the message
... Jumping to conclusions that a person will break a rule based on a question he asked is not evidence especially if it has no supporting act. A screen capture of one sentence without any other following evidence pertaining towards action can never hold as evidence of guilt by action. What you did was assume that I want to sell my account. No one can ever be held guilty by assumption unless in the presence of others who are caught and found guilty of an illegal act. Therefore If I am guilty then we can assume that the person I was speaking to is guilty {the person asking me Why I want to sell my account} Because We'll assume he wanted to be a buyer. And lets also assume the others in the room wanted to buy my account if I was selling it because they were there with me when I asked...
In all fairness, this point seems like a valid enough argument to shorten the ban time especially since all that was used to penalize ThunderFoot was a simple question.
Although what he said after this quote was probably unnecessary, it could definitely be attributed to the fact that the guy was most likely angry at the fact that he was banned for one month over a simple question. The insults that followed from hanz0 didn't help either.
And to think this mess all could have been avoided if either side decided to act a bit more mature.
1. "Freedom of speech" is invalid on the Internet.
2. The evidence is completely sufficient. If you had asked something like "Am I allowed to sell my account?", your argument -might- be considered, but given the evidence there's only one conclusion that we can possibly make.
3. "I said this, but I -actually- meant this!" is not a valid argument. We do not care about intentions, because you can make up whatever intentions fit your purpose. We care only about what actually happened, and what actually happened is you stated an intent to sell your account.
@hanz0
Funny, because I thought that the Whinebox was used so people could appeal their ban. I mean, he gave a good point as to why he felt the ban was unjust yet it was not taken into consideration... especially since the ban was issued over a mere assumption...
Meh, whatever...
It is. If you can provide reasonable evidence for why the ban was unjust, it gets reduced.
Note that his ban was not reduced. What is the conclusion you can make from that?
A permanent ban over asking a question is not unjust enough?
A permanent ban over an assumption is not unjust enough?
Surely you jest!
2. The evidence is completely sufficient. If you had asked something like "Am I allowed to sell my account?", your argument -might- be considered, but given the evidence there's only one conclusion that we can possibly make.
3. "I said this, but I -actually- meant this!" is not a valid argument. We do not care about intentions, because you can make up whatever intentions fit your purpose. We care only about what actually happened, and what actually happened is you stated an intent to sell your account.
oh and by the way i actually discussed this game with investors at after party lounges and meetings trying to have some interest in it generated. you may think its a joke but this is the internet. everyone can see this. It definately will get around under tags toribash.