[Sir Kirby]

Hello, and to whom it may concern,

Butane has banned me temporarily for the reason of "Inciting admin" for roughly one week. While there were 4-5 players on both teams on this particular prop-hunt game Butane had issued forth a warning to an individual who was not killing a prop (allow me to paraphrase that very roughly, "Are you going to just sit there, or actually hunt props... No further warnings will be given").

At this particular point in time, Butane did not confirm that the pyro was actually aware of the prop's presence, and even had the pyro been fully aware, this was still well above the "number of props remaining" to allow a "buddying-up" of sorts betwixt the pyro and the prop. Noting this lack of procedure, I just merely pointed out to Butane that "...[he] would probably ban a lone individual on the server, for the very reason that they would neither be killing, nor being killed" (via voice chat, sorry there is no concrete evidence of this exchange, but the transcription is fairly accurate, those on the server with voice chat turned on can attest). At which point, I was banned from the server for "Inciting admin". I fail to see how merely pointing out a fact can be described as inciting anything, other than a clamor of pondering/intelligent debate, which is what I had hoped to inspire. Unfortunately, the creative atmosphere was brought to quite a halt, as the key speaker took my statement to be a personal attack and proceeded to expunge me as though I were some person of no merit or worth.

I do quite hope that this matter shall be looked into, on behalf of all out there who wish for safe havens of constructive thought.

Most kind regards,
Kirby

- - - Updated - - -

EDIT: My bad, I meant to say "Instigating admin"
I apologize

[Butane]

Scammers are not welcome on this site. As for your server ban, I will not do anything for you as you were indeed instigating as you pointed out yourself above.

Edit: And yes, its very easy to tell from remote admin where exactly everyone is, that on top of pyros/props saying "hi" to eachother in chat. Not hard to put 2 and 2 together. A warning is a warning, no action was taken against any user. Your comment was specifically to target me.

[WombRaider]

"hi i was a dick and was pressing buttons to get a reaction, i got a reaction which was different than the one i was expecting, and now im upset."


fuck this thread is gay

[Yossef]

There goes another butthurt...

[WombRaider]

if you're here because i seem to be banned and a "scammer" and "kick puppies", please take a moment to read below

yes, i'm labeled as a sr scammer, but there is no evidence of this (because i'm really not. Shh, don't tell anyone), and it's merely because of a private matter between sr and tfop mega-admin bluedemon and i. Regardless, with the vice grip that sr has over everything tf2 related, i do have quite a difficult time getting into various servers that trust their judgment. And while i appreciate the security efforts to keep scammers at bay, they'll just make alt accounts, and i'll be infinitely stuck here with this one. Please talk to your local admin representatives and see if they can look into going through the list of appeals on sr forums. Mine has been in the process for over a year, and is still pending review (yet still many have waited longer).

sourceop appeal:[forums.sourceop.com] butane, (at least an account of his), complete with constructive posts from "good samaritans" who themselves broke forum rules by using foul language... Lol, thanks.

steamrep/tf outpost appeal:[forums.steamrep.com] an extensive review of exactly what went down for my sr scammer tag. Caught on a technicality, not a bannable offense. (i apologize for the format being rather substandard. I would have much rather written it up on microsoft office or something of the like. And my very last comment was directed at a comment which bluedemon had deleted. (posterity's sake means little to admins, apparently.))





do i understand that what i'm doing is technically egging on admins?

yes, and i would say "but i have a good reason!" but at this point,there are a multitude of possible responses before i can even explain my reason:



the admin: will mute, ban, and put up a list of rules saying that making alternate accounts is a bannable offense. Effectively squashing the problem they don't wish to deal with in an appropriate manner.



[B]friends of the admin: they trust said admin, and refuse that they would ever misappropriate their power. They will refuse to review the case.
~50% will tell you straight up that you're a total and send you packing, just as bad as [B]the admin
~30% will just plain ignore you
~20% will throw their hands up in defeat after reportedly reading the case. Wishing you the best of luck, and hoping that your appeal gets seen by the people who can actually do something about it(see also, the 50%)



[B][I]people who hope to be in good light of the admin: they will generally follow the 50% of admin's friends in their quest to generally make getting out of the rabbit hole extremely difficult. The words they say will discredit the appellate and reinforce the notion that the admin is correct.
here is an example of things they often say.[oi62.tinypic.com] they are the equivalent of people who go onto a help forum, and as answers to issues people are having they simply reply: "mine works just fine", and proceed to offer no further input. please, i beg you, never fall into that role.



