I have to speak to Johnler to get his side of the story as I got your side of the story from the report.

The reason it was denied (I'll say again) was because his mute was justifiable and you did not even deny what you said which matched up to what you said from Johnler. I'm not close mates with Johnler but I follow the standard policy in Appeals, If your evidence is lacking I have to take Johnler's word for it. But again you did not state that you never said those kind of things which lead up to your mute. There is no biasness from me because I look at your evidence and then I get the Staff In Question's side of the story. I find it remarkable you would call me out for that.

I have to speak to Johnler to get his side of the story as I got your side of the story from the report. The reason it was denied (I'll say again) was because his mute was justifiable and you did not even deny what you said which matched up to what you said from Johnler. I'm not close mates with Johnler but I follow the standard policy in Appeals, If your evidence is lacking I have to take Johnler's word for it. But again you did not state that you never said those kind of things which lead up to your mute. There is no biasness from me because I look at your evidence and then I get the Staff In Question's side of the story. I find it remarkable you would call me out for that.