Grave's 50th ban dispute

I was banned for allegedly violating Title IV, Chapter II, Section VI of the Sythe.org penal code, more colloquially known as disclosing a Venezuelan's anime hair in the form of a cropped PNG screenshot.

Please note that the rule above is very specific when mentioning photos, and it uses the adjective "private" which means the photos are not otherwise meant to be shared and were only privately available or meant to be privately available. Otherwise, the very smart staff member who wrote the rule would not add the word "private" in the rule and would list it as other items such as "Facebook accounts" were listed which are arguably never really private. Therefore, in those cases, "private" is excluded.

It does state "such as" at the beginning but it does not say "but not limited to" either. We can tell this is the case because for the section regarding disclosing staff member information which has a much stricter ban, DOES specify that it is "not limited to" so we can assume when "not limited to" is not included, it is meant that way.

It does state "whether or not the information is publicly available" but that would mean if the PRIVATE photo is publicly available, as in it already was posted or leaked, a private photo of someone (an image that is initially considered private.)

So with that information, the first case I am making is that the photo was not private as required, and I'll back that up later after we go over the other cases.

The second case is that the rule states "without explicit consent" which means if there is explicit consent, then the rule does not apply. It does not state what s considered explicit consent or that you need to be able to prove the consent. For example, when you have sex with a woman (we'll explain what this is later as well) she can consent to it even if you did not record her saying she consents, or did not get her to sign a contract stating that she consented. When you go to court, there needs to be evidence that she did not consent (and not the other way around.) Therefore, the fact that the Venezuelan, hereon referred to as "amplearchitect" needs to show he did not consent. Nowhere did he show that he asked for it to be removed or did not like the photo to be posted and based on his actions, he consented, again, just as a woman can consent without explicitly saying "yes, Grave, fuck me Grave, just like that." We'll cover this further when we explain what happened.

The third case is that when Sythe.org deals with other evidence and reports, they have set a precedent of requiring evidence that the user's Discord must be verified. Sythe expects this of its users, so I also expect that its staff also take this basic step when verifying the validity of reports. BlackBlasses stated that my alleged Discord account was linked to me by checking older logs. Nowhere did I advertise the stated Discord account as my account. It is unfair to expect users to secure their Discord account and be responsible for it as well as identified by that handle if they do not use it. Actually, before the event, I was considering and others can vouch that I was speaking about changing my Discord handle to being a #0001 or a #9999. If I had changed this and I had ensured my Discord was not posted anywhere on Sythe, it's unfair to think that someone could take my previous Discord handle and get me in trouble using it. Again I plead the 5th here, but I must state that the evidence rendered did not include a unique Discord ID that could potentially be a better identifier, assuming I even listed it in the first place. Remember when I say I plead the 5th I am not denying the allegation that it could have been me, I am just stating it is not relevant because the burden of proof is not on me.

The fourth case is that Title IV, Chapter II, Section VI does not state that this rule applies to other discords. Of course, the "additional notes/clauses" does later but companies are responsible for listing their terms of service in an organized manner and they cannot hide footnotes all the way at the bottom when they state something completely different and whole earlier on. This is just the rules for a Runescape message board for teen boys though so let's assume you do not have the responsibility to do this, in which case it states:

Please note how this is essentially another whole section regarding this rule that repeats portions of it such as the disclosing of private photos.

Therefore, we can again as a courtesy assume that this is valid in which case it means that "amplearchitect" who was participating in the Sythe discord which was considered spam forum, and the actual spam forum would be labeled as a spam forum user and therefore my previous case gets backed up in this case five I am presenting. This means that there is a presumption that private photos gets changed to OBVIOUSLY private photos, such as nudes and private photos. It is very clear at this point that private photos have to actually be private.

For some reason I vaguely remember this section statin that even if its outside of Sythe, the rule applies, but I don't see it. If it does exist, this section has another interesting portion:

This means that you can of course interpret any of this differently so I implore you to do that, but I also want to remind you about the second part which states you will make best effort by using precedent.

I present to you this precedent:
Reporting User Grave for Leaking personal picture

This is where I allegedly posted a photo involving another user, and a staff member clearly asks whether it was posted on the Sythe discord and then state that he needs to prove it was posted on the Sythe discord. Later, another staff denies that request and states that the photo was not posted on the Sythe discord, it was posted on my discord, and therefore you OBVIOUSLY cannot control what's outside of Sythe, and therefore the rule does not apply. So the final case I am making is that previous precedent makes it clear that it has to be in places controlled by Sythe.org.


So, what happened?

The user "Soheil#2985" whether or not that was me or controlled by me, we'll never know, was in a video call with "amplearchitect" and @Bert and others. Then "amplearchitect" brought up a personal detail about Grave: that he is a bald dick head. This information was an interpretation of what was occurring on the video call, or by him accessing a personal photo of me without consent if these rules are to be mistreated as they have been and applied equally to him. "Soheil#2985" screenshotted the video chat to show a cropped version of "amplearchitect" on the video call, which was publicly accessible on a Discord that was publicly linked on Sythe and available to all Sythe members and a reminder, NOT the official Sythe discord. Bert then brought up the possibility that "amplearchitect" is going to report me which only egged him on to do so, but it is important to note that the evidence clearly shows that "amplearchitect" did NOT ask me to remove the photo or say anything that would assume he does not consent to the photo being posted. He laughed about it and the voice call was carried on. He did not leave the voice call. He did not contact the user in any other way. He did however, after posting the report, which was very unexpected, tell me to pay him $200 (he told me, as in he told Soheil#9999 at the time) to remove the report. He still did not ask for the photo. Later on when BlackBlasses asked me to remove the photo and I complied, as Soheil#9999 and moderator on that Discord. Remember that amplearchitect still did not ask for it to be removed. He did not say that he didn't consent. I did joke about this being on the official Sythe discord, but that does not mean it was. I did plead the 5th but that does not mean I couldn't be asked non-self incriminating questions about the situation, which I wasn't before the case was closed. I was told to provide proof of consent, which I already covered above: nowhere does the user assume this needs to be done by reading the rules. I was asked another question but BlackBlasses only told me to answer it "if he did not give consent" which was untrue.

TLDR:

The rules and precedents essentially mean that "amplearchitect" must have had an actual private photo posted by me and most likely posted on messageboards or chats that Sythe.org controls. The photo was not private. There wasn't a lack of consent, given the situation. The allegations were against a discord user which I did not assume control of, and this should be thrown out multiple times based on multiple cases.

Please remember that if even one of these cases is valid then the report against me is invalid and not the other way around.


Thanks for your consideration.