Email Appeal - Wilee

So far in this thread there has been one single person who has tried to dispute any of the points made in the appeal, funny how easy it is to say, “he doesn’t feel remorse”, “he didn’t even make an apology” “lol essay TL;DR” - these are in no way acceptable objections to what the user in question is appealing. If you didn’t actually want people to be able to DOX anybody who has been associated with TF, then perhaps you should amend the rules instead of spouting mockery on a permban appeal. It doesn’t matter whether or not an individual gives an apology or not, because if the ban in question was invalid from the get-go, then there is no point in apologizing for simply abiding by the current conduct policy. Hence, the only conclusion to be made here is that Wilee is being held to an exceptionally high standard because of his status in the community.

A personal attack because the user is objecting on the basis that he believes Wilee is a serial doxxer, when this is a one-time instance? Dear Zekurt, please excuse me for having my own doubts. Of course Wilee wouldn't do it if it was a direct breach of the conduct policy, however that was - and still is - not the case. Change the rules before abusing your power as an Admin to permban a user.

When has Wilee commited any major offence that caused him to get permbanned? If you were to make an amendment to the Dox clause and extend it to banned-players of the community as well, then do you honestly believe that Wilee would do it again? Why should he apologize for doing something he did with good intentions and was NOT against the conduct policy?

You don't.


Fairly unanimous AFTER the punishment was dealt – the TF staff haven’t even amended the rules yet, so technically I could do the same and it would be illegitimate of you to ban me as well.

“Permbanned-member”. Makes real sense that when you get excluded from a community, then you are still a member of said community. Sure that’s not a stretch?

Also screaming “whataboutism” is not an argument. As Mibbzz has already noted: it is not whataboutism, because he’s trying to show the clear precedent that has been set in relevance to the matter of doxing.

Strawmanning me and trying to look cool whilst being factually incorrect is indeed not cool.


No. YOU should make a suggestion to amend the current rules in place, not the other way around.

Again, why should he regret doing something with good intentions? Why should he regret not breaking any part of the conduct policy? What is there to learn other than the fact that a big chunk of the Admin staff likes to make up rules on the go and ban people for rules that are not in place.

Why would I do that? I agree with the current rules, and my interpretation of them (and frankly, most peoples common sense interpretation) is what the owner and executive admin intended and agree with. I don't have to do anything.

At no point did I say that he is a serial doxxer. I merely stated that he has not apologised (not even to Nathaniel) for this, and if he doesn't think what he did was wrong, why wouldn't I believe there is a risk of re-offending. Ultimately, however, this is a matter of opinion and judgment.

I don't know Wilee, and I haven't really communicated with him on the forums. I completely refute your allegation that I am objecting based on a personal dislike for him.



He hasn't been permbanned or committed any major offences for a long time: I am sure we agree on that point. I am not going to go and dig up specific examples as it isn't really helpful or relevant.

Whether it is against the conduct policy is to a certain extent a matter of interpretation (if considering 1c): does a permbanned player constitute an OP? We have differing views on this, and no amount of discussion between us is going to change that.

If the conduct policy were to be updated, then I don't believe he would do the same thing. However, if his response to this is to avoid taking responsibility at all costs, then I do believe he might look for other loopholes (as I see them).

He might consider apologising to Nathaniel. I am not looking for him to apologise to the server for this. I note that he could apologise to Nathaniel without admitting he broke the conduct policy. The fact he is helping someone or has good intentions, if true, doesn't change my opinion that he broke a rule. If he had apologised, or does apologise to Nathaniel now, I will not object to an unban. I will make that very clear.

___

I think the issue you and I have is that we disagree on the root of this matter. We don't agree on whether or not it is a breach of the rules. The issue is, regardless of any discussion we have, we're not going to agree on whether he should apologise because we don't agree on whether he has broken a rule.

If people can't bother reading an "essay", as you politely put it, then perhaps they shouldn't participate in the appeal section on the forums (or even be an Admin altogether, but that's for a different discussion). It's not even a question on if people are misconstruing the conduct policy because the conduct policy is very very clear: 

Regardless if you call it a loophole or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that this policy ONLY protects OPS, ADMINS or OWNER. If you want banned players to also be under this protection, then you must first amend this clause, otherwise you are abusing your powers as Admins by making up rules on the fly.  I am not condoning DOX'ing, but banning somebody over a rule that is not there is indeed dumb. Rules exist to be followed. Wilee followed these rules to a tee. If you disagree with his methods, then you need to make a suggestion on banning the practice of doxxing players whom are banned from Total Freedom, meaning the policy would instead read:

Just because this is a MineCraft server, although I would call it a community, does not negate the fact that this is a blatant abuse of power by the staff team. According to this logic, you might as well not have any conduct policy, because this is "just a minecraft server, not a soverign country".


It’s frustrating that this discussion is centered around whether or not doxxing is wrong, when that has nothing to do with Wilee’s permban. You cannot just ban somebody for doing something against your moral beliefs – you can however add a new rule to prevent this from happening in the future.

You agreeing with the current rule and your interpretation has nothing to do with this discussion. The policy you are speaking of is not in place, therefore you cannot ban somebody for a non-existent policy. Make a suggestion to amend the conduct policy, and only then can you use this argument in the future. So yeah, if you want this change, you indeed have to do something.
Linking a thread without giving any comment is one might deem spam. Why are you linking their suspension threads?
Except they aren’t. Peole excluded from the community are NOT members of said community. You all agreeing to abuse your power to ban Wilee is void of any substance. The conduct policy literally says “ops, admins and owner” - the person in question was neither. Amend the rules instead of abusing your privileges.

So you admit that you will abuse your powers to ban anybody you dislike. Because that is what has happened here. So yeah, you are pretty corrupt for not following your own conduct policy set in place.

Your objection is based on nothing then, because the player in question has not been a problem in the past, nor has he displayed any form of attitude of wanting to do it again. Change the rules, and you can have it your way, but first unban Wilee. 

Anyways, I agree on the last part if we cannot get to an agreement on whether we should follow the conduct policy or just the community consensus on the matter. But at least be transparent and clearly argue that you disagree with the conduct policy. 

Of course you have to actually defend your opinion on the matter. If you cannot actually argue for why you are wanting to keep Wilee banned, then you don’t actually have any grounds to stand on. What ultimately should decide whether or not your or my opinion is acceptable is a clear reading of the conduct policy, wherein Nathaniel is not under the protected classes. If you interpret it differently, then please do tell, because I don’t see how you can stretch it to him being under the groups “op, admin or owner”.

Then our owner is abusing said policy, because the person in question was not protected under this clause. You want Seth to be the ultimate ruler, or do you want some sort of community input as well? 

I object due to Darth's reasoning.