[B][I]the admin (again): tell me really quick, what kind of society has the judge be the jury, and the executioner? Evidently the society of the few admins i have had issues with.

Nearly every place with admins has a way to go about things in a proper channel. You're supposed to work within the rules to show just how much you appreciate the fact that they exist, and how much you really do wish to abide by their constraints. So you go through some process on the forums in order to make your appeal, and state your case, and wish for an impartial group of admins who can view the whole thing from an objective viewpoint (note, i'll get back to this later). Can you imagine my surprise when the jury whom reviewed my case was none other than the judge who had originally banned me?

It's happened multiple times. (i say so, because butane has done it; and before bluedemon and i came to an agreement, he literally instantly denied my appeal three times in a row, then told me i was spamming the forum. )

[B]as for that whole "objective" viewpoint: people like to declare objectivity as they get sworn into a place of power. But even if one tries to remain impartial, all admins have a common ground to relate to each other upon. Friendships are nearly certain to come from the mere aspect that they all can turn to one another and forget the duties of being admin, because they are amongst common interests (for the most part). The jury, therefore, can very well fall into that [50/30/20]% rule that i mentioned earlier.



[B]the trial: if you're unlike me (as well as many other unsung people) and are actually able to receive a trial, the verdict is very likely to be not as you expected it. It is at this point where the individual appellate really must stop and evaluate precisely what they have done. None of the options are particularly great for the outcome of the individual.

You see, the common public sees "this person had a trial of multiple judges" and can infer that the entire process must have been a fair one. And that, generally, is an okay rule of thumb to live by. However, the appellate will have only a few options left to them should their appeal fail.

good guy-bad guy: they can be guilty of a reasonably bannable offense, and proceed to accept the fact that they really did something that wasn't good. No more issues will spring forth from them, and they will leave the community (considering their banned from everything at that point, if the power totem went up far enough).

neutral guy-bad guy: they can be guilty of a reasonably bannable offense, and proceed to acknowledge as much. They aren't particularly bothered with it, but won't quite seem to let go of the particular instance. Shadows of doubt will proceed to make them suspect the trial was rigged by some method or another, yet they won't cause such a large hullabaloo about it.

bad guy-bad guy: they can be guilty of a reasonably bannable offense, and proceed to never accept that, for whatever reason. They could legitimately view their actions as within reason, and never let go of the verdict of the case. Depending on the degree of extremism which this individual has, the lengths to which they will go to seek their malintent justice is quite frightening. People can objectively say: "yeah dude, you're a bad guy, and what you're doing now is you being blind to how bad you are." (aside from the self-contained issue here, i will touch on why this particular bad guy is quite bad.)

(ng/gg-gg cut 4 space)

bad guy-good guy: this person can be guilty of minor transgressions against the median of acceptable behavior, but primarily in jest. This individual will be particularly irate about the trial in general. An ardent believer that they have done nothing that wasn't explicitly okay, they will have a particular issue about the whole matter entirely, especially if the ruling has a role in their day-to-day activities. This is where bgbg really steps into play as a terrible role. By the time legal channels allow this individual to seek those who will aid him against what he views as a dictatorship of sorts, everyone has grown tiresome of [I]bgbg tirade against the very same entity, while he was blatantly wrong. All individuals proceed to file [I]bggg into the same lot of disregarded [I]bgbg.[/I][/I][/I][/B][/B][/I][/B][/I][/B][/B][/B]

lol


this isn't some dungeons and dragons alignment type justice system, nerd.

this is tf2 forums



BUTANE AM I IN YOUR GOOD GRACES YET? I TRY EXTRA HARD TO PLEASE YOU AND BE YOUR FRIEND

[Yossef]

A quick chat with a man who offered the advice that I need an English professor to proof read my rough-edit ideas
Keep in mind, as he even states later, this is a conversation with a person who is "...a forum and server admin..." *This* is the voice which represents the higher up. The unswayable, and unbiased upper echelons of our society/


|͜ʖ ͡° ) Hello there WombRaider, glad you can read. Your response to my elaborate ideas on the whole matter (http://oi58.tinypic.com/2wdbj2b.jpg) was quite invigorating to read, and I appreciate your input.




