kmpk99 perma ban appeal

Vouch, I'd say it has been enough time, just don't do something stupid again.

↩ @'r00t' In my context, it's a mixed society, a society full of people who break rules would be bad, but a mixed is perfect, this is why guys like kmpk99 deserve a second chance.

dont even know what to put on this one: object, vouch or neutral?

Quote

↩  Shdwo object, logs clearly show you executed the commands

yea, CLEARLY show that he executed the commands

21:58:04 [INFO] [NetworkManager] ?c| ?7Found new punishment with id: 17

21:58:04 [INFO] [iIFrozenFireIi] disconnected with: ?7You have been kicked from the network

Kicked by: KMPK99

?7Reason: Flying is not enabled on this server!

I first want to point out that the fact that it was a bug cannot be used as a get-out-of-jail-free card. Yes, it is not batchest's fault that the bug was there. However, as mentioned above, the conduct policy at the time was clear on this topic, and it was obvious that the access was not authorized:

Quote

f. Unauthorized access to admin-exclusive resources.

With that said, there is still a split vote here coming from doubts about whether batchest actually issued the ban command. batchest has sent his client logs to Video, but the chat logs were missing from them, which means they did not provide any useful insights. On the other hand, Ryan has provided evidence that reasonably allows you to conclude that batchest did issue the command. For that reason, I have to give the benefit of the doubt to Ryan.

If you remove the arguments above from the votes, it becomes clear that the objections win out, which means this appeal is denied. You may appeal again in 30 days.