Receiving a infraction 3 months late.

[Gunshotz]

Explains itself really.
If it was such a bad rule breaker, why didn't I receive it 3 months ago?

Link: http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=764357

First I get a false infraction for something I proved right.
Then I get a infraction for something that happend longer than three months ago.

Not too happy about this.

 

[Wellard]

You get one reversed and they start sifting through the trash, welcome to the internet.

 

Your infraction was disputed, and reversed so no need to complain about that.

You didn't receive it then, because no one noticed it. The only reason that thread was brought up was because it was reported by a user, and you can see the thread here - http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=764362 (Not sure if it's open to all users).

Always read the rules before you post so you know what you're posting is allowed and you won't get infracted for it.

 

[Darkgroove]

Oh stop complaining. You broke a rule, and you were infracted for it. That's the way it goes here, no matter how long ago you broke the rule.

 

[R33l2r3al]

In after lock:

On top of what Darkgroove stated, you already had one infraction reversed, even though it shouldn't have been. I do not support the idea of sifting through someone's posts for infractions by any means, but the fact that you threatened a moderator, are publicly abusing him via your signature, and broke the rule twice (even though one was reversed), would lead me to want to temporarily ban you for misconduct. Whether or not you got scammed (seeing as you still haven't posted proof), you have NO RIGHT to act the way you have been.

 

[Darkgroove]

In after lock:

On top of what Darkgroove stated, you already had one infraction reversed, even though it shouldn't have been. I do not support the idea of sifting through someone's posts for infractions by any means, but the fact that you threatened a moderator, are publicly abusing him via your signature, and broke the rule twice (even though one was reversed), would lead me to want to temporarily ban you for misconduct. Whether or not you got scammed (seeing as you still haven't posted proof), you have NO RIGHT to act the way you have been.

In after R33l:

Troll:
So if someone is spamming advertisements, you shouldn't "sifting" through their posts looking for other advertisements to delete? D:

 

[OldFinn]

In after lock:

On top of what Darkgroove stated, you already had one infraction reversed, even though it shouldn't have been. I do not support the idea of sifting through someone's posts for infractions by any means, but the fact that you threatened a moderator, are publicly abusing him via your signature, and broke the rule twice (even though one was reversed), would lead me to want to temporarily ban you for misconduct. Whether or not you got scammed (seeing as you still haven't posted proof), you have NO RIGHT to act the way you have been.

^^^^^^^^^