Indefinite Ban Request - Antiboy + alts.

1. Username, UUID, IP(s), and short ban reason for each offender. Format as follows:
   Code

   Antiboy:  
   uuid: '2dc5b28b-23e4-454a-b39a-d9b9f94cfe48'  
   ips:  
   - 41.100.213.59  
   - 41.103.213.89  
   - 41.100.40.58  
   reason: 'Attempted Framing'  

   Code

   ranscot:  
   uuid: 'c87ab43f-f4a2-4667-b82e-5aa345b9147d'  
   ips:  
   - 41.103.213.89  
   - 41.100.213.59  
   - 41.100.40.58  
   reason: 'Attempted Framing'  

   Code

   GokuDoesCannabis:  
   uuid: '04a98de4-817d-4271-8295-0bcf32bda46d'  
   ips:  
   - 41.103.213.89  
   - 41.100.213.59  
   - 41.100.40.58  
   reason: 'Attempted Framing'  

   Code

   Tbom56:  
   uuid: '04a98de4-817d-4271-8295-0bcf32bda46d'  
   ips:  
   - 41.103.213.89  
   - 41.100.213.59  
   - 41.100.40.58  
   reason: 'Attempted Framing'  

   Code

   Helpfulness:  
   uuid: '24c7970f-b9f0-4293-bfed-583a1c892b9f'  
   ips:  
   - 41.103.213.89  
   - 41.100.213.59  
   - 41.100.40.58  
   reason: 'Attempted Framing'  

   Code

   Linexx14  
   uuid: '6f318217-98a7-4376-9d0d-1a069eb6e510'  
   ips:  
   - 41.103.213.89  
   - 41.100.213.59  
   - 41.100.40.58  
   reason: 'Attempted Framing'  

   Code

   NaiNye  
   uuid: '138bd43c-a20c-4e4e-9273-858389c12ad8'  
   ips:  
   - 41.103.213.89  
   - 41.100.213.59  
   - 41.100.40.58  
   reason: 'Attempted Framing'  

   Code

   lilspookyy  
   uuid: '305fd016-7fca-4291-b3af-6ffd4bc3fe39'  
   ips:  
   - 41.103.213.89  
   - 41.100.213.59  
   - 41.100.40.58  
   reason: 'Attempted Framing'  

   Code

   CommentaryTastic  
   uuid: 'd85913da-6b28-4a19-826e-052ef728e263'  
   ips:  
   - 41.103.213.89  
   - 41.100.213.59  
   - 41.100.40.58  
   -51.158.125.117  
   reason: 'Attempted Framing'  

   Code

   Mrorange34  
   uuid: 'bd9d9bf6-4bb5-4e1c-a884-0db45f7b6eff'  
   ips:  
   - 41.103.213.89  
   - 41.100.213.59  
   - 41.100.40.58  
   -51.158.125.117  
   -5.56.62.89  
   reason: 'Attempted Framing'  

2. What did they do?

Antiboy claimed this morning that they had been hacked, and that their minecraft account was compromised. They used a free alternate account obtaining website to gain access to the server, and presumably enjoyed the process enough to repeat it whilst making no attempt to conceal his identity

However, this all changed when they joined as ranscot. Upon joining, they asked on how to get operator status, trying to imply they were a new player. A few minutes later, they set their nickname to "SmashedNutz", impersonating another player, before announcing that they were selling the account named "Antiboy" which had allegedly been hacked this morning. They also, through discord, confirmed to us that ranscot was the alleged hacker, implying it was SmashedNuts before also telling an admin that they had a feeling who did it, although they named a different user here.

TL;DR he pretended to be hacked before pretending to be the hacker and another member of the server.

3. What indefinitely bannable offense does this fall under according to the conduct policy?

1e - Framing any member of TotalFreedom

4. Add logs and/or screenshots of the occurrence here, and tag any witnessing staff. Evidence of previous offenses that are not the direct cause of this request can also be added here.
   @"lyicx"#21 witnessed.

5. Are they known under any other names or IPs, and if so, are they currently (indefinitely) banned under those names and IPs? This information is used to keep track of ban bypassers.

No, however they possess a dynamic IP and have access to alts. I may amend this to add more accounts in future if and when bypassing occurs.

Note: Is there any chance this guy's indefinite ban can apply to hubs as well? Evidence has shown he enjoys messaging through the hub and he has already been banned to the hub several times for offences he's committed from there.

Quote

↩  You! What the hell was this guy trying to achieve?

Tbh I just think he thought he was invincible with alt accounts and spun a story for some attention points.

Quote

↩  ThePyroManActualAccount first off the player is a bit younger than most

Age doesn't matter. You don't become exempt from being held accountable for inventing a fake scenario to frame a player for one of the most serious of offences because you're below a certain age.

Quote

↩  ThePyroManActualAccount He's just a bit confused and although that framing thing did happen, I'd say he's too young to be held accountable

In other words, you're encouraging people to lie about their ages? So, wee Johnny can join the server, crash it with minecarts, but his indefinite ban request should be denied because he claims he's 10 years old or whatever?

You literally admitted he broke a section 1 rule on what planet is that not worthy of a ban?. If you're old enough to decide to make up a fake scenario like this, you're old enough to face the consequences for it. He knew exactly what he was doing.

From the evidence you have been provided I showed how he joined the server with a new account that he had obtained online, tried to act like he was a new player, set his nickname to resemble that of a recently banned bypasser (in other words, trying to insinuate his account was another one of their alts), claimed he had just hacked his own account and was looking to sell it, then went on to talk in discord about how he had suspects of who this "hacker" was (when it was actually himself).

Sure, he may have made a dogs dinner of it and fooled no one, but that isn't someone who isn't old enough to be held accountable.

He also knew to restart his router to be able to rejoin the server on another alt.

Quote

↩  ThePyroManActualAccount he was definetly just messing around

Pretty much every serial rulebreaker that we have ever banned on this server was someone messing around. Doesn't mean they're exempt.

I don't take much pleasure in doing this - but I'm not going to sit there and let someone try and frame another member. The fake hacking story isn't punishable no matter how fake it is. But accusing a totalfreedom member of being the hacker is.

↩  Caleb edited, I likely assumed they were in the same range. Thanks.