Womb Raider: what
Me: Hey man
Me: I like your style
Womb Raider: what do you want
Me: To be your friend, of course
Womb Raider is now Offline. Womb Raider is currently offline, they will receive your message the next time they log in.
Me: I would respond to you on the forums, and let my love for you blossom there, but as you have seen, I'm sure, I'm quite banned
Me: ...I'll never let go jack ;-;
Womb Raider got back on sometime after I said that
Womb Raider: you never got to the point
Me: I ran out of room, unfortunately
Me: When I hit steam level 20, I'll put on part 2
Womb Raider: wordiness, needs revision
Womb Raider: also your punctuation is atrocious
Me: Pardon me, I am well aware of my inabilities as an english professor
Me: do you have an editor I may use?
Womb Raider: you're also incredibly unfunny
Me: I didn't promise laughs
Me: where did I claim that I was funny?
Womb Raider: you promise an incredible amount of tryhard
Womb Raider: all this over a temporary ban on fucking prophunt
Me: I know that the best way to get people to understand your side is through humor, it's why comedians are such a vital position to put forth controversial ideas
Me: But I frankly get tired of rotundness
Womb Raider: comedians have never been seen as bastions of change and stability
Me: They very well have been
Me: just not modern comedians
Me: I don't think Dane Cook will get any Nobel prizes, unfortunately
Womb Raider: i hope you recognize that the way you type is one of the strongest indicators for diagnosing someone as a sociopath
Me: Which way is that?
Me: i culd confrm to society and du stuf lik this if it hlps
Womb Raider: ugh you're about a second away from being blocked
Me: But frankly, I get a headache from doing that
Womb Raider: spit out what you want
Womb Raider: you have less than 30 seconds
Me: I want you to really stop posting unconstructive comments on the forum
Me: You dare claim that I have no direction, whereas you're just heckling, and not making any points yourself
Me: It's most unbecoming
Womb Raider: im a forum and server admin responding as a dissociated party to a band from another admin
Womb Raider: soemthign you fuckign beg for in your thesis
Womb Raider: you got an answer you didnt like, wrote a novel about it
Womb Raider: and now expect somethign else
Womb Raider: its a temporary ban, get the fuck over it
Womb Raider: later.
Me: How dare I expect admins to not stoop down to a level lower than I
Me: It makes me sad for the world, to be honest
Me: and you never answered my question
Womb Raider: then kill yourself
Womb Raider: faggot
Me: <3


Womb Raider, I'd just like to point out that you did exactly what I figured you would, and left before I could make any rebuttal. Normally, I'm not one to argue on principle; It's a very shallow topic that people use when they really have nothing other to base their arguments upon. However, in this particular instance, I will do exactly that. While that may mean I don't have any solid ground to base this particular comment on, it's a valid comment nonetheless. "It's a temporary ban, get the fuck over it" is your stance on this topic. While I very well can do that, you must understand the implications of what you are saying. I can very well tell someone who just had their lunch money stolen "It's just $2.50, get over it." Does that make it better? Are they suddenly imbued with the ability to not care, just because the money is worthless anyway? As the divine comedy which life is, we will have trivial things happen. The grand scale of things tells us that unless you literally save everyone, or kill just as many, your pathetic life is insignificant, and everything that you do, or that happens to you is just as worthless. The stance I am taking on my temporary ban is not about my being banned. It's about eliminating the cause of why I was banned, which is to say very unbased causes with a very flimsy backing. It's to prevent the same exact thing from happening to others.


Because the way I type is apparently along the lines of a sociopath, because I ponder implications of actions which far surpass the norm, allow me to sum it up like this. I don't give a care about myself, or what happens to me. I care about this mystical power which is derived from the common populace, and I never wish to see it placed into the hands of incompetent beings such as yourself.

This guy won't give up.