[Rox5tar01]

Snippity

Snip snip

Wow... so you never quoted my message directly, but this entire post is just... something. For someone who's talking about straw-man arguments (that's not what that was, by the way), your idea of countering a straw-man argument is to instead present a straw-man argument yourself?

(Since you seem a bit confused, lets talk about it. A Straw-man argument is argument/debate fallacy where you misinterpret, misrepresent or otherwise modify an argument and then  argue against that modified point. You claim my straw-man was "that the actions were malicious because 6 players were killed", however you left out the key word in that entire point: INTENTIONAL. You took my argument, misrepresented it by leaving out the key point there and then argued against it. Thus, you have now presented a straw-man argument. Don't worry, this isn't the only time you do this. Maybe it isn't the best idea to accuse someone of debate fallacies when that person has participated and won multiple debate competitions, just saying.)

Multiple times, you misconstrued what I say to present multiple narratives that I neither said nor support. I understand if you may not fully agree with what I am saying, but claiming I am saying something when I'm not is simply not okay. I was really tempted to not reply at all, but I think I'm just going to correct you and leave it at that. Let's begin.

1. Regarding the reports, there is discussion behind the scenes as to whether or not Jack's report was a valid slay, and a conclusion on this will likely accompany the appeal result. The Boombox report however, was kept on Frost. While there was intention to forgive it after Boombox had learned that it was going to result in a perma, it was not communicated in a timely manner to staff that they wanted to retroactively forgive it. There is some wiggle-room regarding retroactive forgiveness, but it was not communicated properly until after the ban was delivered and there usually is a bit of a short amount of time a person has to forgive someone before punishment is given. On a side note, there is at least one additional player who has stated that they wanted to report but was not able to.

2. I do believe that Jack should have received a slay for delay, but at the same point Warns for Delay are only usually reserved for people who are intentionally stalling, vs those who are playing poorly and/or slowly. I wasn't there and thus I can't 100% say for certain what I would have done, but from the sounds of it a slay would have been more than sufficient in my own opinion.

3. I don't believe the motive (delay) regarding the mass matters, and thus shouldn't be included in the conversation, because I don't believe the motive in any way excuses or justifies the action in any sense. I essentially hold the motivation of the mass to the same effect as "because I felt like it". You may disagree, but this is my belief.

4. I don't believe the example you gave is really a fair comparison. Let's present it like this, with direct comparisons:
I believe a student in the 10th grade (regular) who cheats on a assignment (commits a rule violation, in this case a mass) should receive less forgiveness than a student in kindergarten (guest), because unlike the kindergartner the 10th grader should understand the exceptions given to them due to having spent more time in school (on the server). I also don't think a person should be expelled (perma banned) for cheating (Mass RDM) once, so that's not a super fair comparison either.

5. Malicious is defined by Merriam Webster as "having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone". These were not accidental or unintentional RDMs, but rather these RDMs were 100% intentional. Frost did have desire to cause harm in this case, which can be seen by Frost willingly causing harm (and subsequent death) to 6 other players. In this case, intentional and malicious go hand in hand. Even if Frost had external motives (I've established that I don't believe the motive of delay justifies the action), the RDMs were still intentional.

6. I didn't say that a "Punishment must be harsh to be a deterrent" (what's the point of you having quotes if you aren't gonna bother actually quoting me?), but rather that in this one specific case mass RDM has a higher punishment to act as a deterrent. Also, a mass isn't a case of one inch outside the line, this is more of parking and taking up multiple spaces worth.

7. I guess I need to re-explain this because it was apparently just too complex of an explanation. I DON'T believe Frost is in the wrong for not speaking up against the delay. I DON'T believe Frost "failed" by not doing so. Frost is NOT obligated to speak up about issues that they see. I DO believe that people in general should speak up about issues they see or have, however players are NOT required to do this. I DON'T believe Frost is in the wrong for anything regarding talking or not talking to staff. Is that easier to understand?

8. Yes, I believe the ban should stay, just not be a perma ban. We do reductions all the time on bans, warns, etc. What point are you making here? It doesn't have to be either perma or nothing, it's not black and white.

I hope this helps clear up some of the incorrect viewpoints you seem to think I have.

TLDR: You would make a great politician.