All Activity

I aint reading allat

Holy ChatGPT ass copy and paste

Your Name: Donamyslu Your SteamID32: STEAM_0:0:593228317 Staff Members Being Reported: Maverick Kentuckyfriedhorse Staff SteamID32: Maverick: STEAM_0:1:65644683 Kentuckyfriedhorse: STEAM_0:1:93621811 1. Introduction I am submitting this Staff Report to request an investigation into the conduct of Maverick and Kentuckyfriedhorse concerning my original ban and the subsequent handling of my appeal. I want to make something very clear from the beginning: I did not commit the violations being alleged against me. I did not randomly shoot players, I was never shooting people from a rooftop, I did not resist detainment, and I did not LTAP. I also dispute the NITRP, FailRP and RDM allegations used to justify my original punishment. I am not submitting this report merely because I disagree with a punishment or because I am unhappy with an appeal decision. I am submitting it because I believe there are significant inconsistencies between the allegations made against me, the explanations provided by staff, and the published evidence requirements of the server. I understand that staff members have responsibilities and are sometimes required to make decisions based on their own observations. However, those decisions should still be supported by the standards established by Prometheus Networks. I expect those standards to apply consistently, regardless of whether the person being investigated is an ordinary player or a member of the staff team. I will address each staff member and each allegation separately. Timeframe: The relevant incident and subsequent appeal discussion took place throughout this week. The original discussion and the two staff responses were posted at different times. Their exact timestamps are visible in the original forum thread and can be checked directly by Upper Administration. I therefore consider it unnecessary to reproduce individual timestamps here. 2. Maverick – Original Punishment and Allegations The introductory evidence requirements in the official Man in the High Castle Rules state: "Staff cannot act upon an alleged rule break without concrete evidence or having witnessed it themselves." The same section explains that logs may be checked and that witnesses are non-admissible. My original punishment included the following reasons: NITRP FailRP RDM PO (Past Offenses) I categorically dispute the allegations of NITRP, FailRP and RDM in this incident. I did not commit these violations. I would also like the exact past offences relied upon under PO to be identified rather than allowing that label to serve as a general justification for the punishment. When I questioned the original punishment, Maverick provided the following explanation: "If i remember correctly, you were going around shooting people for quite literally no reason, You were resisting detainment and your microphone was absolute ass and caused a lot of spiking despite being asked several times to fix it. I saw you shooting people from a rooftop too i believe. Im not sure if it was you or someone else who LTAP'ed as well but i didnt add it to the reasons." There are several serious issues I would like Upper Administration to investigate. A. Alleged random shooting Maverick claims that I was going around shooting players for absolutely no reason. I categorically deny this allegation. I did not randomly shoot anyone, I did not commit RDM, and I did not go around attacking players without a valid reason. My account of the situation is that I remained at the military base. There was only one other individual present there besides me. I would like the relevant server records examined to establish whether this account is consistent with my recorded location and the actual events. Specifically: Which players was I allegedly shooting? When did these alleged incidents occur? Where did they take place? Is there any damage log showing that I shot or damaged anyone? Is there any kill log identifying me as responsible? What evidence establishes that the alleged shooting was RDM? I am asking for these details because I did not commit the alleged violation, and I want the accusation examined against the actual records rather than accepted simply because it was stated by the original banning staff member. B. Alleged rooftop shooting Maverick specifically stated: "I saw you shooting people from a rooftop too i believe." I want to make this absolutely clear: I WAS NEVER ON A ROOFTOP SHOOTING PEOPLE. I DID NOT COMMIT THIS ALLEGED INCIDENT. I immediately challenged this statement in my original appeal and explicitly requested footage. I have still not received a satisfactory explanation establishing where this alleged incident took place or how Maverick identified me. I find it particularly concerning that an allegation this specific is being presented using the wording "i believe" without any accompanying footage or detailed explanation. I would like Upper Administration to examine my recorded position throughout the relevant timeframe, if such records are available. I would also like the following clarified: Which rooftop was I allegedly on? At what time did this supposedly happen? Which players was I supposedly shooting? Did Maverick personally witness this incident? Was there any recording or other concrete evidence? How was my identity established? I am not asking for special treatment. I am asking for evidence supporting an incident that I maintain never happened. C. Alleged resistance to detainment Maverick also alleges that I was resisting detainment. I dispute this allegation. I WAS NOT BEING DETAINED, AND NOBODY ATTEMPTED TO ARREST ME DURING THE SITUATION I DESCRIBED. I DID NOT RESIST DETAINMENT OR COMMIT THE ALLEGED FAILRP VIOLATION. I have not received a sufficiently detailed explanation of what actions supposedly constituted resistance. I would therefore like clarification regarding: What exact actions am I accused of taking? Which instructions was I allegedly given? How did I supposedly disobey those instructions? When