Official Complaint Department Discussion Thread

[UnknownLegend 5480]

Just now, Karma said:

I was playing TTT GO with Lindsay, Anti-Teal, Loading and and another SO whose name I cannot remember. Everything was wonderful (love that server even though I'm terrible) we were trying to populate. Reaper comes in and decides to say "I am going to RDM you and take a screenshot because Nom Noms said to" then proceeds to RDM me for his screenshot. When I asked @Jeff The Flying Shark to speak with reaper about it, this is the response I got:

 

 

Now, I'm not saying he needs to be banned, but honestly...  Staff should know better than to knowingly break the rules of any server, especially in the attempt to stroke one member's dick while impeding on the rights of another member, 

Most RDM'ers have the decency to at least pretend they killed someone accidentally but Reaper basically came in and was like yeah I'm about to shit on you regardless of the rules. I'd love to continue playing the server but because I am currently being prevented from doing so, I had time to make this post. BTW while I do not have the screenshot of the incident, Reaper kindly continued his attitude toward the situation in the screenshot you see above. I can assume that @AntiTeal  @Lindsay can confirm this information as well.

 

Thank you for your time in reviewing this issue. 

 

 

 

[Swed 2651]

@TheShovL I didn't know the rules therefore I should be immune to them?

 

 

[Jodas 1542]

4 hours ago, Swed said:

@TheShovL I didn't know the rules therefore I should be immune to them?

[Booch 257]

All you have to do is !rules to figure out that macros aren't allowed

[TheShovL 18]

4 hours ago, Booch said:

All you have to do is !rules to figure out that macros aren't allowed

Can you or someone please quote a line of the rules where it specifically says Macros/Scripts are prohibited, bc I'm pretty stupid.

[Faded 266]

Just now, TheShovL said:

Can you or someone please quote a line of the rules where it specifically says Macros/Scripts are prohibited, bc I'm pretty stupid.

 

 

 

 

Hacking/Exploiting - Hacking will NOT be tolerated under any circumstance. We take pride in our new 0% tolerance hacking policy. Hacking includes, but is not limited to, the use of scripts, programs, or materials to unfairly tilt the game to your advantage.

 

I will say it is a little annoying you have to click on the hyperlink in the Global General Rules (http://www.joinsg.net/page/motd/global) to get here, but if we posted the full list of rules on every server MOTD it would be a mile long.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Sportsteen583

[TheShovL 18]

Just now, Sportsteen583 said:

 

 

Hacking/Exploiting - Hacking will NOT be tolerated under any circumstance. We take pride in our new 0% tolerance hacking policy. Hacking includes, but is not limited to, the use of scripts, programs, or materials to unfairly tilt the game to your advantage.

 

I will say it is a little annoying you have to click on the hyperlink in the Global General Rules (These are general rules to be followed on all our servers in addition to the Syndicate Gamers Global Guidelines .) to get here, but if we posted the full list of rules on every server MOTD it would be a mile long.

Ty, I must have just missed it, I remember seeing the "Hacking/Exploiting" but I guess I never read it fully. Like I said earlier, until recently I didn't know bhop scripts weren't allowed on servers, and until just now(when you quoted it) I didn't know it was considered hacking.

[Jodas 1542]

6 hours ago, TheShovL said:

Like I said earlier, until recently I didn't know bhop scripts weren't allowed on servers, and until just now(when you quoted it) I didn't know it was considered hacking.

Does that mean you were also using those in match making? 

Or did you figure that you'd get banned if you used scripts in mm?

[TheShovL 18]

A friend of mine was good at Bhopping and I got him to show me how but I figured that's how most people did it. One of my Steam friends got banned for hacking but he claimed Bhops were the only things he had then I heard of the rule on ZE and now I have learned that apparently I'm an avid hacker that should be banned from playing all csgo.

And was it really that serious to Perma ban me? I was the one that wanted to have a report made because I wanted to apologize and I felt bad for accidentally breaking the rules. Now I have gotten Permanently banned from the server because I was using Bhop scripts, I never even got a warning until the day I stopped(because of said warning that day).

Also now I'm getting worried about this whole Blocked thing so I don't even know if anyone can read my messages or if I will ever be able to appeal/shorten my ban or even publicly apologize.

