Regarding ssence/offlinetvfan's Ban Appeal

Dear GMs/Tim,

I was following offlinetvfan's ban appeal and it looks like his permanent ban was maintained by majority vote. I’m hoping his permanent ban can be reconsidered into a temporary ban.

1. The rationale for the ban has shifted over time, which suggests the situation was not clear-cut.
The original justification was that ssence’s gameplay was not possible while remaining following the ToS. However, this later became recognized as a gray area, to the point where a new rule was introduced specifically to prohibit his setup.

Now, the justification for the permanent ban has shifted to “robotic play.” When the permanent ban results from interpretations of unclear evolving rules, a permanent ban feels disproportionate. In situations where there is reasonable doubt or ambiguity, a temporary suspension and warning would be a far more measured response.

2. A permanent ban should require clear, unambiguous evidence of severe abuse.

In ssence’s case, the evidence cited was that he failed to respond to prompts for over five minutes and was unaware of loot across multiple channels. Past players banned for not responding to prompts have typically resulted in a temporary ban first. I’ve listed two examples below.

· https://royals.ms/forum/threads/ban-appeal.246604/
· https://royals.ms/forum/threads/ban-appeal.241864/#post-1495447

Additionally, in the community feedback thread regarding the newly added clarification to third-party hardware/software rules, many players still expressed confusion about what specifically constitutes “robotic play” under these updated standards. That ongoing confusion further reinforces the point that the standards surrounding this issue were not universally understood or clearly established. When rules are still being clarified, elevating straight to a permanent ban feels unfair.

3. ssence’s intent does not appear malicious, and permanently banning experimentation sets a harmful precedent for the rest of the community.

Based on the background ssence provided, including his attempt to discuss the nature of his experiment with a GM, his intent was to explore the limits of min maxing mage farming while remaining within the boundaries of the ToS. My understanding is that this type of experimentation and limit-testing is encouraged by the GMs and it keeps players engaged in the game.

Punishing a player permanently for crossing a line that was not clearly defined at the time sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the community. It discourages creative gameplay and experimentation out of fear that unclear boundaries may later be interpreted differently and result in a permanent ban.

To be clear, this is not an argument that rules should not be enforced. Rather, it is an appeal for fairness. If the staff believed ssence crossed the line, then a temporary ban or ToS clarification would have addressed the issue.

 

Player provides full detail about his setup and video evidence. GMs vague post about discussion and change rules based on his setup. Rules still unclear to most of the community and yet GMs don’t see that someone was just genuinely pushing the limit without trying to break rules. Player remains banned. Seems fair and all above board ‍♂️

 

And this is exactly one of the reason why I jumped ship.

Pathetic.

 

While I agree staff could be a bit more transparent, as with the information given a temporary ban might sound more fitting,ulticlienting so much that you do not notice that you are looting other people's maps doesn't sound like experimenting to me. Rules are pretty clear that you gotta be at least looking at your screen.

If you jumped ship why are you even here though? If you just wanna complain or stir shit up I'd suggest becoming a politician.

 

You know in a football match when a player gets a red card and they protest, but everyone knows the ref won't ever change his mind so why bother? This feels like that. Anyways...
I thought Joe did a really excellent job laying out why some of us feel a permanent ban for Raymond is harsh. Here are some of my thoughts.

1. Visual impairment
If you've played with him you'd know it wasn't exactly uncommon for him to not respond in guild/alli chat. Its just something you pick up when you game with someone for awhile. Raymond isn't stupid, I know for a fact he did not want to disclose this for obvious reasons. I've seen several ableist comments from members of this community that frankly make me sick. Did staff give this reason any play in their review? I think its relevant given how his response time seems to be an issue now.

2. Permanent vs 90 day
It's my understanding from reading the TOS (holy shit yikes Jack) that given the amount of accidental map looting he did this would result in a 90 day ban. I think, foolishly, I thought that's how this appeal would end up. How exactly does a permanent ban protect the community?

3. Staff backflips

Bacon, 1. you know this response will piss us off.
2. you literally had a staff member announce someone's ban in the blacklist thread. You can't have it both ways.

Can't quote ban appeal but from Heidi
"To be clear, that interaction is largely unrelated to your ban. Whether or not you could respond 'promptly' is not the issue"

From Tim's final message
"other aspects of your gameplay especially regarding not noticing what channels your visiting to loot / not replying to others while playing lead to a majority vote of keeping you banned for robotic play."

This is a contradiction, when did it become an issue? It seems given the updated rules to mage farming, 1:1 actions that Raymond most likely won't keep his current farm set up... So why give him the permanent ban?

I'll admit, I am biased and pissed that y'all got me writing walls of texts over a mushroom game but Raymond is my friend and a guildie. I will miss playing with him and I will especially miss seeing his bishop, xx69urmomxx, res someone in VL.