Taliazure
Radio Bob Approved
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2021
- Messages
- 457
- Thread Author
- #1
I want to start this appeal by addressing the situation with staff, because I believe this is the part where I was genuinely in the wrong, and I don't want to make excuses for it.
I made a comment about a staff's personal life, in an PM message to another player. It was an unnecessary and out-of-line comment that had absolutely nothing to do with the situation at hand. Whatever my disagreements with the warning or the staff involved, that does not give me the right to bring someone's personal life into it. I should not have said it.
I'm not appealing because I believe I did absolutely nothing wrong. I'm appealing because I disagree with some of the reasoning behind the ban, the way my actions were interpreted, and whether a permanent ban was the appropriate outcome.
Regarding the warning and my roleplay
The first issue was the warning I received shortly after the second part of the beta opened.I was excited to play, just like everyone else. I got off the train, encountered a zombie, commented on it, and interacted with the environment. I searched a rubbish container and then a building where I found some food. I was exploring the map and looking for supplies, with alcohol being my main priority because of the character I was playing.
My character was intended to be an degenerate alcoholic(A char that I have discussed with several other people one of which includes @reece). My motivation for looking for alcohol was not simply to collect items for the sake of collecting them. It was connected to the character I had created and the way I intended to play them as being a complete degenerate who would sell their own clothes off their back for a bottle to satiate the shakes.
I understand that Section 2B of the rules states that most looting requires some form of roleplay, even if simplified. I'm not arguing that looting should be exempt from roleplay, nor am I saying that players should be allowed to ignore the rules because they have an IC reason for doing something.
My disagreement is with the conclusion that my actions demonstrated that I was not interested in roleplay and that my roleplay quality was poor.
I had already played during the first part of the beta and had created a character specifically focused on roleplay rather than combat, weapons, or collecting equipment. I spoke with other players about my character, explained my ideas, asked for input, and even approached a staff member(reece), a feaction leader(nezoo) and other players beforehand to discuss the type of character I wanted to play and gather ideas.
I did this because I wanted to make a character that could contribute to the roleplay rather than simply run around looking for S2K or shotcops.
Furthermore, the warning was issued approximately ten minutes after the server opened. I understand that staff are allowed to enforce the rules immediately, and I'm not saying that a warning must always be preceded by a discussion. However, I believe the circumstances matter.
Characters have encountered zombies before during the first part of the beta (AKA D1). When I encountered one again, I recognized what it was and acted accordingly. These were not completely unknown creatures to my character and/or other characters, and the zombies I encountered were slow enough that I could move around them. I did not consider that particular encounter to require the same reaction as encountering an unknown and immediate threat.
I understand that familiarity does not mean a character should never fear something. However, I disagree with the assumption that my reaction automatically demonstrated poor roleplay.
After the warning, I continued playing and engaging in roleplay with other people. I sat in a bar and interacted with players, roleplayed moving barrels and other objects, and roleplayed my character interacting with the environment and items I picked up, so the improvement is there and the quality is too. I was still trying to participate in the server and contribute to the roleplay.
The same thing goes for D1 where I did solely RP, I did not script-whoore, I did not go out of my way to loot every-day and focus on making weapons, instead I RPed with cops, made plans with them, spoke to them, went through great detailed explanations of radios and other things relating some stuff we were attempting to do and the only exception to the rule was when I had to make batteries for the cops whose radios were always running out of and making a pipe for myself for the Okada vs Balkans fight that would happen when I was approached baout it IC.
This is why I disagree with the assessment of my overall roleplay quality. I would appreciate it if the specific actions considered inadequate could be identified, rather than my roleplay being dismissed as a whole.
I also want to address the instruction to roleplay my actions and stop looting the map. I understand the intention behind the first part, and I accept that my looting could have involved roleplay even if small. However, I believe there is a difference between requiring players to roleplay their meaningful actions and making ordinary exploration feel like a CHORE, asking me to stop exploring the map that which you prepared is the same as asking me to stop playing the server.
I'm not asking to be exempt from the rules. I'm asking for a clear understanding of what was expected from me in that particular situation and how my actions fell short of that expectation.
Regarding the timing of the warning and the possibility of prejudgment
There is another part of this situation that I believe deserves to be addressed, and that is the timing of the warning itself.The warning was issued approximately 10 to 15 minutes after the train opened. Within those minutes, I had gotten off the train, encountered and commented on a zombie, interacted with the environment, searched a rubbish container, and entered a building to look for supplies. I was then warned for looting without roleplay and told to stop looting the map.
I want to understand how this decision was reached so quickly, particularly when I had barely started playing and had not yet had a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate what kind of roleplay I intended to do during this part of the beta.
