Infraction Dispute

[JohnK]

Hi,

- SuF infracted me.

- I was infracted for the content of this post: ("Accusing of scamming without proof")

Actually, it has full relevance to this thread. Scammers like YOU are getting so desperate they are paying petty cash for vouches to show a fake image of trust and/or offering high ridiculous amounts of cash as shown in example a.

The infraction was unwarranted. I was not "Accusing him of scamming without proof" - He had a Trade With Caution at the time I said this. Scammer is a word used to generalize people who aren't Trustworthy, dodgy, or people who have a TWC...etc etc.
This is why Hahanerd45 has the TWC, in his own words:

What is your point? You think I scam? I got the TWC for giving someone 5k for a vouch.

So I fail to see how I was accusing him of scamming without proof?
All I said was what he had already said. Is the TWC and his own words not enough proof as to why I called him a scammer?

If my infraction stands, you may aswell infract all of these people who made posts like mine in the same thread:

I find it ironic that a member with a TWC is giving lectures about being dishonest. And if your trusted on this site you need to be very truthful and trusted. A dedicated scammer would pay huge amounts of money for a OMM.
Sad Sad People

Coming from the guy with "trade with caution"
but yeah scamming's morally wrong.

and douchebags do it.

Thanks.

 

[T R 1 B A L]

If you haven't reported him of scamming, haven't posted evidence and etc etc, you have no proof of his "scamming".

Denied.