did this occur? What specific evidence supports the allegation? I would like the relevant roleplay records and any available recordings or administrative sit documentation examined. It is not reasonable to expect me to respond meaningfully to an allegation when the actual incident has not been clearly identified. D. Alleged LTAP Maverick explicitly stated: "Im not sure if it was you or someone else who LTAP'ed as well but i didnt add it to the reasons." To be completely clear: I DID NOT LTAP. I DID NOT DISCONNECT TO AVOID CONSEQUENCES, AND I WAS NOT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ALLEGED INCIDENT. I acknowledge that Maverick stated this was not added as one of the reasons for my original punishment. However, I find it concerning that an allegation involving uncertainty about the identity of the individual responsible was introduced into the discussion surrounding my disciplinary history. If Maverick cannot establish that I was responsible, I do not see why this allegation should have any bearing on the assessment of my appeal. I would like Upper Administration to examine the relevant connection and disconnection records, if retained, and establish whether I was actually responsible. Someone else's potential misconduct should not be attributed to me simply because staff are uncertain about who was involved. E. Alleged NITRP I categorically deny having no intent to roleplay. I did not deliberately avoid roleplay or intentionally disrupt the roleplay situation. I would like Maverick to identify precisely which actions supposedly demonstrated that I had no intent to roleplay and what evidence was used to reach that conclusion. 3. Maverick – Accuracy and Verification of the Original Allegations I believe it is important to distinguish between an allegation being made, an incident being personally witnessed, and an incident being established through reliable evidence. I am not disputing that staff members can act on incidents they personally witness. The published rules explicitly recognise this. However, I am asking whether the allegations in my particular case were accurately identified and whether the original punishment was based on what actually happened. I would like Upper Administration to establish: Which incidents Maverick personally witnessed. Which incidents were established through logs or recordings. Whether the alleged RDM incidents actually involved my character. Whether the alleged rooftop incident was correctly attributed to me. Whether I actually resisted detainment. Whether I was responsible for any LTAP incident, which I categorically deny. Whether the original punishment was based on verified incidents rather than assumptions or mistaken identification. I believe these are entirely reasonable questions when investigating a punishment involving multiple serious allegations. 4. Kentuckyfriedhorse – Handling of My Ban Appeal Kentuckyfriedhorse subsequently reviewed my appeal and provided the following response: "After viewing the discussion and reviewing the logs and your long list of notes. I am wondering if there is any sort of evidence on your end that you could provide to help your case, as I am not seeing anything that would make me personally believe to elevate or shorten this ban. Based on your track record, it does not scream to me that you should be unbanned." My concern is not simply that Kentuckyfriedhorse reached a decision I disagreed with. My concern is that despite claiming to have reviewed the logs, he did not identify which logs supported which allegations or explain how those records established my involvement. Instead, considerable emphasis was placed on my previous track record and his personal assessment of whether I deserved to be unbanned. I understand that previous offences can be relevant when considering disciplinary history. I am not asking for legitimate previous disciplinary records to be ignored. However, having a previous disciplinary history does not prove that I committed the specific violations being alleged in this incident. I disputed the RDM allegations. I denied ever shooting from a rooftop. I denied resisting detainment. I denied LTAP. I also explained that I fixed my microphone when asked. These were specific objections that directly concerned the original punishment. Yet Kentuckyfriedhorse's response did not meaningfully address them. I would like Upper Administration to clarify: Which specific logs did Kentuckyfriedhorse review? What did those logs actually demonstrate? Did he verify my location during the alleged incidents? Did he examine the damage and kill records? Did he independently examine the allegations against me? Why were my specific denials and requests for footage not directly addressed? Was the decision substantially influenced by my previous disciplinary history rather than the evidence concerning this incident? I am not suggesting that Kentuckyfriedhorse was obligated to grant my appeal. I am asking whether the appeal was properly and independently reviewed before the decision was reached. 5. Kentuckyfriedhorse – Request for Witness Statements Another issue I would like investigated is Kentuckyfriedhorse's request for additional evidence. He stated: "Take the time to find clips, or others who witnessed this situation, and have them respond to this thread." The introductory evidence requirements in the Man in the High Castle Rules explicitly state that witnesses are non-admissible. I understand that video recordings and witness statements are two different things. However, I would like clarification regarding why witness statements were specifically requested as supporting material when the published evidence requirements state that witnesses are non-admissible. Were these statements actually intended to be considered evidence in the appeal? If not, what purpose were they intended to serve? I believe staff members should apply the published evidence standards consistently, particularly when handling disciplinary decisions and appeals. I also question why I was being asked to locate people who could support my account when the relevant server-side records should be available for authorised staff to examine, provided those records were retained. 