It raises a legitimate question for me: was I being assessed purely on the actions that staff observed, or was my previous disciplinary history already influencing how those actions were interpreted?
I'm not claiming that I can prove someone was deliberately watching me or waiting for an excuse to warn me. I don't know what happened behind the scenes, and I'm not going to pretend that I do. However, given how quickly the warning was issued, it does leave not just one but several people wondering, like those who stated to me in private that it was deliberate.
I also noticed that other players were interacting with the environment and picking up items without always explicitly roleplaying those actions. I understand that I cannot know if staff saw those situations, or whether those people were dealt with separately.
The corcern that raised within me is now:
- whether I was being judged on what I actually did
or whether my previous history had already placed me under a level of scrutiny where it was already expected if not Witch-hunted for.
or the rules have become so tight on tolerance that we are not given the leniency of failing once before being warned upon sight, leaving the frustration of the server becoming unfun because every player like me will feel watched, micro-managed and or witch-hunted if anything else.
Regarding the video
The video is another major part of this ban, and I understand from the conversation with staff that it was ultimately a significant factor in the decision.I made the video as a joke about the situation. It used the "Fun Police No Fun Allowed" theme alongside memes and footage from the server. It did not contain slurs, threats, or an explicit insult directed at any staff member personal life. From my perspective, the joke was about the situation and the warning I had received, rather than an attempt to attack someone personally.
I understand that staff may have interpreted it differently, particularly given the comment I made afterward. I also understand that posting a joke about a moderation decision in a public channel can be seen as disrespectful or as contributing to drama, even if that was not how I intended it. However, I disagree with the idea that a joke being considered offensive or disrespectful by someone is, by itself, enough to justify a permanent ban. I believe there needs to be some consideration of the actual content, its context, the rules being applied, and the severity of the punishment.
Section 1A prohibits trolling, flaming, and instigating drama. Section 1C also states that roleplay should contribute positively to the server and that players should use their freedom responsibly. I understand that these rules matter, and I am not claiming that humour gives me permission to ignore them.
What I am asking is if we have to fear every time we make a joke or create one that it can be taken as a rule-break. I do not believe that automatically makes it equivalent to deliberately harassing someone, attacking their personal life, or demonstrating that I have no interest in the community.
I have already acknowledged that my comment about staff was wrong. I do not believe that should automatically mean that every other action I took or may take must be interpreted in the worst possible way.
Regarding my previous bans and being on thin ice
In my conversation with a staff member, I was told that the ban was a majority decision by the QC team and that previous bans and my behaviour afterward contributed to the decision. I was also told that players who had previously been unbanned were on thin ice from the beginning.I understand why staff would take previous disciplinary history into account. I'm not asking anyone to pretend that my history does not exist, and I understand that being given another chance comes with an expectation that I will follow the rules.
However, I am concerned about what being on thin ice actually means in practice.
If I am allowed to return to the server, I want to know that I am being given a genuine opportunity to participate again, rather than being allowed back under the expectation that any subsequent mistake will result in another permanent ban.
I understand that serious rule violations can warrant serious punishments. I am not asking for immunity from moderation, special treatment, or permission to disregard the rules.
My previous ban was almost a year ago, and I had spent time preparing characters and participating in the beta because I genuinely wanted to play on the server again. I was not returning simply to collect items, fight people, or cause trouble. I have deliberately made a roleplay-focused character, approached other players, discussed my ideas, and tried to make something that would contribute to the server.
I also want to make it clear that I do not know whether anyone on the staff team has personal ill intentions toward me, and I am not going to accuse anyone of that without evidence. However, when I am told that I am already on thin ice, and that my previous bans and behaviour are part of the reason for a permanent ban, it naturally raises concerns about how my future actions would be judged if I were allowed to return.
What I am asking for
Should I be where I am constantly worried that a mistake, disagreement, or poorly received joke will result in another permanent ban, regardless of the actual circumstances.
I want to be able to enjoy the server, contribute to its roleplay, and interact with other players without feeling that my past has already decided the outcome of every future situation.
I understand that Willard is the staff team's server, that staff have the final say in moderation decisions, and that I am not entitled to play there. If staff decide that they do not want me in the community, I will have to accept that decision and move on. (i'm not the one paying for the server box or the developers). However, I would rather receive an honest answer than be unbanned without any real willingness to let me participate again. If staff are willing to give me another chance, I would like to know .
If staff believe that my conduct has made it impossible for them to trust me in the community, or that they are simply not willing to give me another chance, then I would rather be elsewhere and no waste anyone's time.
Let's be honest with each other and reach a conclusion, do you want me to stay and are you willing to let me try again or would you rather not and that I have better luck elsewhere. Whatever the response, i respect your decision and I respect the transperancy.
Last edited:
