Posting on hehalf of JUAT

I was banned for vading, a vader i am not..


Delta Squad posted here.

http://sythe.org/showthread.php?p=9770305&highlight=duffy#post9770305

The reason he believed me to be vading was i posted a vouch on behalf of a friend at our local Internet Cafe - Duffy King

vouch located here: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=1234138

Duffy King spoke to beetle bumpr on MSN and they BOTH AGREED that Duffy would vouch from another account as his had got banned.

I allowed this, KNOWING i would not get a vouch in return as i had not bought the services, Duffy just wanted Beetle to get recognition for his new service & order he had completed.

I AM NOT Duffy King, the only thing we have in common is we share the same Internet Cafe, which there are multiple Sythe users i believe.

Now answer me this... as i can see Duffy had 20+ vouches, why would i attempt to start a LARGE business in my eyes on a fresh account when YOU CLAIM Duffy King is my account which has 20+ vouches, that doesnt add up.

Hopefully you can see me JUAT has no link to Duffy King.

HOWEVER i do admit it was most likely an error on my behalf allowing him to make me vouch for Beetle Bumpr. BUT remember i received no vouch in return, and ment no malice by this. I am willing to receive/take credit for any infractions/trouble that may come with vouching for a service on behalf of a banner user :S




Thank you in advance for taking the time to look at this

¬ Juat


p.s. BundyBoy is another Internet Cafe user and irl friend

 

bumped upon request

 

bump!

 

bump!

 

How are we supposed to believe that JUAT and Duffy King are different people when they not only share an IP but post on behalf of each other?

Because Duffy King is banned?

If there is any evidence of this then beetle bumpr is at fault as well.

Even if they aren't the same person, you can't just vouch for someone else like that. Part of the "quality" of a vouch is in who it came from, and most people wouldn't put much stock in one from a banned member. If he wanted to vouch for Duffy, he could have said "posting this on behalf of Duffy King", but

when he received no service is deliberately misleading.