is an unjustifiable permanent ISO, and the evidence I have provided, I am instead requesting an isolation for a more reasonable time frame (a day/a week) as outlined by the punishment guidelines.
I think it is probably wise of me to mention that I was only able to take these screenshots on an alternate account, the username of which was un’altra persona#3427. In this particular case, I joined, screenshotted, and left the server immediately. This account is now banned, as it should be (thank you tronger!).
To whomever handles this report, thank you for reading all of this and for your unbiased judgement of the facts at hand - I am truly grateful for your time and consideration. Please let me know if I can provide any additional details to this appeal request.
2) Explain what happened/why we should unban you:
I will be lumping these two categories in to a single one for brevity's sake as this will be a very long appeal.
Let's begin.
The Incident, and Relevant Information:
This morning, there was an alleged incident between me and another fairly well known user, wipeout. In my OPINION (!!) not only was I was not responsible for this incident, but wipeout was the direct instigator of this argument. In this appeal, I will make it clear that not only do my actions NOT justify a permanent isolation, but that the isolation itself is unjust, and potentially applied due to a very unfortunate occurrence of staff bias.
Let's begin with Exhibit A.
In this screenshot, you can very clearly see what appears to be the beginning of the incident in question. It is clear from the very beginning that wipeout only had intentions to argue, and responded to me in kind. I attempted to show how obviously silly this was by attaching a humorous gif, to no avail. wipeout then directly threatened me with administrative action (ironically, he was correct in the amount of time that this isolation should have been) and I made a comment about him no longer being staff.
Moving on to Exhibit B:
This very clearly shows that this incident was entirely wipeout's doing. I was outright clear on where I stood, posting humorous gifs and refusing to engage with wipeout further. You can also see here where he states his intentions for administrative action (again, with the correct amount of time, which is ironic). In this screenshot we can also see that there are very clearly staff members in the chat, one of whom (sorry tronger) outright insulted wipeout with no repercussions. What is most damning about this screenshot, however, is wipeout pinging smelvin to ask if he can't tell someone to kill themselves. This statement was very clearly intended to me, and none of the staff present nor the staff member pinged in his statement responded to his very clear attempt to tell me to kill myself. Given that this is a former member of staff, one would expect a bit higher of a standard for this individual.
We may now take a look at Exhibit C:
Here we see my attempts to remove myself from the conversation by reigning in my responses and attempting to engage in a different conversation than the one wipeout was attempting to have. You can clearly see his attempts to instigate as well as my responses to members of staff, which were comparatively tame, especially when compared to wipeout's behavior.
Exhibit D:
This is where wipeout crosses a line once more, instigating beyond anything I had said at this point. A staff member viewed this occurring, and chose to do nothing. Given this, I attempted to respond with not only an agreement but an agreement in the form of a humorous gif, in the hopes that this would indicate to wipeout that I am not interested in arguing. I also included a humorous statement about me being a "Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde" character, a clear attempt to de-fuse and bring humor to a now escalating situation. In this screenshot you can also see staff members choosing not to take action.
Exhibit E:
Here's where things get REALLY interesting. At this point, I have already attempted to disengage from the conversation. You can tell that I've done so, because shortly after wipeout (UNPROMPTED) attempts to take another very personal swing at me. No reply to a message, no reason to be doing so, nevertheless he chooses to take another very wild swing at me while I was already out of the conversation. FINALLY, a staff member speaks up and tells WIPEOUT (not me) to stop. wipeout then chose not to do so, doubling down on his engagement by accusing me of god only knows what.
Exhibit F:
Here, I will admit, I slipped up a bit. I did choose to engage with wipeout at this point due to his incessant attempts to bait me in to an argument. This is my responsibility and is on me entirely, I should not have chosen to engage with him by this point as I had already attempted to dis-engage in the conversation. I apologize for my actions in this particular screenshot.
That being said, my messages do ring true; I was attempting to enjoy my morning when wipeout decided to instigate further without cause. This, however, was the last few messages of the incident, and leads me directly in to exhibit G, which occurred immediately after this screenshot.
Exhibit G:
This is VERY CLEARLY evidence of me attempting to engage in a separate conversation and move on from this incident. Floot sent a message to gen chat that I engaged with in the hopes that we could move on with the chat and go about our day. This was the end of the incident, however, for certain members of staff, this was not.
Conclusion:
Given the situation, I must argue that this ban was implemented due to an inherent bias in staff leadership. The staff member in question at the moment is unfortunately ParaFlaX. Para has previously expressed and verbalized their distaste towards me, namely in private and amongst other staff members/trusted regulars - no hate, I don't take it personally and I absolutely respect ParaFlax's position as a moderator. However, it was clear that the choice to make this a permanent isolation was an intentional and biased one, and very much goes against the established norms for punishments. The discord punishment guidelines (https://wonderland.tf/threads/discord-punishment-guidelines-updated-feb-2-2022.15269/) very clearly state that repeated one day isos is justification for a permanent iso, which is NOT the case in this incident. I have never been warned in the discord for anything beyond speaking in a report, and the report in question was something I was personally involved in (shout out to those who had to deal with the Primus incident). I do everything I can to behave myself in the discord, and my punishment history both in-game and in the discord should very clearly reflect that.
I am also aware that Para has specifically requested that Muffin view this appeal - due to this particular request, I would like to request a second opinion from that an independent member of staff that was not outright requested to handle this.
I would like to make it clear that I am NOT requesting that this isolation be removed completely - however, given that this is an unjustifiable permanent ISO, and the evidence I have provided, I am instead requesting an isolation for a more reasonable time frame (a day/a week) as outlined by the punishment guidelines.
I think it is probably wise of me to mention that I was only able to take these screenshots on an alternate account, the username of which was un’altra persona#3427. In this particular case, I joined, screenshotted, and left the server immediately. This account is now banned, as it should be (thank you tronger!).
To whomever handles this report, thank you for reading all of this and for your unbiased judgement of the facts at hand - I am truly grateful for your time and consideration. Please let me know if I can provide any additional details to this appeal request.
Last edited:
