[chibill]

Responding to Dutch: It seems person 1 was asked for a specific convo, and supplied that convo while also asking it not be used as evidence for a ban.I don’t hold them to any fault.

This is correct, I apologize for any miscommunication leading to a false representation of the event that occurred. Person 1 is almost as much a victim in this as much as Jack is, although they didn’t receive a ban their wishes were explicitly ignored for a desire to ban Jack. Either out of negligent investigation or willingly malicious intent.
And before I receive any nasty DMs, I do have proof of this, but will not share it here, just know that it exists and is with a trusted staff member.

That person that has misconnuncation never said it couldnt be used as evidence for a ban, then just werent told why the admin that was asking about it was showing it to the admin team. Only during your appeal did they say bring up that they didnt know it was going to be used as evidence for a han and if they had know they would not have provided it.


Dont comment on something you dont have the information about.