Staff Report on Kentuckyfriedhorse and Maverick

[Donamyslu]

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:

1. Which incidents Maverick personally witnessed.

2. Which incidents were established through logs or recordings.

3. Whether the alleged RDM incidents actually involved my character.

4. Whether the alleged rooftop incident was correctly attributed to me.

5. Whether I actually resisted detainment.

6. Whether I was responsible for any LTAP incident, which I categorically deny.

7. 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:

1. Whether Maverick had sufficient evidence or firsthand observations to justify the original RDM allegation, which I deny committing.

2. Whether the rooftop shooting allegation was accurately attributed to me, which I categorically deny ever doing.

3. Whether I actually resisted detainment, which I deny.

4. Whether I was responsible for an LTAP incident, which I deny.

5. Whether the NITRP and FailRP allegations were supported by concrete evidence, which I deny.

6. What specific logs Maverick relied upon when issuing the punishment.

7. Which specific logs Kentuckyfriedhorse reviewed when assessing my appeal.

8. Whether Kentuckyfriedhorse independently examined the allegations rather than relying primarily on Maverick's recollection.

9. Why witness statements were requested despite the published non-admissibility requirement.

10. Whether my previous disciplinary history influenced the appeal decision more than the evidence relating to this particular incident.

11. 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.

[Ryan]

Holy ChatGPT ass copy and paste

[Hambugler]

I aint reading allat

[mewing]

I don’t even think there is a single bit of human in this 

[Gator]

+1

I completely agree with this report. Staff members should be held accountable to the same standards they enforce on the player base. Punishments should be supported by concrete evidence, and appeals should be reviewed objectively rather than based primarily on someone's disciplinary history or personal opinion. The inconsistencies outlined here deserve to be investigated by Upper Administration.

Edited 6 minutes ago by Gator

[Hound]

You should kill yourself.