BombFrosty Ban Appeal

[Ruskin]

I am writing this ban appeal on behalf of [CM] BombFrosty

Your name: [CM] BombFrosty

Your ban ID: 19239

Banned by: [FL] _G.Matt

Reason: Exploiting clan forums - Pending investigation

Involved: Not applicable.

Why we should unban you:BombFrosty is Not Guilty to the charges presented against him. The Reason that was given for this ban is "Exploiting clan forums - Pending investigation" however, the ban presented is for the FearlessRP servers in Garry's Mod. The steam ID "STEAM_0:0:42191491" or friend chat's name "[CM] BombFrosty" should not have been banned on the Garry's Mod servers for a forum offense, in which only the forum account should have been banned.

Secondly, let's scrutinize the reason for the ban. The in-depth full explanation is that "BombFire" was able to view threads on the forums with passwords on them by exploiting a bug. However, "BombFire" was not able to view the threads, he was simply subscribed to the threads with e-mail notifications. With e-mail notifications, you see the title of the thread you are subscribed to an an excerpt of the threads content. "BombFire" was able to see the excerpt and the Thread name, but could not see the entire thread as he did not know the password. The bug is that if you are previously subscribed to a thread and you are then not able to view the content because of password protection, you are still subscribed to the thread and receive the notification with the excerpt and title. Also, no where in the Forum Rules ( http://www.fearlessrp.net/showthread.php?tid=736) does it say exploiting a bug is against the rules.

So, I wish for all charges on the steam ID - (STEAM_0:0:42191491) to be dropped if the reviewer of this material finds that this was an unfair and unlawful ban. I thank you for taking the time to read this, have a good day/night.

[Fultz]

He was exploiting it because he knew that he shouldn't be in there due to not being in the SAA anymore because he left the community. Once you find a bug you report it to an admin not try and use it for gain. He was threatening one of our members saying he was going to leak his exploited information to others. So that is abusing the exploit. Even though it was a bluff or not it still is against the rules. It is like saying you are going to ddos the server. Even if you are bluffing or not it still is a threat. He has told us that he was in our page so you do not need to lie for him.

It doesnt have to be in the rules because exploiting bugs is always a rule. There is no need to write out every single rule. Once you make a threat about abusing a bug you need to be banned.

[Rowan13]

It doesnt have to be in the rules because exploiting bugs is always a rule. There is no need to write out every single rule. Once you make a threat about abusing a bug you need to be banned.

It doesnt have to be in the rules because exploiting bugs is always a rule.

There is no need to write out every single rule.

So, let me get this straight, it doesn't have to be in the rules... because its always a rule, therefore, there is no need to write it as a rule.
Wait wait wait, I got this now- Murder:
It doesn't have to be in the laws... because its always a law, therefore, there is no need to write it as a law.

Something isn't right here, let me check what:
OH, WAIT, ITS LOGIC, WHO WOULD HAVE BLOODY KNOWN EH? FUNNY THING THIS IDEA OF LOGIC WE HAVE, ALWAYS SO FRAGILE AND NON-GELATINOUS.


You know what else is funny? Your half baked attempt to justify barring the unban request. Oh yeah, me -Rowan- gave enough of a f*ck to go read the forum rules. You got emptily threatened, it rustled you bad, he got banned- Does not make, in any way shape or form, his unbaning basis less valid.

PS: I'm his lawyer.

[Fultz]

I'm not here to argue with you rowan because you have no involvement.

[Rowan13]

PS: I'm his lawyer.

Regardless of me being or not directly involved, I spoke reasonably, logically.
The only reason to why you're not arguing with me, is because you can't argue with facts.

[Adman]

PS: I'm his lawyer.

Regardless of me being or not directly involved, I spoke reasonably, logically.
The only reason to why you're not arguing with me, is because you can't argue with facts.

Suggesting you're a lawyer would indicate that we allow members to have a representative to plead their case on the grounds of superior and professional knowledge of the law, or in this case the rules. I'm afraid that isn't how we operate.

All users are advised to only post if they're directly involved with the case and have valid evidence to either refute or support the appeal.

I have no knowledge of the suspension's motives and the actions that occurred for it to be warranted; I will however forward this to the relevant administrators involved so that the appeal can be dealt with as soon as possible.

[Fultz]

PS: I'm his lawyer.

Regardless of me being or not directly involved, I spoke reasonably, logically.
The only reason to why you're not arguing with me, is because you can't argue with facts.

I can't argue because you don't have the slightest clue of the situation. You are popping in this unban because you don't give a shit.

[Rowan13]

Cry me a river and ask the guy who got banned if I do or do not know what I am talking about.

[Salinsky]

Stop arguing, this is an unbanrequest. Not the debate team.

[Rowan13]

User has been warned for this post. Reason:

You mean debate club*.