I don't even have Warning points on my account(if that even means anything{it could just be for bad forums posts}).

 

[Imperium 295]

Just now, TheShovL said:

A friend of mine was good at Bhopping and I got him to show me how but I figured that's how most people did it. One of my Steam friends got banned for hacking but he claimed Bhops were the only things he had then I heard of the rule on ZE and now I have learned that apparently I'm an avid hacker that should be banned from playing all csgo.

And was it really that serious to Perma ban me? I was the one that wanted to have a report made because I wanted to apologize and I felt bad for accidentally breaking the rules. Now I have gotten Permanently banned from the server because I was using Bhop scripts, I never even got a warning until the day I stopped(because of said warning that day).

Also now I'm getting worried about this whole Blocked thing so I don't even know if anyone can read my messages or if I will ever be able to appeal/shorten my ban or even publicly apologize.

I don't even have Warning points on my account(if that even means anything{it could just be for bad forums posts}).

 

Broke the rules you are supposed to read and got banned and now wonders why they are permanbanned

 

[TheShovL 18]

Just now, Imperium said:

Broke the rules you are supposed to read and got banned and now wonders why they are permanbanned

I've been using bhop scripts for less than a month, and still never got a warning.

[Swed 2651]

Just now, TheShovL said:

I've been using bhop scripts for less than a month, and still never got a warning.

So your argument is the fact that you didn't get caught initially warrants a more lenient punishment?   

[TheShovL 18]

Just now, Swed said:

So your argument is the fact that you didn't get caught initially warrants a more lenient punishment?   

not the fact that I didn't get caught but the fact that I didn't know what I was doing was wrong.

[Swed 2651]

Just now, TheShovL said:

not the fact that I didn't get caught but the fact that I didn't know what I was doing was wrong.

Ignorantia juris non excusat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (February 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Ignorantia juris non excusat[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat[2] (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"[1] and "ignorance of law excuses no one"[2] respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content.

European-law countries with a tradition of Roman law may also use an expression from Aristotle translated into Latin: nemo censetur ignorare legem (nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law) or ignorantia iuris nocet (not knowing the law is harmful).

Contents

  [hide] 

1Explanation

2Translation

3Into law

4See also

5References

Explanation[edit]

See also: Promulgation and Promulgation (canon law)

The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that one was unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even if that person really does know what the law in question is. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the jurisdiction no matter how transiently. Even though it would be impossible, even for someone with substantial legal training, to be aware of every law in operation in every aspect of a state's activities, this is the price paid to ensure that willful blindness cannot become the basis of exculpation. Thus, it is well settled that persons engaged in any undertakings outside what is common for a normal person, such as running a nuclear power plant, will make themselves aware of the laws necessary to engage in that undertaking. If they do not, they cannot complain if they incur liability.

The doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly promulgated—published and distributed, for example, by being printed in a government gazette, made available over the internet, or printed in volumes available for sale to the public at affordable prices. In the ancient phrase of Gratian, Leges instituuntur cum promulgantur ("Laws are instituted when they are promulgated").[3] In order that a law obtain the binding force which is proper to a law, it must be applied to the men who have to be ruled by it. Such application is made by their being given notice by promulgation. A law can only bind when it is reasonably possible for those to whom it applies may acquire knowledge of it in order to observe it, even if actual knowledge of the law is absent for a particular individual. A secret law is no law at all.

In the criminal law, although ignorance may not clear a defendant of guilt, it can be a consideration in sentencing, particularly where the law is unclear or the defendant sought advice from law enforcement or regulatory officials. For example, in one Canadian case, a person was charged with being in possession of gambling devices after they had been advised by customs officials that it was legal to import such devices into Canada.[4] Although the defendant was convicted, the sentence was an absolute discharge.

In addition, there were, particularly in the days before satellite communication and cellular phones, persons who could genuinely be ignorant of the law due to distance or isolation. For example, in a case in British Columbia, a pair of hunters were acquitted of game offenses where the law was changed during the period they were in the wilderness hunting.[citation needed] In reaching this decision, the court refused to follow an early English law case in which a seaman on a clipper before the invention of radio was convicted even though the law had been changed while he was at sea (Bailey (1800) Russ & Ry 1).

