Raw abusing

[Aaadrum 60]

i was strolling on the forums and seen this post here --> https://prnt.sc/m9wqmv <-- now keep in mind while im fighting Raw at edge i see him say 'bye north' and was confused thought maybe he was saying by north bc edgeville ditch was north of us and we were done pking. Me knowing north407west as a friend and knowing hes banned i go to check discord to see if he's even online because i havent heard a single peep of him sneaking his way online or him saying anything to anyone about it, he plays escape from tarkov and league 24/7 now so i was confused. So i pmed north myself, and to be honest obviously i wasnt going to chime in if i figured out it was actually him. This is the pm --> http://prntscr.com/m9wsgn <-- i then posted this -->(he is @N4W) http://prntscr.com/m9wr8j <-- in our teams discord, and tagged him and 10 minutes later still have no reply, and hes still offline. Seriously this is a joke, and its obviously not going to stop. PLEASE @Ramzi @Ryan you guys have had multiple reports on the current staff team, Raw specifically. This is saddening.

 

Edited January 21, 2019 by Aaadrum

[The Used 1]

i can confirm, i have no idea who the fuck this north kid is? a simple ip check on my account will suffice. i log in from canada, specifically newfoundland.

[The Used 1]

@Raw

[RogueMX 123]

can yall stop being pathetic and grow up?

[The Used 1]

i started runex 3 days ago and have no part in whatever the staff is doing? i just want to play. ive been grinding for max cape for the past 3 days

[Aaadrum 60]

Just now, RogueMX said:

can yall stop being pathetic and grow up?

he banned a player he thought was a person who it wasnt? what do you mean grow up?

[Abowarlord7 5]

still yet to get a sorry from the staff team over my abusive mute, the owner seems to think it was unjust be the whole staff team has told me it was a 'fair mute'

This is getting beyond a joke, the staff team does what they want, mute who they want and ban who they want without anyone higher looking over their shoulder. Bunch of power hungry children.

[Ralph 208]

I've replied to the forums post that "The used" has made just in case anyone wants to take a peek as to why he was banned.

There's no need for this to be a public issue, but since it already is, there's no point in keeping it private.

I don't want to have to close this forums post, but comments like @Abowarlord7's will not be tolerated. If you'd like to message me personally we can discuss why you think your punishment was unjust, but it does not have a place in this forums thread.

 

[Iron Logic 910]

While I am sure many players and staff would have expected me to lampoon the staff members in question for this situation, I'm not here to do that. Quite frankly, if my assumption of the situation is correct, then I believe the staff acted in their rights, not in the manner I would have handled it, but it wasn't really abuse of power.

The situation as I know it is as follow;

• Player makes a comment that isn't nice towards Raw,
• Raw checks his IP or UID matches to see who it is,
• The match shows the invalid IP users list. Basically a list of all the users with IPs that are not loggable in our system and are given a blank IP, causing 100s or 1000s of members to match with each other.
• This list of players includes a few punished players, one that Raw saw being 'Ratpacknorth', leading Raw to believe they are the same person.
• Raw bans this newer player.
• The newer player gets freaked out and makes a forum post with multiple tags and no reply from staff,
• He tries to log on with his brothers account and tries to talk to staff, resulting in another ban.
• Ralph then replies to the players topic and says his UID ban will stick since he avoided his original punishment handed out by Raw earlier. Ralph also says this could have been avoided by PMing the staff members on discord or making an appeal to be ticketed. 

So if that is true, I can't 100% fault anyone in this situation. 
Raw was seemingly tricked by the uncommon invalid IP, and Ralph is correct in believing that the player avoided the punishment given by Raw, which is a bannable offence. 

But this whole situation should have been avoided.

1. Raw should have looking into the list of IP and UID matches a little more.
2. Raw should have spoken to this player before issuing a punishment.
3. Raw should have made a ticket for this player to be investigated. Innocent until proven guilty.
4. Staff as a whole should have been responding to the players help thread to talk him though the situation.
5. Staff should have unbanned the player the instant they began to doubt that he is who they think he is, again, innocent until proven guilty.

