Punishment Dilemma

[MalekIsWeird]

I agree and I plan on apologizing for a mistake I had committed on PERP which I was banned for which clearly violated 2.5 I let my anger get the best of me at a moment in the heat of it I did something bad.

I tried to ask the staff himself privately but he rejected my request for him to explain why he listed 3.4 and left me with "dispute it."

I don't agree with the added 3.4 detail which contradicts the context of what led up to the 2.5. Therefore by making an Apology for the 1 reason behind the punishment which I see myself guilty of and I know now never to repeat, I plead guilty to something else I don't believe I am guilty of. How do I go about this properly where I can apologize for the obvious 2.5 but at least understand the reason for 3.4?

Trying my best here to not sound ignorant because I do realize how bad my decision was in this situation which is why I was punished for, regarding 2.5, and I want to apologize so I do better for my bad 2.5 record but I truly was given no solid reasoning for the 3.4.

 

[Murtsley]

You killed someone for little to no reason, there was a risk you would be put in prison for this act, jeopardising your freedom and therefore contravening Rule 3.4.

In relation to the denied apology and your want to apologise, the denial merely means that you won't be unbanned for apologising, not that your apology is not appreciated. Their future responses to your apology are likely to be simply that they note your apology - so don't bother.

My advice? Take a month off, have some apple pie, have a wank

 

[KeiwaM]

What Murtsley said. Killing someone for a very minor reason is considered 3.4, because you bring your freedom at risk for barely any reason.

 

[MalekIsWeird]

I appreciate your answer, This makes way more sense.

 

[Murtsley]

I appreciate your answer, This makes way more sense.

No worries matey

 

[MiniXIII]

I tried to ask the staff himself privately but he rejected my request for him to explain why he listed 3.4 and left me with "dispute it."

Did I not spend nearly 30minutes in the admin sit explaining the whole rules to you? And didn't you say that you understood everything I explained to you before I banned you?

However, to answer your question if you feel that you didn't break 3.4 you're more than welcome to make a ban dispute which if accepted the staff members involved will amend the reason for you to then be able to make an apology without "pleading guilty" to the 3.4.

 

[MalekIsWeird]

Did I not spend nearly 30minutes in the admin sit explaining the whole rules to you? And didn't you say that you understood everything I explained to you before I banned you?

However, to answer your question if you feel that you didn't break 3.4 you're more than welcome to make a ban dispute which if accepted the staff members involved will amend the reason for you to then be able to make an apology without "pleading guilty" to the 3.4.

I am sorry if you misunderstood but I thought I made it clear I did not understand your reasoning for 3.4 but I told you I fully understood the 2.5 in what I did at the time. This is why not only during the sit but also in dms after, I tried to explain this while asking for an explanation. I also made it clear in the sit, in dms and here that I am not doing this to dispute the 2.5. I want to apologize because I know I screwed up but if I don't know what I did wrong how can I possibly improve?

@Murtsley and @KeiwaM both explained it perfectly fine. Now I understand that in fact, yes you were right. Now I can truthfully apologize knowing what I did and knowing why that mistake is wrong completely which I assume is the aim of being forgiven in an apology. That I am giving you my word that I won't repeat that action and I will try to improve. Now I understand the reasoning for both, this means I can apologize truthfully and honestly, which is what I wanted to do from the start.