An alternate explanation of the origin of the maxim, though not particularly relevant to the modern context, can be found with the philosophy of the Greeks and Romans. These were cultures heavily influenced by customary legal systems. Within such a system, law is learned as a person participates in the culture and customs of the community. Thus it is unreasonable to believe a person could have avoided learning them. These rules and customs were also interwoven with ethical and religious dialog so that laws expressed what is right and good and deviation that which is not. We find that Cicero wrote the following in De re publica (On the Republic):

"There is a true law, right reason, agreeable to nature, known to all men, constant and eternal, which calls to duty by its precepts, deters from evil by its prohibition. This law cannot be departed from without guilt. Nor is there one law at Rome and another at Athens, one thing now and another afterward; but the same law, unchanging and eternal, binds all races of man and all times."

Plato wrote similarly in Minos:

"What’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong. And isn’t this believed by everyone ... even among the Persians, and always? ... What is fine, no doubt, is everywhere legislated as fine, and what is shameful as shameful; but not the shameful as fine or the fine as shameful."

[TheShovL 18]

I just don't see how me breaking 1 rule and Bhopping rules for me to be banned permanently from my favorite server. And may I add that I was bad before I used them and Even when I was using them I still failed to properly Bhop for the life of me.

[Booch 257]

I just don't see how me breaking 1 rule and Bhopping rules for me to be banned permanently from my favorite server. And may I add that I was bad before I used them and Even when I was using them I still failed to properly Bhop for the life of me.

What point did you find in hacking?

[Swed 2651]

Just now, TheShovL said:

I just don't see how me breaking 1 rule and Bhopping rules for me to be banned permanently from my favorite server. And may I add that I was bad before I used them and Even when I was using them I still failed to properly Bhop for the life of me.

Cheating badly doesn't excuse you from cheating.  

[TheShovL 18]

Just now, Booch said:

What point did you find in hacking?

I assume you're asking at what point did I realize that Bhop scripts were hacking, and I didn't until last night. If that's not what you were asking sorry.

I just think it's a little unreasonable, I have tried my hardest not to ever break any rules and now I have broken one and gotten Permanently banned. I've already apologized to everyone and don't even have that stupid script thingy anymore.

Just now, Booch said:

What point did you find in hacking?

Also you may mean, What reason did I have for hacking, in that case, None I didn't even know Bhop scripts were hacks like I have already said quite a few times.

[Rootbeer 1293]

Just now, TheShovL said:

I just don't see how me breaking 1 rule and Bhopping rules for me to be banned permanently from my favorite server.

 

Just wait out the 6 months and appeal then, most first time offenders that I've seen have been approved pretty fast. From what I've seen of you, you're not a negative part of our population so an unban should be ezpz. The ban's mainly to show that we have 0 tolerance of cheating on our servers.

[TheShovL 18]

Just now, Rootbeer said:

 

Just wait out the 6 months and appeal then, most first time offenders that I've seen have been approved pretty fast. From what I've seen of you, you're not a negative part of our population so an unban should be ezpz. The ban's mainly to show that we have 0 tolerance of cheating on our servers.

So with a perma I have to wait 6 months before I could even possibly get an appeal up?

[Rootbeer 1293]

Just now, TheShovL said:

So with a perma I have to wait 6 months before I could even possibly get an appeal up?

 

Yep, minimum of 6 months of bantime to appeal a permanent ban.

[TheShovL 18]

Just now, Rootbeer said:

 

Yep, minimum of 6 months of bantime to appeal a permanent ban.

Ok, thanks, guess I'll be back on the forums in 6 months...

[Dr. NarwhalsNumbNuts IV 2291]

4 hours ago, Swed said:

Ignorantia juris non excusat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (February 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Ignorantia juris non excusat[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat[2] (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"[1] and "ignorance of law excuses no one"[2] respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content.

European-law countries with a tradition of Roman law may also use an expression from Aristotle translated into Latin: nemo censetur ignorare legem (nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law) or ignorantia iuris nocet (not knowing the law is harmful).

