If you meant bungee jumping you would have said something like that, so this is out of the deal, so trying to nitpick what else could be meant with how you expressed it doesn't work. You should mind (and have minded) your language and are responsible for what you said.
It seems to me as if you think I meant to the tell opposite party to commit suicide, this has
never been the case.
Whether I'm nitpicking or not, given that you point out that it doesn't matter at all what can be meant by what I've said makes me feel like
my report is being looked at without any objective point of view but from an emotional point of view. This is unjust and unexplainable. It could mean that I can report someone else for berating me, to which I respond with a report that says I was feeling threatened.
In such a case, the opposing party would not stand a chance to defend itself, simply because I indicated that I felt threatened. That is very crooked, because at that moment I should not have felt threatened at all and yet the report against that person still goes through and get him/her/it banned. All because I felt "threatened" which I lied about.
Unfortunately I
can't find anything about the archived reports. Please provide a date to which I can refer to to learn more about archived reports.
In the update of November 20, 2020 (see
https://www.blankmediagames.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=8913), it says that
all old reports will be pruned and will start from scratch again. That indicates that archived reports should not count at all, otherwise I would and should have been punished for the previous "offenses" I have committed, which has never happend. So how come my punishment is this severe without getting a proper suspension first?
In the update of June 15, 2015 (see
https://www.blankmediagames.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=8913) it is stated that one first receives 3 suspensions before being banned. This has, once again, not happened in my case.
The way I see it, you do admit people deserve a second chance, otherwise they wouldn't be able to appeal in the first place. Of course redemption is not what I claim as a right, redemption is what I ask of you.
Did I tell the opposite party to jump from a bridge? Yes. Should that matter for this report? No, why? Because
what I am appealing for is something that I have never said.
The report is invalid as the ban is based upon an assumption. With whatever "could" have been my intention should not matter for the sake of an objective appeal.
I ask you once again to look OBJECTIVELY at my ban and reconsider turning the ban into a suspension.
The main point of this report: Did I tell the other party that he/she/it should commit suicide, yes or no?
I indicate "no".
I do wish to apologise to those ones I have offended and I do regret my actions.
I will, can and shall reform myself if given the chance and I will prove it to you too.
If you still think otherwise, you can close this discussion. I do not wish to receive any further reply at that point regarding this discussion.
I hope that in the future you will look at someone else's reports with a more objective point of view.
Kind regards,
Sneezey