This is a discussion forum.

[Beastorizer]

OP is 100% spot on........but it is kind of like The Cookie Monster giving nutritional advice......

[Alhanelem]

OP is 100% spot on........but it is kind of like The Cookie Monster giving nutritional advice......

Hey man, even I thought it was funny. +1 to you

[Ahalee]

Whatever you want to believe. The proof is pretty evident.

This thread took a really bizzare turn, lol. But I guess engagement has increased?


No doubt. It's hard for us to get even the most basic things now, if it was ever easy in the first place.



Uh, the proof is in his thread. Notice how the user name has changed multiple times but the behavior is the same. It's really not hard to see. At least, if we're talking about the person making the STF reports, as there's not really anyone else I can think of fitting the description of making multiple accounts to evade bans.

So I scrolled up and there is a case that they are the same person maybe. Either way, it doesn't invalidate their opinion in this topic. So I'm not sure what valid overall point anyone thinks they have in trying to say that.

I never made any such accusation. There is no lie. I said "IF" there was bad performance. This is not the same thing as saying there actually was. This is called a hypothetical situation. I don't have any data or information other than that which you have provided. I am simply being logical. There is nothing more to it than that. IF, that's an IF, you perform poorly a party can kick you. It doesn't matter if there was a business arrangement or if you were there for some other reason. Your actual performance isn't even relevant. You can be kicked for a party from any reason. This came up because you cited the Terms of Service, which does not cover kicking people from parties. LATER, you did say that the reason you cited that was because you feel you were scammed. In that case, you can certainly call a GM, and ultimately whether there was a violation will be up to them.

One more time:
This is NOT an accusation. This is merely an explanation. I DO NOT KNOW what happened other than what you have told us. I can not determine any guilt or innocence. All I attempted to do was explain to you what the rules actually allow.

I hope that clears this up.

So again, I wasn't saying that if performance was bad they would be wrong for booting me. But it wasn't and you were implying a straw man argument by saying that's what I was saying. The actual performance IS relevant because it is tied to an implied agreement. I didn't say I FELT I was scammed. I explained why I was.

One more time: Don't stuff words in my mouth that I didn't say. Don't presume to know what happened and act like you do based on hearsay.