Contents

  [hide] 

1Explanation

2Translation

3Into law

4See also

5References

Explanation[edit]

See also: Promulgation and Promulgation (canon law)

The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that one was unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even if that person really does know what the law in question is. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the jurisdiction no matter how transiently. Even though it would be impossible, even for someone with substantial legal training, to be aware of every law in operation in every aspect of a state's activities, this is the price paid to ensure that willful blindness cannot become the basis of exculpation. Thus, it is well settled that persons engaged in any undertakings outside what is common for a normal person, such as running a nuclear power plant, will make themselves aware of the laws necessary to engage in that undertaking. If they do not, they cannot complain if they incur liability.

The doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly promulgated—published and distributed, for example, by being printed in a government gazette, made available over the internet, or printed in volumes available for sale to the public at affordable prices. In the ancient phrase of Gratian, Leges instituuntur cum promulgantur ("Laws are instituted when they are promulgated").[3] In order that a law obtain the binding force which is proper to a law, it must be applied to the men who have to be ruled by it. Such application is made by their being given notice by promulgation. A law can only bind when it is reasonably possible for those to whom it applies may acquire knowledge of it in order to observe it, even if actual knowledge of the law is absent for a particular individual. A secret law is no law at all.

In the criminal law, although ignorance may not clear a defendant of guilt, it can be a consideration in sentencing, particularly where the law is unclear or the defendant sought advice from law enforcement or regulatory officials. For example, in one Canadian case, a person was charged with being in possession of gambling devices after they had been advised by customs officials that it was legal to import such devices into Canada.[4] Although the defendant was convicted, the sentence was an absolute discharge.

In addition, there were, particularly in the days before satellite communication and cellular phones, persons who could genuinely be ignorant of the law due to distance or isolation. For example, in a case in British Columbia, a pair of hunters were acquitted of game offenses where the law was changed during the period they were in the wilderness hunting.[citation needed] In reaching this decision, the court refused to follow an early English law case in which a seaman on a clipper before the invention of radio was convicted even though the law had been changed while he was at sea (Bailey (1800) Russ & Ry 1).

An alternate explanation of the origin of the maxim, though not particularly relevant to the modern context, can be found with the philosophy of the Greeks and Romans. These were cultures heavily influenced by customary legal systems. Within such a system, law is learned as a person participates in the culture and customs of the community. Thus it is unreasonable to believe a person could have avoided learning them. These rules and customs were also interwoven with ethical and religious dialog so that laws expressed what is right and good and deviation that which is not. We find that Cicero wrote the following in De re publica (On the Republic):

"There is a true law, right reason, agreeable to nature, known to all men, constant and eternal, which calls to duty by its precepts, deters from evil by its prohibition. This law cannot be departed from without guilt. Nor is there one law at Rome and another at Athens, one thing now and another afterward; but the same law, unchanging and eternal, binds all races of man and all times."

Plato wrote similarly in Minos:

"What’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong. And isn’t this believed by everyone ... even among the Persians, and always? ... What is fine, no doubt, is everywhere legislated as fine, and what is shameful as shameful; but not the shameful as fine or the fine as shameful."

By God, you're a condescending faggot

 

Shovl, rules are rules. Sometimes there's a little wiggle room, but negligence is not a valid excuse. Just take the L for now and come back in October. 

[Swed 2651]

6 hours ago, Dr. NarwhalsNumbNuts IV said:

By God, you're a condescending faggot

 

Shovl, rules are rules. Sometimes there's a little wiggle room, but negligence is not a valid excuse. Just take the L for now and come back in October. 

Just so you know, because reading may be hard for you, this thread is in spam. So buy a gym membership and make a life choice you vape weezing ass clown.

[Rock 227]

13 hours ago, TheShovL said:

I just don't see how me breaking 1 rule and Bhopping rules for me to be banned permanently from my favorite server. And may I add that I was bad before I used them and Even when I was using them I still failed to properly Bhop for the life of me.

Its the fact that you were to dumb to realize that on just about every single community server doesn't allow scripting or macroing of any kind same goes for casual or MM like honesty how fucking stupid do you have to be to not think about reading the FIRST rule in the global guidelines and ontop of that the reason why you got perma banned is because they have a 0 tolerance rule for hacking of any kind.

 

I mean really howcome it never came to your mind to think for a second that maybe it wouldn't allowed, or that maybe you should refresh yourself on the rules, cause I know that i look at the rules once every 2 to 3 weeks just to make sure i dont forget anything.