Oathkeepers Appeal part 2

Oathkeeper false ban appeal


"That's what I thought. Do you possibly own a mansion that's about 156 miles big? Your home IP is sketchy as fuck. I've never heard of Post Office Broadband and this IP you're appealing from now is a 5 hour drive by car away from the IP you've disputed your TWC with. Please dispute your ban from your own home IP that doesn't sketch me the fuck out. Besides that, the evidence that's been layed down by Pendulum is overwhelming. IP's have also been checked. Happy New Year."



In reply to your statement,
No I don't own a mansion that's 156 miles big, I live in a Semi-detached Bungalow.
This is my Home Ip address (posting from just now) which isn't "sketchy as fuck"

Post office broadband- Its not my fault that you haven't heard of it, its quite popular in my Country.
A quick google search and you could of saw this, But Il save you the time.

top 10 uk broadbands - Google Search
Top 10 UK ISPs By Subscriber Size

• BT (PlusNet, EE) 9,307,000.
• Sky Broadband (UK + Ireland) 6,104,000.
• Virgin Media 5,080,100.
• TalkTalk 3,993,000.
• Vodafone UK 278,000.
• Post Office 184,261.
• KCOM Group (KCOM Home) Est. 170,000.
• Ask4 (Mostly Students) 130,000.

This appeal is from the same Ip address that my TWC post and my previous Appeal was made from.


The evidence laid down by "Pendulum" in his report IS NOT Overwhelming.
There is no similarities and even if there was ide share those similarities with every other thread that I linked in Part one of my Appeal.

As I said before, I've posted from my Home Ip again, I've also given you more than enough explanation of why the report against me was wrong and I've been false banned.

Ide like to request the Mod's Wortel and King have nothing to do with this. Preferably handled by another Mod

My reasoning being I think the response by my first appeal was rather arrogant and
based on your reply@wortel
"that's what I thought" was from PM flaming you, you shouldn't let that carry over into a Dispute but keep it between Pm That's why I'm requesting you not to handle this because I think your decision would be biased.

And @King because I disagree with your decision in the first place based on banning me for just a "coincidence" I've proved there's too many coincidence's on this site for your reasoning to be taken seriously.

​

 

This is currently being reviewed.

 

@King and I are both positive you're the same user, but since there's no definitive proof you've been unbanned. Please refrain from Private Messaging me in a creepy way though, I have no interest in getting along with you.