Obiwan/Watermelon. Spam, multiple accounting.

I hereby accuse Mattabesta, watermelon and obiwan, who are the same individual of:

1. Spam
Evidence can be found anywhere, just lurk the forum.

2. Multiple accounts

This is a PM I received from obiwan:

obiwan wrote:

can you change teh name of my watermelon acont to:

mattabesta.

??????????????????

just like that on that line. with the dot.

3. Verbal abuse
People just lurk the site. Anyway for the sake of correctness I'll pick some.

4. Incorrect behaviour overall

All the above are evidence of incorrect behaviour overall, summed up to that, lots of his posts, while not spam do not really contribute to discussions and get sometimes even close to trolling.

Obiwan/Watermelon, What do you have to say in your defense?

What do the people have to say?

opiwan and Watermelon are definitely the the same person but I doubt they are Mattabesta as well.

confetion: i am watermelon.
anticonfetion: i am not matt

acusatien: spam

defetns: i alredy was baned for that. you cant ban me twice for the same thing. its like a guy walks out of jail and they put him on trial again for what he did befoar the jail.

plus i havent spammed with this acount so the spam charge is defeated.

multiple aconts. only 2: me and water. no matt. plus i was baned for insulting with water which is ritardid so thats whie i made this one.

plus enviro made the alt acont "qwe123" and kenzu let him keep it because he didnt spam and i havent spammed so if you dont let me keep this your discriminating against me and being inconsistent.

verbal abuse: you mean insulting? so? il insult as much as i fucken want. wat wrong with it. lets make a pol to see how many pansies are oposed to insults.

incorect behavior: wtf?

okay so i win right?

obiwan wrote:

confetion: i am watermelon.
anticonfetion: i am not matt

Fair enough.

obiwan wrote:

acusatien: spam

defetns: i alredy was baned for that. you cant ban me twice for the same thing. its like a guy walks out of jail and they put him on trial again for what he did befoar the jail.

With the difference you escaped jail.

obiwan wrote:

plus i havent spammed with this acount so the spam charge is defeated.

Would sound fair just you're still Watermelon.

obiwan wrote:

multiple aconts. only 2: me and water. no matt. plus i was baned for insulting with water which is ritardid so thats whie i made this one.

I guess you should have had a fair trial like this one, so I won't consider valid that ban. I as well agree with you that insulting is not meritory of ban.

obiwan wrote:

plus enviro made the alt acont "qwe123" and kenzu let him keep it because he didnt spam and i havent spammed so if you dont let me keep this your discriminating against me and being inconsistent.

That's Kenzu acting like a USSR leader. I don't agree with letting enviro having a second account so I'm neither discriminating nor being inconsistent. I think qwe123 is disbanded now, if not I'll request it back.

obiwan wrote:

verbal abuse: you mean insulting? so? il insult as much as i fucken want. wat wrong with it. lets make a pol to see how many pansies are oposed to insults.

Insult all you want, I'm not against it, but what I'm againt of is that a post mainly consists of insults. If you're going to insult someone do it within a thoughtful post, cursing and what not, but within a thoughtful post that serves as a counter arguement to the offended's arguements.

obiwan wrote:

incorect behavior: wtf?

Every activity that goes against the guidelines stablished within our forum can be considered "incorrect behaviour". We're limiting the context and the definition of correct within our forum through the guidelines.

obiwan wrote:

okay so i win right?

No. We'll see what's the outcome of the trial.

Quote :

I guess you should have had a fair trial like this one, so I won't consider valid that ban.

Well we'll start from this. This one helps a lot.

Quote :

With the difference you escaped jail.

BUt you already admitted my last ban was not valid.pwnt.

Quote :

Would sound fair just you're still Watermelon.

yeah, but i spammed and was already banned for it. and last time i was banned for insults, NOT spam, so all the spam i have done i have been banned for. pwnt.

now il go back to verbal abuse. ive alredy been band for shit like that. give me a real instents, of im not banned for it.

so basiclay incurect buhavier is al the othar stuf rite? so this charge is redundant.

/end

obiwan wrote:

Quote :

Would sound fair just you're still Watermelon.

yeah, but i spammed and was already banned for it. and last time i was banned for insults, NOT spam, so all the spam i have done i have been banned for. pwnt.

