Disputing Infraction 2

Disputing an Infraction that was provided to me by @Tmoe

As you can see here this was the infraction offence:
Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet

Definition of spamming from the rules:

Spamming:

• Posting short, unhelpful comments (such as "cool", "nice acc,", "added" etc), including free bumps on other's threads and bumps on stickies
• Posting for the sole purpose of increasing post count
• Posting comments with little to no relevance to the topic
• Creating multiple threads advertising the same thing, regardless of the section
• Creating multiple threads in one market section. Additional items can be combined and sold on one thread.

It was definitely not a short unhelpful comment it was definitely well thought out. It was well thought out as it was true.

It had complete relevance to the topic. It was talking about going away. It clearly stated my reasons as to why I would be inactive.

It was not advertising anything.

It was not creating multiple threads in one market section.

It was not posted for the sole purpose of increasing post count. Bear in mind, it was actually responding to the reason I would be away.

This effectively means that it does not fall under the spamming category. You can read the response yourself and it clearly relates to the topic. Therefore you are in no position to warn my for spamming as there is no proof of the rule in question being broken here. If you didn't like my response you could have deleted it.

 

​

Denied

 

Disputing Infraction 2

In that case change the warning definition of my dispute. Change it to other rather than spamming like what the fuck is this shit?