6. Request for Server-Side Evidence Examination I am deliberately not attaching screenshots of individual server logs because I believe the relevant information should be available to authorised staff members through the server's own administrative systems. I am therefore requesting that Upper Administration independently examine the available records associated with the original incident. In particular, I would like the following checked: A. Player location records Examine my recorded position throughout the relevant timeframe, particularly whether I remained at the military base and whether I was ever at the alleged rooftop. I maintain that I was never on a rooftop shooting players. B. Damage records Examine whether I dealt damage to any players during the alleged incidents. I maintain that I did not randomly shoot or attack players. C. Kill records Examine whether I killed anyone during the relevant timeframe, who was allegedly involved, and when these events occurred. I dispute the allegation that I committed RDM. D. Roleplay and detainment records Examine any available records or administrative sit documentation relating to the alleged detainment. I maintain that I did not resist detainment or commit the alleged FailRP violation. E. Connection and disconnection records Examine the relevant connection and disconnection records, if retained. I maintain that I did not LTAP or leave to avoid consequences. F. Original administrative records Examine the original ban documentation, administrative sit records, and any recordings or evidence available to Maverick when issuing the punishment. G. Appeal review records Examine what records Kentuckyfriedhorse actually reviewed and whether the allegations were independently verified before the appeal decision was reached. I specifically request that any relevant records still available be preserved and examined before a final determination is made. I believe this would provide a considerably more objective understanding of what happened than relying exclusively on recollections or assumptions. 7. Request for an Independent Investigation Under General Rule 35 of the Man in the High Castle Rules, disputes regarding staff decisions may be brought to a higher-ranking staff member or through a forum Staff Report. I am therefore formally requesting that this matter be reviewed by someone who was not directly involved in the original punishment or appeal decision. Specifically, I would like Upper Administration to investigate: Whether Maverick had sufficient evidence or firsthand observations to justify the original RDM allegation, which I deny committing. Whether the rooftop shooting allegation was accurately attributed to me, which I categorically deny ever doing. Whether I actually resisted detainment, which I deny. Whether I was responsible for an LTAP incident, which I deny. Whether the NITRP and FailRP allegations were supported by concrete evidence, which I deny. What specific logs Maverick relied upon when issuing the punishment. Which specific logs Kentuckyfriedhorse reviewed when assessing my appeal. Whether Kentuckyfriedhorse independently examined the allegations rather than relying primarily on Maverick's recollection. Why witness statements were requested despite the published non-admissibility requirement. Whether my previous disciplinary history influenced the appeal decision more than the evidence relating to this particular incident. Whether the published evidence requirements were followed throughout the original punishment and subsequent appeal. I believe these questions deserve clear and direct answers. 8. Evidence and Relevant Links 1. Original Ban Appeal https://prn.gg/topic/2620-ban-appeal/ This is the central source of information for this report. It contains: My original ban appeal and the stated reasons for punishment. Maverick's allegations. My denial of the alleged random shooting. My explicit denial of ever shooting people from a rooftop. My request for footage. My denial of resisting detainment. Maverick's admission of uncertainty regarding LTAP. Kentuckyfriedhorse's response claiming to have reviewed the logs. Kentuckyfriedhorse's request for clips or witnesses. My subsequent objections and requests for clarification. 9. Additional Information I want to emphasise that I am not demanding that either staff member be dismissed simply because I disagree with their decisions. I am requesting an impartial investigation into their conduct and the procedures followed during my punishment and appeal. I categorically deny the allegations discussed throughout this report. I did not randomly shoot players. I was never shooting people from a rooftop. I did not resist detainment. I did not LTAP. I dispute the NITRP, FailRP and RDM accusations made against me. I acknowledge that my microphone experienced technical issues, but I addressed them when requested. I am asking that these denials be examined against the actual server records rather than dismissed because of my previous disciplinary history. I also want to make clear that I understand staff members have discretion. However, that discretion should be exercised consistently with the published rules and evidence requirements. I expect ordinary players to be held accountable for their actions, and I believe staff members should be held to the same standards of accountability when issuing punishments and reviewing appeals. I would appreciate a direct response to the concerns outlined above, an independent examination of the available records, and a determination of whether any procedural shortcomings or staff misconduct occurred. I am submitting this report in good faith and expect it to be reviewed impartially, without being dismissed simply because I am the individual who originally received the punishment. Thank you for taking the time to review my report.