Your previous ban, as I said will not count for the lack of a trial, so, this trial will serve to define what to do with you. Else, have you noticed no punishment or resolution has been made? These trials are not only to decide "Ban or not ban".

You spammed as Watermelon, you didn't have a trial as Watermelon and you were banned, that ban is not valid but your spamming history still exists. You created multiple accounts. I want to see people's opinions on what to do with you.

obiwan wrote:

now il go back to verbal abuse. ive alredy been band for shit like that. give me a real instents, of im not banned for it.

Once again, you still have a spam history and you created multiple accounts. No ban sentence has beem made has it?

obiwan wrote:

so basiclay incurect buhavier is al the othar stuf rite? so this charge is redundant.

I'm glad you notice it.

al you say is basicaly

"wel once you made spams plus you have 2 aconts"

wel i say, "i was baned for spams, i made the aocnt becas of an unfair ban

obiwan wrote:

al you say is basicaly

"wel once you made spams plus you have 2 aconts"

wel i say, "i was baned for spams, i made the aocnt becas of an unfair ban

Exactly. So now show some evidence that you stopped spamming after you were banned for spamming.

OKay. for that I have to quote every post i made. How about yo ujust quote the spams-a lot eseiar. i dont prove negatives. i dont prove god doesnt exist. you prove god exists. thats an analogy if you didnt know.l

obiwan wrote:

OKay. for that I have to quote every post i made. How about yo ujust quote the spams-a lot eseiar. i dont prove negatives. i dont prove god doesnt exist. you prove god exists. thats an analogy if you didnt know.l

Not necesarily. There must be a time in which Kenzu warned, in which he announced you were banned and, by dates, some posts after it.

wel you deleted the place where kenzu convicted people. nice job, destroy the evidence to make me look like a crmiinal.

obiwan wrote:

wel you deleted the place where kenzu convicted people. nice job, destroy the evidence to make me look like a crmiinal.

Nope, it was moved as a category of State security. Get informed prior to doing accusations.

Well, you're reinciding in spam right now anyway. You're posting unsubstanciated statements and once you're asked to broaden your post so that you can factually back it up you either change topic or dismiss the request.

i was tempted to just say "false" as a joke but i remembered number three on your list.

seriously im not spaming. give evadints.

obiwan wrote:

seriously im not spaming. give evadints.

Thank you

obiwan wrote:

on the contrarie, i am moar "sotiel librarian" than you . garantied. i just dont beleave in morals or rights.

obiwan wrote:

im giving persenel info. i hate morals. i say i have blue eyes you say, back it up spamar! shees.

You say that you're more social-libertarian, right? In order to back that up, you should do the next:

1. Define briefly what social-libertarian means.
2. Give a reason on why you fit with that definition of sociali libertarianism.

Instead of doing that you just avoid debate by saying "I'm giving personal information".

You statements contribute nothing to debate and so are spam.

it contrebutes. he cud be liek.e you fagaet im am a librarian. so waht now i powned you!!!!!!!!!!!

plus i didnt say libertarian i said librarian powned!! no spam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

obiwan wrote:

it contrebutes. he cud be liek.e you fagaet im am a librarian. so waht now i powned you!!!!!!!!!!!

plus i didnt say libertarian i said librarian powned!! no spam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I doesn't contribute at all for the simple fact that you're just stating something without any backup making it an empty statement.

teling someone youre a librarian is spam if you dont fundament it? what am i suposed to do, show him my libery card? OLOLOL

obiwan wrote:

teling someone youre a librarian is spam if you dont fundament it? what am i suposed to do, show him my libery card? OLOLOL

If it has nothing to do with the context and a verification of the veracity is needed yes. In the case of political discussions it's needed.

By the way, that is an unnecesary paralelism.

You know, I think you crossed the line now.

I hereby sentence spammieone (obiwan) to ban until members decide otherwise.

you know i think you speled comittee wrong. not spam. corecting a seria eror of the officials.

obiwan wrote:

you know i think you speled comittee wrong. not spam. corecting a seria eror of the officials.

I'm not an English native speaker so is not such a terrible mistake. Else I'll corret. Irrelevant comment given the context.