[NeoKiller]

idk why cooky gets different treatment than ian tbh, being staff means you can break rules and not get warned? lawl

@ian you knew you'll get warned, no matter if your warning is legit or not, you kinda provoked it, live with it now.

[Yz]

@ian you knew you'll get warned, no matter if your warning is legit or not, you kinda provoked it, live with it now.

l0l this, the fact that ian knew he'd be warned is why idc about any other reasoning in this thread

[Selene]

NeoKiller even informed you that you will be warned, yet you ignored it.

Pig, posted twice so when I approved his post it would of been double post so I edited his post making it into one.

[Xx Itz Ian]

The point is that i do not agree with the reason of the warning, which is also why i didn't delete my post at first.
I saw no reason to be warned and when cooky responded i didn't knew i broke any rule at all.

[ZeroUH]

The point is that i do not agree with the reason of the warning, which is also why i didn't delete my post at first.
I saw no reason to be warned and when cooky responded i didn't knew i broke any rule at all.

How many times did Zero said "IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT COULD HELP ON THE CASE, STAY AWAY FROM THAT SECTION!"
Is it clear for you now?

[Cooky]

Staff dont receive any different treatment then other players. I have been talked to about this. Just because it doesnt say 'warning' doesnt mean I havent been warned.

Also, if you look at it I think you may see that my post wasnt really against the rules. I was explaining in more detail how I was responding to the rulebreaker report (by clarifying what the 'wanted list' was). If you ask Mario666, the original poster, I am sure he will say that my post simply allowed him to better understand how I was going to deal with the rulebreaker.

[Xx Itz Ian]

You never said that
And

The examples in the offtopic post by Selene do not show why my post was warned because i didn't type random stuff like 'lawlz wtf'
If there where atleast good examples or if you where more specefic in the explaining of the warning i could consider accepting it as a fair warning.

i am allowed to disagree with my warning, which i still do.
also this blacklist And when we think you have learned your lesson is not a real answer on when it expires.
it would help a lot if you would be pmed to confirm you are added to the blacklist and a rulelist that shows the punishment when you break that rule.

Cooky we can ask him but I hope Zero doesn't have to say again that when you do not provide extra proof you will be warned for off-topic / spam. Your second post was after the report was handled and you didn't provide extra proof so is still off-topic/spam

[Mario666]

What Cooky said was fine, he was just saying that since the person I reported wasn't online, that he'd keep an eye out for that him.

[ZeroUH]

Cooky we can ask him but I hope Zero doesn't have to say again that when you do not provide extra proof you will be warned for off-topic / spam. Your second post was after the report was handled and you didn't provide extra proof so is still off-topic/spam

And he has been punished by that.