Larry's ban appeal

[eXg-Buddha 729]

Just now, Larry_The_Potato said:

Clip 2 I don't even hit the guy... Clip 5 if i saw him through the hill why would I keep looking around?

I believe the ban was for silent aim/aim assistance, not wall hacks. You may not have seen him through the hill or even killed him, but your mouse movements and snaps are the incriminating part. 

[AlexConway 1,166]

2 minutes ago, br0ken said:

Basically asked him what would happen if it's a ban or not and that was the response

Can you show that via DMs? In TS today D Rose said something completely contrary. As far as we know it just says "Managers can ban" not "Go ban Larry with the evidence provided"

Edited June 17, 2020 by AlexConway

[Shibe 294]

Didn't this man say in ts "I couldn't find the silentaim"

[Doof123 54]

Just now, Shibe said:

Didn't this man say in ts "I couldn't find the silentaim"

Context?

 

[Sim_One 116]

+1 Coming from a former hackers these clips aren't even that sus...

He makes the same flick every time, other than that they are just normal kills

[Duglas 98]

Why is broken using a 3rd party client when we got told that NO ONE should be using it, and only managers should be pushing perm bans. 

Edited June 17, 2020 by Duglas

[Bozee 202]

+1 this man flicks be insane but he no hack, he just filthy...

Edited June 17, 2020 by cbozee

[JoeBudden 107]

Once again another example of potentially banning someone who may have been hacking but fumbling it due to poor communication and lack of thought. Everyone pushing for this ban is from 1 friend group out to get Larry and everyone pushing for his unban are Larry's friends (including me). Having done this before my self, this was a rushed ban with mediocre proof that can easily be argued, not to mention one of the managers you guys got "confirmation" from is now denying it. This could have been a done deal if it was thought over more and more damning proof was collected, speaking of damning proof:

9 minutes ago, Duglas said:

Why is broken using a 3rd party client when we got told that NO ONE should be using it, and only managers should be pushing perm bans. And are we going to acknowledge the fact that broken is legit using ESP in the 2nd clip https://youtu.be/PydQ9oKpjSc

 

[Shibe 294]

14 minutes ago, Doof123 said:

Context?

 

we were saying he shouldve used silent aim and he was like i couldnt find it

[Bozee 202]

2 minutes ago, JoeBudden said:

Once again another example of potentially banning someone who may have been hacking but fumbling it due to poor communication and lack of thought. Everyone pushing for this ban is from 1 friend group out to get Larry and everyone pushing for his unban are Larry's friends (including me). Having done this before my self, this was a rushed ban with mediocre proof that can easily be argued, not to mention one of the managers you guys got "confirmation" from is now denying it. This could have been a done deal if it was thought over more and more damning proof was collected, speaking of damning proof:

 

its actually crazy how they take so much more evidence to ban other hackers, but this one was just a go with minimal evidence, the evidence isn't "damning" sure its a lil sus, but nothing to warrant a ban in my personal opinion.... idk I could be biased as I am Larry's friend but at the end of the day this seems kind of bullshit

[Ting 368]

17 minutes ago, Larry_The_Potato said:

Clip 2 I don't even hit the guy...

mi amigo, if you think SNAPPING on to someone with ROBOT like movements is natural, you must hit your head with a tenderizer on a daily basis.

-1

[Sim_One 116]

1 minute ago, Ting said:

mi amigo, if you think SNAPPING on to someone with ROBOT like movements is natural, you must hit your head with a tenderizer on a daily basis.

-1

Ting imma be real with you man, i don't think you know the difference between flicks and aimbot

[Vlone 78]

-1 Clearly u aimlocked on a guy through a mountain which is very sus.

[D_Rose 431]

Accepted

With reviewing of this appeal and all of the evidence that was reviewed. The ban had seemed to be rushed with the evidence that was given. The evidence also could have a capability of not being 100% accurate. The player will be unbanned and the situation will be handled.