Hey hey hey, I'm sure a lot of people who are new to the server wonder why the kits/weapons used by their faction aren't something they just 'spawn' with, and instead have to go to a vendor each time and spend their own money to purchase and use them. There are a multitude of reasons for this: 1. If you just spawned with the kit each time, it wouldn't be an item within the NutScript framework and therefore wouldn't be in your inventory when you spawn. This would prevent weapons from being stripped off you, as the restraints system requires you to access another player's inventory and take the weapon from there. 2. During active conflicts, money is a real factor. This prevents civil wars from lasting forever, as eventually one side will run out of money. It also forces generals to pick their fights a little more carefully. No general is going to waste their limited budget on a raid that will gain nothing for their faction. (Ideally) At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of your command to ensure money is distributed throughout the ranks. Of course, this system isn't perfect, which is why there are other ways to earn money, such as fishing, mining, or just taking a bribe . However, good command should ensure their personnel are properly funded to carry out their day-to-day duties. In regards to weapon prices within the vendor, that is something handled in character, with specific characters being responsible for the supply of firearms within vendors. While some item prices are controlled by Upper Administration, and yes, they can be changed at will, doing so would mean a price decrease for every faction, not just the NYPD. This would then defeat the points I made earlier regarding active conflicts and civil wars. Hopefully, this helps answer your questions. I only decided to respond because I noticed this had been left open for a while. Enjoy!

