Forum

Login to ZARP

View BBCode Back »

Sally wrote:

You are not putting any facts forward only your recollection of the situation especially when you can't even get the "facts" straight at seem to add more to the situation every other post you make, facts would be evidence driven and 100% accurate. How can you be certain it was Dutch who shot at you(if they did) when you don't see names at such a distance? You go on about injustice, yet Jawson already stated he'd be willing to remove the punishment if you can provide some actual evidence and the one time you don't have something saved is the time it actually has any value towards your case, pretty funny.

I genuinely think that sinzz doesn't grasp the basic understanding of what a "fact" is - Oftentimes he would imply that something is "factual" without bringing forward anything that would prove his statement correct. A good example would be a recent RA in which he reported someone for "raiding" (the user in question was literally just standing at the front door of his property for a few seconds which is all that can be seen in the video), but proceeded to imply that the user had also "called the elevator", "broke the door", "searched the base", etc - Despite not proving any of these allegations; Yet he still proceeded to label his claims as "factual", even though they were nothing but pure conjecture.

I reckon the same can be said for this situation.

BBCode

[quote="Sally" post=1410061][color=#bb00bb]You are not putting any facts forward only your recollection of the situation especially when you can't even get the "facts" straight at seem to add more to the situation every other post you make, facts would be evidence driven and 100% accurate. How can you be certain it was Dutch who shot at you(if they did) when you don't see names at such a distance? You go on about injustice, yet Jawson already stated he'd be willing to remove the punishment if you can provide some actual evidence and the one time you don't have something saved is the time it actually has any value towards your case, pretty funny.[/color][/quote]

[color=#0044ff]I genuinely think that sinzz doesn't grasp the basic understanding of what a "fact" is - Oftentimes he would imply that something is "factual" without bringing forward anything that would prove his statement correct. A good example would be a recent RA in which he reported someone for "raiding" (the user in question was literally just standing at the front door of his property for a few seconds which is all that can be seen in the video), but proceeded to imply that the user had also "called the elevator", "broke the door", "searched the base", etc - Despite not proving any of these allegations; Yet he still proceeded to label his claims as "factual", even though they were nothing but pure conjecture.

I reckon the same can be said for this situation. [/color]

Forum

[SSRP] Warn Appeal - Sinz

Time to create page: 0.079 seconds