As few other things to note;

Firstly, Ralph says that the player bypassed a punishment to get back online after the ban by Raw, But I'm not entirely sure he did. Since he has a bugged IP, it is entirely possible that it just doesn't work on him and if he was regular account banned, then he is allowed to log on to another account. Look at it logically, if he was IP or UID banned properly, why would he bypass it but still log on to a different account and run up to staff and say who he is. It just doesn't add up, I think he was just panicked and logged on to his brothers account and it worked. 

But let's assume that he did bypass this punishment. It is not a fair punishment, the assumption that he was an old UID banned player is still not proven, so he should have never been banned. If he did bypass it, he did so to talk to the staff, to see why he was even banned. He was scared, confused and felt abused. I don't fault him for that, even if he did break the punishment avoiding rule on purpose, he should not be punish for it. 

Secondly, Ralph said that the player should have made an appeal so that Ramzi and Ryan could look in to it. It should never work this way, If the staff aren't 100% sure, they are the ones who need to ask Ryan and Ramzi to confirm a players possible guilt, not the other way around. Else we should ban every player on RuneX and force everyone to appeal so we can rid ourselves of any rule breakers. 

 

Again, I don't think the staff abused their powers here, I think they just made a mistake and handled it in the wrong way. I hope that this player is unbanned immediately and staff can submit a ticket to have his identity looked in to. I also hope that this is a learning experience and that we don't see this happen again. 

#freeTheUsed

[Humpy 111]

[Iron Logic 910]

1 hour ago, Humpy said:

Player gets banned for no reason.

Everyone should care mate. Could be you next time.

[Ralph 208]

I believe people are still angry at the staff team for making this punishment because no one, besides the staff team, has the full story. I am not making this to slander the player in question, I just want to show some transparency.

The story "The Used" gave to me after his first IP punishment did not hold up. I found multiple holes in his story and I do believe he is the player I believe he is. 

I'm not going to explain everything in detail but I did catch him lying to me and fabricating a story. 

After his first IP punishment, he avoided by "using his brother's computer". A story which I can tell is false because he had the same UID. This also would not make sense because the player was IP punished, not UID punished.

After he avoided punishment multiple times, he hopped on an alt and began to dox. If "The used" was a new player he would've had zero knowledge of the doxings that had taken place weeks ago. On top of this he added "#freekliksa". All of this evidence and his consistent lying to me makes me believe it is the player who I think it is.

On the topic of blank UIDs and IPs, I do believe this could've been the case as Logical described above. We've dealt with cases similar to this one before where the player was punished under assumption of being a IP or UID banned player. The situation I'm thinking of, the player contacted staff members outside of the game (forums pms) and we got in contact with Ryan and he confirmed that the player had a blank UID or IP issue and he should be unbanned. Had "The used" followed this procedure and not continued to break the rules he could've possibly been unbanned by now. Logical's point of innocent until proven guilty holds up in every punishment we issue. We had evidence via UID and IP match that the player in question was the same as a UID and IP banned player. I will admit it's not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, I could not prove 100% that they were the same players, however we had a very convincing reason.

The way that our ::UIDmatch command works is you select a certain player and it'll pull up a list of all the accounts that that UID has logged into. It will show logins from that UID/total logins. For example if I were to ::UIDmatch Ralph it would show [Online match] "Ralph" (264/1648 logins). The online match part doesn't play too much into this situation so I won't bother explaining it.

My point in explaining how UID and IP match work is that when we went to UIDmatch or IPmatch the player in question it showed he had a decent percentage of the UID and IP banned player in question. This would've only been possible if these were the same players, the player in question logged into the banned player's account at one point, or the blank UID/IP issue. The second case would not hold up because the UID and IP banned player was punished long before "The used" started playing. So we only had two conclusions, it was the same player, or it was the blank UID or IP issue. 

Since this issue did cause a lot of problems and drama I will be talking to the staff team and seeing if we can work out an alternative to how this situation can be dealt with in the future. It will probably be along the lines of what Logical said, getting Ryan or Ramzi involved before the punishment is issued. I believe it is vital to the integrity of this community that everyone who is punished is 100% guilty of the punishment.

Thank you for taking your time to read through this, I hope you all can see where the staff team is coming from with this punishment.

[Aaadrum 60]

1 minute ago, Ralph said:

I believe people are still angry at the staff team for making this punishment because no one, besides the staff team, has the full story. I am not making this to slander the player in question, I just want to show some transparency.

