Respectfully, it is quite clear from your response that you have not fully read or understood my appeal/dispute, because several of the points you are responding to are not claims I made in the first place.
I never claimed that every image used in the GIFs was the image you personally sent on Discord. I explicitly explained the different sources in my appeal.
Your image was publicly posted by you in a public Discord server, and you explicitly stated that you sent it yourself and that people could send it, no objections.
Aside from that, the other picture of you was obtained from your publicly accessible LinkedIn profile. Your full name is publicly visible through your Minecraft username history, and that name can be used to see your publicly accessible LinkedIn profile. The picture itself was therefore already publicly available. I never claimed that the LinkedIn picture was the same picture you sent in Discord.
So your statement that “only one of the images was personally sent by me” does not contradict my appeal. I never claimed otherwise.
Regarding wesl0a, your statement that there was "no publicly available information indicating that the instagram account belongs to him or that the person in the photo is him" is also not accurate.
Wesl0a’s name was/is publicly visible through his username history. There were also visible connections leading to the relevant Instagram account. More importantly, the picture used was his account’s
publicly visible profile picture (you can`t hide your pfp), which wesl0a himself explicitly confirmed that the person in that profile picture was him (image 1 of the main Thread).
I'm not claiming that his entire Instagram account was public. His account being private does not make the profile picture itself a private pic. The picture was displayed as the account’s profile picture and was visible without accessing private posts, stories, messages, or other private content.
This is also why I specifically said in my appeal that no private picture was leaked. The distinction is between obtaining and exposing a private picture vs using a picture that was already publicly displayed as someone`s profile picture.
Again, I`m not claiming that publicly available information automatically means Loka permits it to be reposted. I have already acknowledged Rule 6.1 and specifically addressed the fact that Loka’s rule is broader than the ordinary/legal meaning of doxxing.
My argument is that no private information was leaked or obtained by us.
There is also an important point regarding intent which you of course have not addressed:
You submitted a report ticket in my own server, FFA Clan Hub. During that process, you screen-shared your IP address to me so that the report could be verified.
I therefore had access to information that was actually private and sensitive. If my intention was genuinely to doxx you, I had access to information that would fit the understanding of doxxing much more closely. Yet I NEVER published it, shared it, threatened you with it, or used it against you.
Instead, the information involved in this punishment was publicly accessible information. Which is relevant to the allegation that this was an intentional attempt to expose private information.
You also stated that I and Birb created the GIFs.
That is a factual error.
Neither Birb nor I created the GIFs. The GIFs were already being created and circulated by multiple people. We shared GIFs that already existed. If you`re still claiming that we created them, provide evidence supporting that claim.
I am also not arguing that the GIFs themselves were appropriate. I have already explicitly separated that issue from the doxxing allegation, which you would`ve seen if you actually read my entire appeal/dispute.
The punishment we are disputing/appealing is for doxxing. If Loka truly believes the GIFs violated another rule, that is a separate matter and should be addressed under the relevant rule rather than being used to establish that private information was leaked.
As for your statement that “it is your responsibility to read the rules”, I agree that players are responsible for knowing the rules.
That doesn`t mean that the circumstances surrounding a punishment are irrelevant.
Before this punishment, we were not aware that Rule 6.1 was intended to classify the reposting of information as doxxing even when that information had already been voluntarily made publicly available by the person themselves. Which is also why i acknowledged the wording of that rule instead of pretending that the rule doesn`t exist.
The issue isn`t whether Loka is allowed to have that rule, the issue is that our understanding of doxxing was based on the ordinary/legal meaning of the term: exposing private information with intent. We did not understand Loka to be using a broader, server-specific interpretation that also covers publicly available images even when the person themselves had made them public. And if that is Loka’s interpretation, I understand it now and will respect it going forward.
There is also a big difference between saying:
“You violated Rule 6.1 because Loka’s rule prohibits reposting images even if the person shared them themselves.”
and:
“You doxxed someone by leaking their private information.”
Those arn`t necessarily the same factual claim.
The points in this case:
- Your face had already been publicly posted by you.
- You explicitly stated that you sent the picture yourself.
- You explicitly stated that people could send it.
- The other picture of you came from a publicly accessible Linkedin profile.
- The information used to check that profile was publicly visible through your Minecraft username history.
- Wesl0a’s Instagram profile picture was publicly visible, and he acknowledged that it was his profile picture.
- His previous Minecraft username was publicly visible.
- No private address, phone number, etc. was leaked.
- No private database or private account was obtained or exposed.
- I had actually been shown your IP address during a report you submitted to my server and never used or disclosed it. Which would be far better to use when doxxing someone.
- Neither Birb nor I created the GIFs which you claimed I/we did.
- I also never claimed that SummerFling should automatically be punished.
I brought up the SummerFling example to ask how Rule 6.1 is applied consistently when the same principle is involved: a person publicly sharing an image and another person later reposting it.
Likewise, the other public example I sent was not an accusation that someone “must be banned.” It was a request for clarification about how Loka distinguishes those circumstances under the same interpretation of Rule 6.1.
So the point of my appeal remains very simple:
What private information did I actually leak?
If Loka’s answer is that Rule 6.1 independently prohibits reposting publicly available images, even when the person themselves originally made those images public, then I understand that interpretation now.
But that is exactly why I am asking staff to consider the circumstances, intent, the fact that we were unaware of this broader interpretation, the public origin of the material, and the absence of any private-information leak when reviewing the punishment.
I`m not asking Loka to ignore its rules. I`m asking Loka to review what actually happened rather than treating publicly available material as though we had obtained and exposed private information.
This will be my last reply to anyone in this Thread. I have evidence for all of the points above, screenshots, timestamps, report evidence and other relevant materials and they`ve already been sent to an Elder on dc. They will decide based on the evidence presented what will happen.
Thank you for your time Loka, and to whoever took their time to read everything I had to say.
