DreeBott

[Rylund]

Posting on behalf of DreeBott

snip

This will be concluded by the staff team collectively, rather than Jonas or Myself only. 

As you are keen to provide information about staff policy, could you tell me how you specifically fitted in these policies when you blatantly disregarded that and posted this, which had no relevance to the case at hand:

I will stop posting when you and General rickfets learn to spell my name right.

Thanks.

Being merely present during the events described by accused user does not give you the privilege to post. Only post if you have supporting facts to either discussing party of the report.

Stating your opinion does not make you involved nor have crucial information, use common sense.

You were not present during said situation, but merely forwarded information that Balls was hesitant to do and then he entered the discussion, which undoubtedly rendered your position irrelevant with the motivation that you posted irrelevant replies and Balls beheld more information about the case than you did. Just because you have posted the thread, does not mean you can shit-post freely and disregard of the policies at hand. 

This goes without saying that the situation is not as simple as it looks as, because you were not present nor had further information to provide seeing as Balls entered the discussion. But you did post the thread and as you said, you were the accusing user. Thus the situation is not as black and white as some may have painted it out. 

This will be discussed further and a conclusion will be made.

I agree, my last reply on that I'll stop when they get to spell my name right was not really needed.
BUT posting this would not have been worth a warning of 50% like I have now.

I wasn't directly present in said situation, yet it's MY evidence used and MY thread made on him, making me the accusing player.