I'll once again state, you attempted (unsuccessfully) to exploit Log4J on the network. Everything beyond that is ultimately irrelevant, just because we had patched it / put things in place to stop it, doesn't mean you didn't attempt it.
Ignoring all of that even if I did invalidate the log4j bit and review your ban, the duration would likely get extended due to the number of offences you committed compared to others (As I said, being the 2nd largest offender)
Yes but as a whole by the time I have attempted this the entire CVE was well-patched in the Log4J library officially, the resource name "get_balls" had no intents of ever reaching a destination in the first place unless I specified a domain name extension or it internally routed to somewhere, There's nothing written in the Log4J library routes it to anywhere else other than what's specified (does not append .com or anything of the sort) and it needs to be a functional LDAP server which was not plausible in my case, why should this specifically on it's own be considered a primary reason of extension onto the duration? I intended this to be a simple joke alongside with the other fake addresses such as the "|||||||||||||||||||" one and I wasn't even directly intending for it to cause stuff to occur on any part of the network, Log4J never intended for LDAP to be accessible in any string and Join Addresses aren't even parsed using Log4J per code investigation on my end. Nothing would have happened in a scenario where I was to log in and the network was vulnerable since it would need to be logged via Log4J, it's simply illogical to have join addresses being logged to a log other than for debug purposes but debug code generally gets removed/disabled in releases of any software so nothing should've had a reason to pass it to Log4J. I personally considered it to be harmless as at that point in the time it was patched to be not accessible whatsoever.
All you've done is confirm what I said in the reply you quoted me on, you ATTEMPTED the exploit. That's all that matters here, because the reality is you couldn't have known with 100% confidence is it was vulnerable or not. Your ban was extended because you attempted to execute an exploit against the server, the fact that we had put a number of mitigations in place to ensure we weren't at risk (Because your understanding that this couldn't have been an issue is incorrect) was not well known before the threads relating to your appeal and the bottom line is you did attempt to execute an exploit against the server, even if it was unsuccessful.