mandatory proof of proof

I've been through my logs you can check for yourself I never did it.

Yeye siding with stupid staff like all the rest you guys can keep shutting me down but truth is they have no proof and I shouldn't be banned.

 

i can assure you there is proof, no smod would ban for something that serious without an actual dox that happened.

 

Maybe it can be designed so that if proof is given you can just draw over the name to cover the person who reported you. Idk if im getting the full picture, but tbh the old staff system was more fair and reliable than the current ones.
AND NO, I am not saying the staff are bad, I am just pointing out that I personally thought the previous banning system was better.
And anyways one cannot be banned for DoX unless the given material was given out publicly for malicious intent. From hearing this story, tanner got the ip's from Triple and idk what tanner did with that. And here is a better and more clear definition of "dox" on google.
https://gyazo.com/cb0bc19a140c7c7b05ffa06bdd6af9ee
The definition may seem different on what the case really is.
And according to Triple's argument, he has received no proof over it, and the staff (my general understanding, does not need to provide proof, tell me if im getting wrong here).
My general opinion. Yes, triple ****ed up by doing something, but that's not what's important. What is important is the clarification and details about the ban. This involves providing clear and enough evidence such as screenshots and videos to the banned user, since I assume he is appealing. As I said before, the staff can just block out the name of the person who reported the user to prevent further harassment and chances of being retaliated by other people.

 

Okay, how would I see who the moderator is if he is in /poof? It’s simply not physically possible. If I want to know who it is, asking a staff to leak whoever did the ban and it’s done. Simple as that. You guys are taking this way too far, and things making no sense.

 

This is what happened with my ban. The reason was 'compromised account' when I let @Arabis use my account, AND AT THAT TIME HE WAS NOT BANNED. Appealed, it at first got denied and I went to the extent of recording a video of me using that current password and creating a new one, all on video. After 10 days this was decided to be 'sufficient proof' for a unban.

However, I WAS NEVER GIVEN ANY PROOF WHY I WAS BANNED FOR COMPROMISED ACCOUNT. The only thing what was said to me is that it was my staff account, YET I WASNT EVEN STAFF AT THE TIME. My assumption and a few others is that brawl didn't want someone using a lifetime account what they didn't actually buy themselves, even though I was the one who gave him access. No proof there side, 100% proof mine

I know for a fact if someone was not sure about there ban I would always help them regardless but as the thread goes that is not really a thing nowadays

 

I shouldent be banned :/

 

Speaking from personal experience, "surrendering" evidence to an appealing player has both pros and cons.
The cons have been talked about enough (danger to the evidence collector).
If there was none of this evidence discussion, @Removers would probably still be banned or at least not be staff again yet (grats btw).
In total it has a lot of issues with it. If the issue is questionable or the evidence has a shred of doubt to it, then it should be discussed.

 

^^^
I was never shown proof I appealed over 20-30 bans. You don't need proof to explain why you have been banned when your ban reason should explain pretty much everything you would have done. For example, an aim assist ban, locking onto other players, head-snapping and autotarget, patterns within the movement of aim. This continues for other reasons too I personally don't want people seeing proof from what I've got anymore because players that have been banned almost 100% of the time have harassed me and has happened to others as well.

 

I proved your inoccence stfu