Flamebaiting Appeal - Elmo

[Elmo]

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

Spoiler

Why the verdict is not fair: I was offline at the time of the reported incident, my profile was never checked, though it is a simple fact that profiles were checked so I'm not entirely sure how this can be construed as flamebaiting, as well as the fact that some of these posts were made prior to any statement of fact on the report that Transporter profiles were checked.

Additional statements/comments explaining your point of view:

The first post linked yesterday at 7:47 was made before there was any statement on the report about the supposed accusation. It cannot be linked as there is no evidence provided by staff to link them, this is purely a coincidence.

The second status update about logging in to roleplay, what links the post to the report exactly, other than the fact that I'm in a group with the folks who were reported? If I had made that status update at any other time, I'd have received 0 points, so in effect I am being singled out because of my group affiliations rather than looking at it from an objective PoV.

The first reply to Eagles on my status update is a direct reply to something that he brought up on my profile, a joke about metagaming. I joked back with my friend, the object of the joke was not a community member, therefore it cannot be flamebaiting.

The reply to euthanising the AFK pop was to a status update by EdwardLR which was a crack at Mugin's expense about being shot while AFK. If my joke about Mugin being shot is flamebait, then surely Eddie's status update is equally flamebaity as it's a crack at some Transporters for being killed during the reported incident. My posts were pointed whilst Eddie's remain unpointed, both pretty much touch on the same topic, though the only difference between myself and Eddie, apart from age and his dashing Italian good looks, is who I'm friends with. Once again, I am being pointed here because I am friends with someone, not because of the content of my posts.

So, in review, my status updates did not target anybody specifically, they were general status updates indicating my enjoyment of roleplay, when I logged in and out, a joke between friends and then a joke at another friend. Nobody from the supposedly offended party was mentioned, therefore nothing can be inferred as there is no name which bears the inference. Frankly, its tiresome that staff can just whack some baseless text into a warning and call it evidence because they believe X to be the cause of Y, rather than gathering evidence, proof of intent and actually doing staff work. I suppose that's easier though than actually having to justify your warning with evidence.

What would you like to achieve with this appeal: Points revoked, posts reinstated.

What could you have done better?: Nowt

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by Elmo Cringe

[PaulB]

Greetings @Elmo Cringe,

A separate part of staff team have reviewed your appeal and came to the conclusion to DENY IT.

Although we agree that first evidence provided in the report stating "Logging in to role play now" should not be within the warning as this itself shows no intent towards FB and indeed we see no link towards the ongoing report because of the time of posting.  With this, your pointing towards the time of posting is relevant, but this post was exempt from the final verdict.

 After removing your first post from the warning and reviewing the rest of your posts, we do not believe it was a simple joke or meme as you did not stay with one post but posted two others that shows the reference towards the ongoing report and FB intent to mock the individuals from the report. 

We suggest next time when you believe you act only in a funny way, do not fuel this any further, so it doesn't get escalated as it easily gets out of hand. 

With that being said

//Appeal denied, points stay

Signed: @PaulB and @Bryan