(05-01-2024, 10:51 PM)slater Wrote: ttt staff abuse report for a wrongful slay/warn/ban that was warranted part 1083

(05-01-2024, 11:24 PM)Rowan383 Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 10:51 PM)slater Wrote: ttt staff abuse report for a wrongful slay/warn/ban that was warranted part 1083

Had you actually bothered to read before forming an opinion, you would've seen the following:
"Let me be clear, the reason Foxka did not slay Deerly was absolutely valid, I have zero issue with his moderation decision there"

(05-01-2024, 11:23 PM)Rowan383 Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 10:49 PM)Dildo Shwaggins Wrote: I don’t Format aside you claimed not to spam him and the only evidence to support any of your claims is you spamming him.

It’s a bold strategy Cotton, let’s see if it pays off for him

Repeating a question 4 times over the span of a minute or so because I had reason to believe I was not being answered qualifies as "trolling/flaming?"
Trolling clearly implies bad faith, the fact that I stopped questioning after I had my answer proves it was in good faith.
Flaming is punishable if you're insulting someone and told to stop and fail to stop (correct me if I'm wrong).

Do any of you have any actual substantive reason that what I did qualifies as what Foxka accused me of?

(05-01-2024, 11:29 PM)slater Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 11:24 PM)Rowan383 Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 10:51 PM)slater Wrote: ttt staff abuse report for a wrongful slay/warn/ban that was warranted part 1083

Had you actually bothered to read before forming an opinion, you would've seen the following:
"Let me be clear, the reason Foxka did not slay Deerly was absolutely valid, I have zero issue with his moderation decision there"

I did read it lol

(05-01-2024, 11:32 PM)Rowan383 Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 11:29 PM)slater Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 11:24 PM)Rowan383 Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 10:51 PM)slater Wrote: ttt staff abuse report for a wrongful slay/warn/ban that was warranted part 1083

Had you actually bothered to read before forming an opinion, you would've seen the following:
"Let me be clear, the reason Foxka did not slay Deerly was absolutely valid, I have zero issue with his moderation decision there"

I did read it lol

So then why did you reply implying that this was a post about a wrongful slay when I have no issue with the moderation decision?

(05-01-2024, 11:29 PM)Dildo Shwaggins Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 11:23 PM)Rowan383 Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 10:49 PM)Dildo Shwaggins Wrote: I don’t Format aside you claimed not to spam him and the only evidence to support any of your claims is you spamming him.

It’s a bold strategy Cotton, let’s see if it pays off for him

Repeating a question 4 times over the span of a minute or so because I had reason to believe I was not being answered qualifies as "trolling/flaming?"
Trolling clearly implies bad faith, the fact that I stopped questioning after I had my answer proves it was in good faith.
Flaming is punishable if you're insulting someone and told to stop and fail to stop (correct me if I'm wrong).

Do any of you have any actual substantive reason that what I did qualifies as what Foxka accused me of?

Your own evidence proves you were spamming him in psay which would fall under trolling rules. Being an annoyance to a staff member while they’re trying to carry out their duties falls well within those guidelines.

(05-01-2024, 11:38 PM)slater Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 11:32 PM)Rowan383 Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 11:29 PM)slater Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 11:24 PM)Rowan383 Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 10:51 PM)slater Wrote: ttt staff abuse report for a wrongful slay/warn/ban that was warranted part 1083

Had you actually bothered to read before forming an opinion, you would've seen the following:
"Let me be clear, the reason Foxka did not slay Deerly was absolutely valid, I have zero issue with his moderation decision there"

I did read it lol

So then why did you reply implying that this was a post about a wrongful slay when I have no issue with the moderation decision?

cause it's pretty funny common generalization theme that happens with staff abuse reports dinks.

(05-01-2024, 11:39 PM)Rowan383 Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 11:29 PM)Dildo Shwaggins Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 11:23 PM)Rowan383 Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 10:49 PM)Dildo Shwaggins Wrote: I don’t Format aside you claimed not to spam him and the only evidence to support any of your claims is you spamming him.

It’s a bold strategy Cotton, let’s see if it pays off for him

Repeating a question 4 times over the span of a minute or so because I had reason to believe I was not being answered qualifies as "trolling/flaming?"
Trolling clearly implies bad faith, the fact that I stopped questioning after I had my answer proves it was in good faith.
Flaming is punishable if you're insulting someone and told to stop and fail to stop (correct me if I'm wrong).

Do any of you have any actual substantive reason that what I did qualifies as what Foxka accused me of?

Your own evidence proves you were spamming him in psay which would fall under trolling rules. Being an annoyance to a staff member while they’re trying to carry out their duties falls well within those guidelines.

Can you provide me with the relevant information concerning how the rules define trolling?

"Being an annoyance to a staff member while they’re trying to carry out their duties falls well within those guidelines."
I was not a "hinderance." If anything I was the reason he began to properly fulfill his duties in the first place. Because, as shown in his screenshots, he only began to investigate AFTER he had already settled it and I began to ask for his reasoning. 

He was failing to carry out his duties, you can see that from his own screenshots he provided. 

---

(05-01-2024, 11:38 PM)slater Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 11:32 PM)Rowan383 Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 11:29 PM)slater Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 11:24 PM)Rowan383 Wrote: Had you actually bothered to read before forming an opinion, you would've seen the following:
"Let me be clear, the reason Foxka did not slay Deerly was absolutely valid, I have zero issue with his moderation decision there"

I did read it lol

So then why did you reply implying that this was a post about a wrongful slay when I have no issue with the moderation decision?

cause it's pretty funny common generalization theme that happens with staff abuse reports dinks.

But it doesn't really work as a joke in this thread? Either you have a strange sense of humor or you didn't read my post.

(05-01-2024, 11:39 PM)Rowan383 Wrote:

---

(05-01-2024, 11:38 PM)slater Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 11:32 PM)Rowan383 Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 11:29 PM)slater Wrote:

(05-01-2024, 11:24 PM)Rowan383 Wrote: Had you actually bothered to read before forming an opinion, you would've seen the following:
"Let me be clear, the reason Foxka did not slay Deerly was absolutely valid, I have zero issue with his moderation decision there"

I did read it lol

So then why did you reply implying that this was a post about a wrongful slay when I have no issue with the moderation decision?

cause it's pretty funny common generalization theme that happens with staff abuse reports dinks.

But it doesn't really work as a joke in this thread? Either you have a strange sense of humor or you didn't read my post.

(05-01-2024, 11:42 PM)Nicol Bolas Wrote: This is a joke of a staff abuse post. You claim he's letting his emotions get the best of him, yet you are so angry about a single slay that you PM'd him constantly then made 2 separate forum posts about it after you were (rightfully) banned for it. 

It's a (completely valid) slay in a video game. Not being able to play one round of TTT isn't going to kill you. Go watch some Family Guy clips with Subway Surfers underneath it if your attention span is that low. 

Grow up, this is not abuse. If I was staffing and this happened to me I would've banned you too. 

This thread will go nowhere and so will your unban request.