+1 Plays by the rules, generally a clean dude with a solid reputation.

+1 always putting in work, great RP, I always see him around the city on staff and in RP. I think he would be a great staff member

+1

+1 Prometheus staff doesn't have enough asian staff some diversity is needed

+1 good rp and just a good guy in general

+1 Been around as rong as the emperor

+1 great honor

+1 Fantastic civilian roleplay, has followed the rules throughout a lengthy time on the server, I fully endorse Mr. Zen'in!

guess i really was a faggot back then

Please follow the correct template. Name: (depending on character its Ho Li Chit) SteamID32: 76561198435876850 Staff Member who issued the Flag Blacklist: Richard (not his fault he was told to) Explain why your flags were blacklisted: No clue apparently it was ordered back in April of this year. Explain why your flags should be unblacklisted: IVe been roleplaying with my tools in different situations within the server I should be allow them back. Additional Information: Hopefully I can have them back ive been chillin in the new city and havin fun

+1 Great RP'er and is very well known! Have only had good interactions with this man!! Seems to understand the duties pretty well and would be a solid addition!

+1 Solid rp and well know I would say.

Introduction Information Section Steam Name: Shook SteamID32 (STEAM_0:X:XXX): STEAM_0:0:207879818 Discord Username/ID: shook1416 Timezone: GMT Age: 23 Time Played (check with !time): 1w 2d 23m Your current rank(User/Donator/Trusted): Donator Do you have a mic & will you use it?: Yes Are you consistently active on the forums and server?: Yes Did anyone from the Recruitment Team assist you in making your application?: Kurti Staff Recommendations (Sponsors will be asked to verify): Sharkbait, Kurti, Frosty, Redpug, Chase, Robert Basic Information Section IC Character names, ranks, and brief overview of their duties/everyday activities in a list format: My main character is Hiroshi Zen'in, he is the boss of the Shirohebi Syndicate and runs Zen'in Towers, City Wok & the Red room. I roleplay as a Japanese businessman and help run my many businesses with my 80 ish employee's. How long have you been roleplaying?: I've played on the server we do not speak of for the past 3-4 years and owned multiple factions on there before coming here. Have you received any infractions i.e Notes/Bans? If so, what were they for and what could you have done to prevent getting them next time?: I don't have any bans or notes. Staff Knowledge Section What previous experience so you have as a staff member either within Garry’s Mod or the Nutscript Gamemode? I've been staff for 2+ years on a darkrp server prior and know how to execute all the commands and how the staffing scripts work generally. I was also super admin of a developing server and helped write the rules page, set up NPC's and set up whitelists. Why do you believe we should pick you for the Prometheus Networks Staff Team?[300 words or more]: I believe i would be a useful member to the Prometheus staff team due to my Experience, RP, Commitment and Understanding of the rules and responsibilities. As stated above I have lots of experience in general staffing on different servers and know how to conduct myself in an appropriate manor. I also have experience writing rules, setting up NPC's and whitelists when i was a super admin for a growing server, I believe this experience would help when I'm setting up lockers for people or whitelisting them to certain factions. I have lots of experience in RP, i believe this will help me in knowing how to maintain a good quality of RP as i will know when it is appropriate to pull someone to the sit area without breaking an active RP scenario. This experience in RP will also help me in knowing what is considered failrp or NITRP and will help me enforce the servers rules on the individuals who do not intend on RP'ing appropriately. I am quite committed to this server and intend on being around for a long time, I have acquired a faction along with multiple properties which i have maintained for multiple weeks already, my businesses have websites which we have worked hard on to ensure it adds to the RP experience of interacting with our organisation and businesses. I believe I have a good understanding for the rules and duties my role would require, I have had plenty of experience on staffing as a whole and what appropriate RP and gameplay looks like on this server. In my time on the server I have not received one ban and I believe myself and my businesses are quite well known across the city, i believe this shows that i am capable of RP'ing in a proper manor and am good at interacting well with others which would help me in staffing duties. What are the duties and responsibilities of the position you are applying for in your own words? [150 Words or more]: I believe the duties and responsibilities I will be incurring will pertain as such; Ensuring a level of RP and professionalism is kept throughout the server, handling rulebreakers and people who do not intend to RP properly, Helping the community by answering questions, Handling tickets to whitelist or taking tickets to add lockers, keys or deal with rule breaks. I am aware that if i were to become a staff member i would be representing the server and the staff team and my actions would reflect that. I would ensure to be as helpful as possible and aid the servers growth and RP as best as i can. I believe what I should be looking for is those who do not intend to roleplay/play appropriately, those who simply slip up or accidentally break a rule should be warned but not punished extremely, our duty as a staff member is to maintain and uphold the RP and gameplay quality, not to simply punish everyone who makes a mistake. Notes:

Your Name: idfk but my steam name is France greatest soldier SteamID (STEAM_0:X:XXX): STEAM_0:0:739397257 Appeal Type (Apology or Dispute): apology? Which staff member banned you?: Whoreson How long is your ban for?: Perma Why were you banned?: Being a faggot Why do you deserve to be unbanned?: because everyone is a faggot and if everyone is a faggot no one is Additional Information: i don't even remember what i did so i got no clue what it even is i am appealing. im not a faggot though

Please follow the correct template. Name: SteamID32: Staff Member who issued the Flag Blacklist: Explain why your flags were blacklisted: Explain why your flags should be unblacklisted: Additional Information:

I had my PET tag perms revoked for something that was ordered back in april? Ive been in server many times as of resent and been using them for RP scenes and such. So i wonder if I can have my perms back so i can resume the RP and such

For context, on that day we had received news and reports that members of the NYPD were attempting to attack the base again after a day of attempted attacks. And of course, it happened again. They attacked the side entrance and even came to the front door, threatening to kill a member of the 91st if the feldmarshall did not appear. And again they came with the intention of "talking," and suddenly I heard one of the guys lockpicking the front door. And that's when I had to shoot because otherwise they would have come in. i dont have a clip cuz tbh i didnt think i was gonna be banned just for defending my base.

I am going to be completely honest here, because at this point I am becoming increasingly frustrated with how this appeal is being handled. After reading your response, I am struggling to understand what exactly you have reviewed and how you have arrived at the conclusion that my ban should remain in place. You state that you have reviewed the discussion, the logs, and my notes, yet your response does not address a single one of the inconsistencies I have brought up. Instead, you have chosen to focus on my track record and whether I personally convince you that I deserve to be unbanned. With all due respect, this is not supposed to be about whether I personally convince you that I deserve another chance. It is supposed to be about whether the punishment was justified in the first place. Those are two very different things, and I would appreciate it if that distinction were actually acknowledged. Let's address Maverick's statements, since those seem to be the foundation of this entire situation. Maverick claims that I was supposedly going around shooting people for no reason. Where is the evidence of this? Which players did I allegedly shoot? At what time did these incidents occur? Are there logs or clips demonstrating that I was responsible? I have repeatedly stated that I was at the military base and remained there. There was only one other person there besides me, so I would genuinely like to understand how this accusation is supposed to correspond with what actually happened. Then there is the rooftop allegation. Maverick specifically says, and I quote, "I saw you shooting people from a rooftop too i believe." I have already directly addressed this. I WAS NOT ON A ROOFTOP. I asked for a clip because I want to see what this accusation is based on. Instead of receiving footage or any meaningful clarification, I am now being told that I need to find my own evidence to defend myself. How am I supposed to provide footage disproving an incident that I maintain never happened? Surely the person making the allegation, or the staff member relying on it, should be able to provide something to substantiate it. Furthermore, Maverick openly admits that he is unsure whether I was responsible for the alleged LTAP, stating that he does not know if it was me or someone else. Why is this even being brought into the discussion? If the staff member responsible for the original punishment cannot confidently identify who committed an alleged violation, then it should not be treated as something that reflects negatively on me. Uncertainty is not evidence, and someone else's potential misconduct should not become part of my disciplinary record. Regarding my microphone, I have already acknowledged that it was malfunctioning. I was asked to fix it, and I did. I am not denying that there was an issue. However, I fail to see how a microphone malfunction, which I addressed when requested, somehow contributes to proving the much more serious allegations being made against me. Now, regarding your response specifically: You mention that you have reviewed the logs, but you have not actually explained what those logs demonstrate. You mention my track record, but you have not explained how it establishes that I committed any of the specific violations being discussed. You say that you are not personally convinced that my ban should be shortened or overturned, but you have not provided a single concrete explanation addressing why the original accusations should be considered substantiated. Frankly, this is an extremely disappointing way to handle an appeal. A staff member's personal impression of someone should never take precedence over the actual evidence surrounding a punishment. Having a previous disciplinary history does not automatically make every future accusation true. I should not have to spend the entirety of this appeal fighting against assumptions about my character instead of being given the opportunity to address the actual allegations. What makes this even more frustrating is that you are asking ME to provide clips and witnesses while seemingly overlooking the fact that the original staff member should have been able to substantiate the accusations that resulted in my punishment. The burden should not be shifted onto the person appealing simply because staff cannot provide a clear explanation of their own allegations. I am not asking you to take my word as absolute truth. I am asking you to demonstrate that the decision being made is based on something more substantial than recollections, assumptions, and personal opinions. If you have reviewed the logs, then please explain which specific logs support which specific accusations. If there is footage of me shooting people, provide it. If there is footage of me on a rooftop, provide it. If there is evidence that I resisted detainment, explain precisely what happened and when. If there is no definitive evidence identifying me as the person responsible for the alleged LTAP, then stop bringing it up as though it establishes anything about my conduct. I would also like to know whether you have actually questioned Maverick about these inconsistencies or simply accepted his recollection of events without further verification. Because from the outside, it genuinely looks like the accusations have been accepted at face value, while my responses have barely been acknowledged. I find it particularly ironic that I am being asked to provide evidence to make my case more convincing when I have already identified specific allegations that appear to be based on uncertainty and have explicitly requested the evidence behind them. That request has still not been meaningfully addressed. At this point, I would like both you and Maverick to provide an actual explanation rather than continuing to go in circles. I expect answers to the following: What specific evidence demonstrates that I was randomly shooting players? Where is the footage supporting the claim that I was shooting people from a rooftop? What exactly am I alleged to have done while supposedly resisting detainment? What evidence establishes that I was responsible for the alleged LTAP, considering Maverick himself admitted he was unsure? Which specific logs have you reviewed, and what do they demonstrate? Have these allegations been independently investigated, or has the appeal simply relied on the original staff member's recollection? How exactly does my previous track record establish that the specific allegations in this case are true? I do not think these are unreasonable questions. They are the absolute bare minimum I would expect to be answered when someone is being punished and is attempting to appeal that punishment. I would strongly suggest that the staff involved take another look at this situation, because the way this appeal has been addressed so far does not inspire confidence in the quality or impartiality of the review process. I am genuinely tired of having to repeatedly explain the same things while receiving responses that avoid the actual points being raised. If the evidence exists, show it. If the allegations are substantiated, explain how. If they are not, then I expect that to be acknowledged rather than having assumptions continuously used against me. I am not asking for a favour, special treatment, or an unearned second chance. I am asking for a fair and evidence-based review. That should not be an unreasonable expectation, and it certainly should not require me to repeatedly ask staff to substantiate the accusations they are using to justify keeping me banned. I would appreciate an actual response addressing the points above, rather than another statement about my track record, your personal opinion of whether I deserve to be unbanned, or a request for me to somehow prove that allegations without supporting evidence never happened. Thank you for your time, and I sincerely hope you have an absolutely wonderful day! I also hope that, perhaps next time, a little more time and attention can be dedicated to actually reviewing the allegations, examining the evidence, and addressing the concerns being raised rather than relying on personal impressions, vague recollections, and an individual's previous track record. I understand that thoroughly investigating something may be considerably more demanding than writing a paragraph explaining why you personally don't feel someone deserves an unban, but I would like to believe that this is not too much to expect from the people entrusted with handling disciplinary appeals. I would also like to thank Maverick for providing such a wonderfully detailed recollection of events, particularly the parts where he apparently isn't entirely sure whether I was involved, but somehow those uncertainties have still managed to become part of the discussion surrounding my punishment. Truly reassuring. Hopefully, both of you will find the time to revisit this appeal and provide something a little more substantial than what has been presented so far. A proper explanation, actual evidence, and answers to the questions raised would be a refreshing change of pace. Until then, I will eagerly await a response that addresses the substance of this appeal rather than another beautifully worded explanation of why my previous track record apparently makes evidence and due consideration optional. Once again, have a wonderful day! I certainly hope the remainder of it goes considerably better than this appeal review has.

But i recommend creating a new one.

Once you reach a week of in game time. not a week of waiting. just submit a new one once you have a week of play time in game. If you want you can use the same one.