Churchians
30-10-2007, 21:42
:)
Fact A-->puppetwanking is defined on your website as one player posting several personas in a row the same argument.
Fact B-->having several personas (the same ISP/the same IP address) posting on the forum is not against the rules, nor against etiquette as defined on your website.
Fact C-->Churchians have freely admitted and has never denied posting 3 characters in a row.
Fact D-->Churchians and Douria are not the same player therefore not the same ISP/IP address.
Fact E-->Churchians denies having done fact A because each of the three views were not similar.
Fact F-->One piece of evidence provided to link Churchians to Fact A was to indicate that Churchians posted from the same ISP/IP address.
Fact G-->Nothing on the website indicates that Fact A and Fact B are considered puppetwanking.
Fact H-->Another piece of evidence provided to link Churchians to Fact A was because some had believed Douria and one of Churchians personas was the same person because both had provided a similar argument.
Fact I-->Fact D proves that Churchians can not be linked to Fact A using Fact H as evidence.
Fact J-->No one, including the moderators would prove that the three personas run by the player playing the Churchians had actually argued the same argument. (maybe it can be proven but no attempt was actually made)
Fact K-->After repeated attempts to request evidence to prove Churchians was guilty of Fact A, so that he could change his behavior, the only answers received were to repeat Fact F and we already established in Fact G that this can not be used to prove Fact A.
Conclusion-->If all the above facts are true, then the Churchians can not be legitimately be accused, nor is he guilty, of having done any puppetwanking. Even if you are a moderator with several years of experience or even if you are a PhD in law.... you can not contradict the laws of logic established for a few thousand years. If my posts had been read properly, we would not have a moderator or two making statements that I never denied as if somehow I was refusing to acknowledge.... or my favorite one from a moderator who, trying to prove he had not been treating me like an idiot, states quite clearly that he was not bothering with my "rambles" (who but an idiot rambles?)
Is anyone here able to contradict the above facts? No, because they are all true as anyone who bothers to look in the postings will see. I had been willing to concede that perhaps I had misunderstood the rules which is why I kept asking for clarification so that I could comply.... but an adult does not comply blindly when something is illogical. All I got from the moderators up to this point has been to accept their ruling because any discussion, no matter how legitimate would be ridiculed. Now I have no choice but to acknowledge that I was not in error, because had I been in error, the above mentioned facts would have been different and hence the conclusion as well. I rest my case. :)
Fact A-->puppetwanking is defined on your website as one player posting several personas in a row the same argument.
Fact B-->having several personas (the same ISP/the same IP address) posting on the forum is not against the rules, nor against etiquette as defined on your website.
Fact C-->Churchians have freely admitted and has never denied posting 3 characters in a row.
Fact D-->Churchians and Douria are not the same player therefore not the same ISP/IP address.
Fact E-->Churchians denies having done fact A because each of the three views were not similar.
Fact F-->One piece of evidence provided to link Churchians to Fact A was to indicate that Churchians posted from the same ISP/IP address.
Fact G-->Nothing on the website indicates that Fact A and Fact B are considered puppetwanking.
Fact H-->Another piece of evidence provided to link Churchians to Fact A was because some had believed Douria and one of Churchians personas was the same person because both had provided a similar argument.
Fact I-->Fact D proves that Churchians can not be linked to Fact A using Fact H as evidence.
Fact J-->No one, including the moderators would prove that the three personas run by the player playing the Churchians had actually argued the same argument. (maybe it can be proven but no attempt was actually made)
Fact K-->After repeated attempts to request evidence to prove Churchians was guilty of Fact A, so that he could change his behavior, the only answers received were to repeat Fact F and we already established in Fact G that this can not be used to prove Fact A.
Conclusion-->If all the above facts are true, then the Churchians can not be legitimately be accused, nor is he guilty, of having done any puppetwanking. Even if you are a moderator with several years of experience or even if you are a PhD in law.... you can not contradict the laws of logic established for a few thousand years. If my posts had been read properly, we would not have a moderator or two making statements that I never denied as if somehow I was refusing to acknowledge.... or my favorite one from a moderator who, trying to prove he had not been treating me like an idiot, states quite clearly that he was not bothering with my "rambles" (who but an idiot rambles?)
Is anyone here able to contradict the above facts? No, because they are all true as anyone who bothers to look in the postings will see. I had been willing to concede that perhaps I had misunderstood the rules which is why I kept asking for clarification so that I could comply.... but an adult does not comply blindly when something is illogical. All I got from the moderators up to this point has been to accept their ruling because any discussion, no matter how legitimate would be ridiculed. Now I have no choice but to acknowledge that I was not in error, because had I been in error, the above mentioned facts would have been different and hence the conclusion as well. I rest my case. :)