The Salty Appeal

[CJBB]

Link to the source of punishment (report/post): 

(Not the full part that was removed)

Why the verdict is not fair:

This verdict was made out of the word "Salty". A word that is commonly used to describe gamer's rage after losing in a game. I was given 5 points for using a word that is commonly used. And this is why I do not believe that this is fair.

1.) Previous use of the word:

I decided to cross search the specific word "Salty" Into the Dayzrp search bar and over 70 pages of results have turned up. Upon deep and further investigation the word "Salty" has been used to describe many people. If the word is seen as flaming I wouldn't be able to see so many posts of people calling others out for being salty. In status updates/reports/forum posts/Off Topic. All are area's where people have used this term. 

2.) What Salty actually means:

When you refer to someone as being "Mad" is it insulting? Or referring someone to being "Grumpy" or "Upset". No that is clearly describing someones mood, something that commonly happens within streams, where said individuals say like minded things, but it isn't even considered OOC flame. Saying someone is salty is describing their mood and how they handled their self to your own opinion after a situation.  No way does it insult them, as its not really insulting their body, personality or anything alike. 

3.) Similar words:

Calling someone salty is so light, Id consider it on the same level as saying someone is annoying. and in my opinion its blocking posting any negative criticism, as soon I am sure the staff members who issued my warnings (I would assume) Would have an issue with me calling someone annoying. As no one would like to be called annoying. Or referring to someone to being bad at the game. as no one would like to be referred to being bad at the game. Or the numerous accusations upon people for bad role play in reports. as No one likes to hear that their role play is bad. 

My point here is, you shouldn't just dish out points because someone dislikes what you said. It was constructive criticism and a point of view, with the same person referencing the same situation previously in the post, and I would of thought that posting constructive criticism as well as your point of view was not point worthy. 

4.) Name drop:

There was no name drop, no indication of who said person was. There was no clues or twitch link to said persons video. There was nothing identifying the person. So I do not see how it could be considered OOC Flame, it wasnt direct or indirect intended flame, from how it is written there people amongst the forum will not know who I had this bad experience with. 

5.) Relevance to the topic:

The topic was about meta gaming and streamers, I was making my point defending people who have been slandered from streamers in the past with my most recent experience of it happening. to me that is the best way of explaining points, is to explain how it happened to you. 

Additional statements/comments explaining your point of view: Not Salty btw

What would you like to achieve with this appeal: Getting my points removed and my constructive post reinstated.  

What could you have done better?: Been a little more careful about explaining my own experiences as some people will find some reason take offence to it. 

Edited May 7, 2020 by CJBB

[Peril]

Hello @CJBB,

A separate team of staff has reviewed your appeal and come to the conclusion of denial.

In your post, you detailed an encounter so with a streamer so specific that the staff team had no problems following along with the events when reviewing a VOD of the stream.  After detailing this event, you went on to call the streamer salty and address streamers who complain about metagaming as sore losers.  While you are entitled to your belief, plainly talking about one streamer in particular and calling them salty, then immediately speaking ill of streamers who complain about metagaming in general is pretty plainly flamebait. 

The original warning leaned heavily on the use of the word, "salty," but we'd like to take a chance to expound upon that.  In the now removed portion of your post, you go on about how streamers who complain about meta are sore losers right after indirectly, but obviously, addressing one streamer who briefly mentioned metagaming after their in-game death.  To further your points about the streamer and all streamers in general, you heavily over-exaggerate the events of the stream in what appears to be an effort to paint the streamer you indirectly mentioned as the bad guy.  The half an hour you mentioned was closer to just under 15 minutes, most of which was spent reviewing their firefight performance.  Additionally, the quotes you attribute to the streamer were never actually said and any words holding similarity to your misquotes were either one-off jokes or totally absent.

To address some of your points:

1. When contributing to the forums, judge your post based on what the rules say, not posts from other users that may or may not have been reported or warned in the past.
2. We're aware of what salty actually means; we know it carries a negative connotation, especially in online communities.  Unlike calling someone grumpy or upset (not that we'd encourage that either), salty implies that someone's upset is petty or unnecessary.  There's a difference there.
3. On top of what's been said in point one, we encourage users to address each other respectfully at all times.  Also, accusing someone of committing the rulebreak BadRP in the scope of a report is far different than saying, "You're a bad roleplayer," or variations of that.  Even in BadRP reports, users have been warned for being disrespectfully addressing the people they're accusing of BadRP.
4. You're right, there was no namedrop.  That's the one of the distinctions between flame and flamebait, the latter of which you were punished for.  The staff team is aware of who you were speaking about, and the person in question likely was too.
5. As it stands after the edit made by the moderation team, the main message of your post stands.  It could've been made without singling out and speaking ill of a streamer.

In the future, consider that, even without identifiers, it can be apparent who you are speaking about, especially when painting that person in a bad light.  Keep your posts constructive and respectful, even if you're dissatisfied with someone or a situation you were involved in.  It's always possible to make a point without speaking ill of other community members and if it isn't, reconsider making that point.

With that said,
Appeal denied.  Points remain.

Signed by @Peril & @Hofer