[Gabe]

You got a *warning* for talking about how to alt evade on the forums and the basis of your argument is that others get away with it? Isn’t the the whole basis on why ttt has people hanging around that act like shitheads?

that is part of it but the other part is that Dan is not banned on the forums nor was anyone who was present in the chat. It was a non existent situations and the "offering methods of alt evasion" would apply to no one in that chat, given the context. I should not be held liable for a nonexistent situation nor the choices someone makes if they alt evade in a situation where they can't because they aren't banned. Read all of it and not just look at the screenshots to understand the other premises of the argument, as it is not only based on that assumption of yours.

 As you may realize, this is an inductive argument. Meaning its conclusions are based on probability. Inductive arguments derive a broad principle from the observation of particular events or instances, as in observations of previous cases, which is why it was included as PART of the argument. The conclusion could be falsifiable, which is why it is up for discussion. The specific instances being used are the liability clauses and the screenshots, as you have pointed out. This is why I would suggest reading full things in any given context, such as this nonexistent one. Again, it is merely an inductive argument. It is not a deductive one that aims for certain truth in its conclusion. This assumption that the argument is based on one premise of "others get[ting] away with it" is a logical fallacy. I believe it is called a weak analogy, where one makes an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations, which would be the TTT shitheads situation. Again, I would recommend reading the other parts to avoid this common logic fallacy, which is not your fault, but the fault of contexts being sometimes hidden behind the thing that stands out the most