by epicmatthew » Sat Jul 23, 2022 12:24 pm
This is an absurdly frustrating response. The evidence I've provided clearly shows no harassment took place. I've argued that this information was readily available to the moderator reading the report, and thus felt no need to clarify that the obviously incorrect claim of harassment was obviously incorrect. It isn't proper to ignore the context which proves and would have proven that no harassment took place, without any explanation of why. "Sure you could've done that" isn't sufficient. It flat out does not make sense with the idea that I was harassing them. It directly contradicts it. Proves it wrong.
Is there a purpose to filing a ban appeal if this is all it entails? A moderator explaining the reasoning used to justify the suspension, and no actual consideration taken to determine whether that reasoning is, you know, correct? Of course we have different opinions. When someone files a ban appeal, they are clearly of the opinion that the ban was invalid, and since a moderator had banned them, the moderator clearly thought the ban was valid. Having different opinions isn't sufficient to uphold a suspension, as, if it were, all appeals would be considered invalid the moment they were filed. The point of this appeal is that I'm contending the opinion of the moderator was wrong, with careful evidence presented proving this, and no effort has been made thus far to consider that charge on the moderation part.
As far as I can see, a narrative was constructed by my reporter, a narrative which was so obviously incorrect that any unbiased moderator reading over the events of the game in question would (and should) have realized that. However, it seems the moderator reviewing the report bought the narrative as presented by the reporter, considered no facts of my side that proved it untrue, and as such was not acting unbiased in my case, intentionally or not. The evidence I bring to show this is that there is 2 interpretations of me saying "idc you annoyed me last game": 1) it came after they were hung, showing the hang was made because of hypothetical events in other games, or 2) it came right before night action, showing the statement was made because of the known fact that there was a vigilante and escort alive. Of these 2 interpretations, 1 has no evidence to support it beyond a baseless accusation and an inference of my intentions. The other (2) has, admittedly circumstantial but nonetheless present, evidence within the report log itself, as well as an inference of my intentions that was not made. I can't see any legitimate reason to value the former evidence to the latter prior to establishing the validity of an interpretation, although I may just be biased by the knowledge that I engaged in no harassment.
I could just as easily have claimed that the reporter's baseless accusation of "reghunting" to also be harassment, as it alleges that there would be events outside of the game to justify this (again, there weren't, you repeated the untrue idea that there were in your response, immediately following me rebuking that idea very directly) and they were using this accusation to attempt to convince town not to listen to me, something which would then undoubtedly have an effect on the outcome of the game. And the thing is, I'd have had equal evidence for, with less evidence against, that claim. Do I think that would constitute harassment? No, obviously not. They were just salty that they were being hanged, and grasping at whatever straws they could. But it would apparently meet the standards of evidence used in my report, thus making us both guilty of harassment as per the standards.
I apologize if anything I've said comes off or came off as hostile. It is not my intention. I'm sure my frustration with this entire situation is apparent through my tone alone, and I'm trying to not have this be any more of a problem than necessary. I'm just kind of annoyed the moderator didn't seem to take even the slightest bit of consideration that anything said in a deception game might, in fact, be a deception for the purpose of playing the game. Whether that be the individual moderator's discretion or written in a guide for moderators to follow, neither seems like adequate moderation, if I'm being honest.