What's new
By:
Loka Forums

Type /register while in-game to register for a forums account.

Rolyy "Win Trading" Ban Appeal **FALSE BAN**

Status
Not open for further replies.
__Ske__ said:
tbh there is a lack of proof against them imo, even tho its possible that they had the intention of feeding strength, there isnt much evidence against them, and they were actually trying to pull ppl from what ive seen (even i got dms for reins)
but at the same time, goofy kd farming could have affected the outcome of the garama month (concord vs AOI) so maybe the strength that concord gained from dawnstar could have just been rolled back, and yall could have told dawnstar to stop placing for kd cuz its gonna mess up the month
View attachment 13379
Click to expand...
Thank you lawyer ske
 
1761351413648.png
how is it possible to be provided specific evidence AGAINST win trading, and then ban someone for it lmao????
 
+1 I think only the final fight can even be used as (bad) evidence for win trading due to their knowledge of numbers warping to the previous. It is clear the other 20 or so fights this month between them definitely weren't wintrading. And even for the final fight there are very fair reasons already provided for the stats being as they are. More evidence would be needed in my opinion to differentiate between a fight placed with a slight chance of winning(and using a strategy that supports that) and actual wintrading.
 
maybe if we keep sending screenshots of stuff that has nothing to do with dawnstar owners being 🧠❌ he will get unbanned
@soncile
 
Very obviously not a case of wintrading especially when these 2 player groups constantly argue and beef with one another. They have been having fights against eachother for quite some time this month and it is clear both sides have been fighting with the intention of winning as the chat logs have shown. Whenever a ban related to wintrading happens it is almost always controversial and frankly this rule really should be rewritten entirely so that it is more clear and understandable to the playerbase. Player relations are constantly changing and aligned player groups might suddenly find themselves opposed. It is completely normal and it is part of what makes the server "click" so I really hope handing out braindead bans like this whenever it happens does not become the norm.

Even more bizarre is the way the ban (and probably the "investigation" leading up to it) were conducted. I understand the server does not have infinite staff members but for the sake of maintaining trust between the playerbase and the staff team things should not be handled like this in the future. Staff members on the opposing side should have no involvement whatsoever with issuing out bans or investigating "wintrading" etc. when the outcome of their decision or the decision they help make would change the outcome of the month those staff members are directly involved in. I obviously am not in the staff team and I do not know how this ban in particular was handled or who was involved in carrying it out but I think that is probably part of the problem. Clarity in matters like this from the staff team would be nice. When you get a controversial ban like this where the lead up a day before is an active guardian (who happens to lead their opposing alliance) asking them questions right before they are banned it gives off a very bad look.

Players should not be punished for making use of basic server mechanics to achieve ingame goals just because members of the staff team happen to have some preconcieved notions of which player groups are aligned with who. As stated prior, these player relations are constantly evolving and they are dynamic by nature. Players who were friends one month or who set their differences aside to achieve a common goal can easily turn against eachother the next, or halfway through the month! Banning for this is just stupid and sets a terrible precedent.

An unban and an apology should be issued though what is likely gonna happen is the beloved "Loka" forum account and whichever goon happens to be logged into it at the time will type up a couple paragraphs that basically mean nothing telling them to wait out the 1 month bans because it is just 1 month and nothing will change and the rule will remain as vague as ever and this will all happen again.

Oh well! +1
 
+1 Just as a i said in carbs appeal, there's clear proof they were actually going for cap. HL bias is crazy, guardians shouldn't be able to participate in alliance this heavily or even own the alliance.
 
I am not sure which part of win trading are they getting punished for, what I know is that they are actually contesting continential cap
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top