[Peter]

Ingame Name: Peter

SteamID: STEAM_0:1:35152398

Who Banned You: Cryptic Salsa

Reason For Ban: Pedophilic Jokes

Length of Ban: 3 days

Reason for Admins to Unban: Pancakes was talking about his job in the film industry and I poked fun at him for being in Hollywood and said he knew Epstein. My comment about someone in Hollywood knowing Epstein wasn’t meant to be offensive or inappropriate—it was just a casual pop culture reference. Tons of people knew Epstein, and no one assumes everyone associated with him was involved in wrongdoing. President Bill Clinton knew Epstein -- if I were to point this out in the chat, would that be a ban-able offense as well? My comment wasn’t an accusation or a joke about pedophilia. I understand the moderator’s caution, but I feel the moderator was being overzealous given the context. I’ll be more mindful of my words in the future to avoid misunderstandings. Thanks.

Have you been banned before (Link relevant threads): Never

Other: 

[KaptainLes]

Let me ask you a serious question, when I say Epstein, what do 99% of people think of, A fun Hollywood casual pop culture reference, or the other stuff?

[3mb3ry]

-1 its only a 3 day ban and kap brings up a good point, best to serve your time

[Peter]

I believe the spirit of the rule is clear, and I support its enforcement when applied appropriately. For example, about an hour before my ban, someone else was banned for making genuinely deranged and inappropriate comments about liking younger people. That was the correct application of the rule.

In my case, however, I made a lighthearted comment referencing an American financier known to have connections in Hollywood. I didn’t say anything about what or who Pancakes likes, nor did I make any inappropriate or suggestive remarks. It feels like a significant reach to ban me for joking about someone knowing someone else. Many well-known people had ties to Epstein, and mentioning his name isn’t inherently a violation.

If this enforcement is deemed correct, I think the rules should be updated to provide clearer guidelines. I was aware of the rules when I made the comment and genuinely didn’t think it violated them.

[Damien1579]

When you hear the name Jeffrey Epstein you don't associate him with his legal business ventures, you associate him with pedophilia and sex trafficking. It's common knowledge on the server that conversations about pedophilia, including references to people who are well known pedophiles are things that are not allowed by staff to be talked about. Even if you meant what you say you did (which I doubt considering your edgy nature on the server in the small time I knew you before you were banned), it is still a rule you broke and you should serve out the punishment.


-1 serve your time

[Im A Bald Eagle]

I believe the spirit of the rule is clear, and I support its enforcement when applied appropriately. For example, about an hour before my ban, someone else was banned for making genuinely deranged and inappropriate comments about liking younger people. That was the correct application of the rule.

In my case, however, I made a lighthearted comment referencing an American financier known to have connections in Hollywood. I didn’t say anything about what or who Pancakes likes, nor did I make any inappropriate or suggestive remarks. It feels like a significant reach to ban me for joking about someone knowing someone else. Many well-known people had ties to Epstein, and mentioning his name isn’t inherently a violation.

If this enforcement is deemed correct, I think the rules should be updated to provide clearer guidelines. I was aware of the rules when I made the comment and genuinely didn’t think it violated them.

I think adding additional clarification to the rules (even something as simple as stating that there is ZERO tolerance here) is a reasonable request. That being said, the precedent of enforcement here would generally lead to a warn, context independent. 

You should've known better either way considering it's only been ~a week since the last time you were verbally warned for the same thing. Just ride out the ban and avoid making the same mistake moving forward.

[Cimag]

I was gonna +1 the unban given that you are explaining yourself in a genuine matter and both sides of the argument are making sense, however you were verbally warned before for the same thing so you already knew that this topic isn't taken lightly, just serve the time and think of other jokes or 1 liners that don't land you a ban

-1

[TDawg4]

Admin team has decided to deny this unban request. 3 day ban and you did have a verbal warn.