You're contradicting yourself. You claimed that you have abused the ability to physgun chairs prior to this incident:




In this instance, I was commenting on the fact that you are questioning my morality. You, by reporting other players, are indeed attempting to help the community (at least, this view would be warranted under most circumstances); you fail to understand that because you spend time doing this it doesn't mean that people are bad for pointing out your wrongdoings that you document in the process.



If you were not ignorant to the rest of my post (which is really r00d, by the way), you would realize that you are still accused as the perpetrator of slander. I also feel that you are guilty of such offenses within the post I am responding to at present. Additionally, as also mentioned in my post, you are not an administrator and therefore I do not take your account as evidence - this report will not be pardoned simply because you claim to have already been punished: rather, it must be verified.

This also serves as a prelude to more severe consequences: you are potentially not being truthful regarding the claim that you have already been in a discussion with an administrator regarding these issues, and consequently if it is found that you have indeed not been dealt with initially, you are also a perpetrator of perjury and further violating the Terms of Use.




That is not my problem. I chose to further-debate this issue as I feel that you have broken the rules and terms at ZARP and it is only respectful of the community that this is acknowledged. If you chose not to reply, you are simply worsening the problem that you foresee by failing to defend yourself.

Additional:

You can be true of a 'regular' perpetrator of rule violations despite this slightly lengthened interval between your latest recorded warning/ban: the definition of 'regular' in this context denotes 'especially' with the same intervals, thus not limited to the same intervals.

Essentially, by breaking rules in the past and having broken another rule (including the TOU's 'causing trouble' clause which you seem to disregard), it is an acceptable term to use.



This is another non-factual inference, as 'regular' has no connotations of magnitude.

Also, by saying:


'trying' is in the present tense and thus true of this moment; the times that are successive of it, and precede it. Therefore, by stating in this timeframe that an administrator has been lenient towards you for this justification, which is in the present tense, it suggests that it is a recurring occasion and thus furthering my point that you can be described as someone who 'regularly' violates the rules.

[img]http://puu.sh/h2hSf/a92a3294fd.png[/img] You're contradicting yourself. You claimed that you have abused the ability to physgun chairs prior to this incident: [img]http://puu.sh/h2hTc/8ba4f4c2ba.png[/img] [img]http://puu.sh/h2hYx/9c6f902984.jpg[/img] In this instance, I was commenting on the fact that you are questioning my morality. You, by reporting other players, are indeed attempting to help the community (at least, this view would be warranted under most circumstances); you fail to understand that because you spend time doing this it doesn't mean that people are bad for pointing out your wrongdoings that you document in the process. [img]http://puu.sh/h2i3S/773e45fd6e.png[/img] If you were not ignorant to the rest of my post (which is really r00d, by the way), you would realize that you are still accused as the perpetrator of slander. I also feel that you are guilty of such offenses within the post I am responding to at present. Additionally, as also mentioned in my post, you are not an administrator and therefore I do not take your account as evidence - this report will not be pardoned simply because you [i]claim[/i] to have already been punished: rather, it must be verified. This also serves as a prelude to more severe consequences: you are potentially not being truthful regarding the claim that you have already been in a discussion with an administrator regarding these issues, and consequently if it is found that you have indeed not been dealt with initially, you are also a perpetrator of perjury and further violating the Terms of Use. [img]http://puu.sh/h2iiQ/6fde2ab567.png[/img] [img]http://puu.sh/h2inC/fb5963567d.png[/img] That is not my problem. I chose to further-debate this issue as I feel that you have broken the rules and terms at ZARP and it is only respectful of the community that this is acknowledged. If you chose not to reply, you are simply worsening the problem that you foresee by failing to defend yourself. [b]Additional:[/b] [img]http://puu.sh/h2is2/789d565ed2.png[/img] You can be true of a 'regular' perpetrator of rule violations despite this slightly lengthened interval between your latest recorded warning/ban: the definition of 'regular' in this context denotes 'especially' with the same intervals, thus not limited to the same intervals. Essentially, by breaking rules in the past and having broken another rule (including the TOU's 'causing trouble' clause which you seem to disregard), it is an acceptable term to use. [img]http://puu.sh/h2iBB/7fdd16346e.png[/img] This is another non-factual inference, as 'regular' has no connotations of magnitude. Also, by saying: [img]http://puu.sh/h2iFn/84e93e171d.png[/img] 'trying' is in the present tense and thus true of this moment; the times that are successive of it, and precede it. Therefore, by stating in this timeframe that an administrator has been lenient towards you for this justification, which is in the present tense, it suggests that it is a recurring occasion and thus furthering my point that you can be described as someone who 'regularly' violates the rules.