[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