The story "The Used" gave to me after his first IP punishment did not hold up. I found multiple holes in his story and I do believe he is the player I believe he is. 

I'm not going to explain everything in detail but I did catch him lying to me and fabricating a story. 

After his first IP punishment, he avoided by "using his brother's computer". A story which I can tell is false because he had the same UID. This also would not make sense because the player was IP punished, not UID punished.

After he avoided punishment multiple times, he hopped on an alt and began to dox. If "The used" was a new player he would've had zero knowledge of the doxings that had taken place weeks ago. On top of this he added "#freekliksa". All of this evidence and his consistent lying to me makes me believe it is the player who I think it is.

On the topic of blank UIDs and IPs, I do believe this could've been the case as Logical described above. We've dealt with cases similar to this one before where the player was punished under assumption of being a IP or UID banned player. The situation I'm thinking of, the player contacted staff members outside of the game (forums pms) and we got in contact with Ryan and he confirmed that the player had a blank UID or IP issue and he should be unbanned. Had "The used" followed this procedure and not continued to break the rules he could've possibly been unbanned by now. Logical's point of innocent until proven guilty holds up in every punishment we issue. We had evidence via UID and IP match that the player in question was the same as a UID and IP banned player. I will admit it's not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, I could not prove 100% that they were the same players, however we had a very convincing reason.

The way that our ::UIDmatch command works is you select a certain player and it'll pull up a list of all the accounts that that UID has logged into. It will show logins from that UID/total logins. For example if I were to ::UIDmatch Ralph it would show [Online match] "Ralph" (264/1648 logins). The online match part doesn't play too much into this situation so I won't bother explaining it.

My point in explaining how UID and IP match work is that when we went to UIDmatch or IPmatch the player in question it showed he had a decent percentage of the UID and IP banned player in question. This would've only been possible if these were the same players, the player in question logged into the banned player's account at one point, or the blank UID/IP issue. The second case would not hold up because the UID and IP banned player was punished long before "The used" started playing. So we only had two conclusions, it was the same player, or it was the blank UID or IP issue. 

Since this issue did cause a lot of problems and drama I will be talking to the staff team and seeing if we can work out an alternative to how this situation can be dealt with in the future. It will probably be along the lines of what Logical said, getting Ryan or Ramzi involved before the punishment is issued. I believe it is vital to the integrity of this community that everyone who is punished is 100% guilty of the punishment.

Thank you for taking your time to read through this, I hope you all can see where the staff team is coming from with this punishment.

you guys think it was North407West and you're horribly wrong, actually NOWHERE NEAR right. this reply is pointless to read because you're clueless.

[Ralph 208]

Just now, Aaadrum said:

you guys think it was North407West and you're horribly wrong, actually NOWHERE NEAR right. this reply is pointless to read because you're clueless.

I would like you to please read through it.

The player might not be the same as North407West. Something which I admitted could've been a possibility in my post above. Please don't continue to insult on this thread, I'm trying to keep this discussion civil and I will not allow you to continue to do this. The post will be closed if it continues.

[Aaadrum 60]

1 minute ago, Ralph said:

I would like you to please read through it.

The player might not be the same as North407West. Something which I admitted could've been a possibility in my post above. Please don't continue to insult on this thread, I'm trying to keep this discussion civil and I will not allow you to continue to do this. The post will be closed if it continues.

Ralph, you said "I found multiple holes in his story and I do believe he is the player I believe he is. " He's not. that's all im saying so i am allowed to tell you your argument is invalid. If you cant handle being wrong, just stop throwing assumptions out. Becuase you are in fact wrong, and it is not the player you thought it was.

[lot a sauce 0]

I do find it funny that the one being accused of abusing, won't post on this thread? Seems he needs Ralph to do his talking for him. 

[Raw 686]

1 hour ago, lot a sauce said:

I do find it funny that the one being accused of abusing, won't post on this thread? Seems he needs Ralph to do his talking for him. 

This thread can actually be closed as I had all the correct information and everything was handled.
I don't always post on the forums, nor do I need anyone to speak for me. 

I don't have to explain every action I do to the general playerbase as some things aren't their business. You can come to whichever conclusion you wish and assume I abused here but logs and account checks prove otherwise.