So I recently received a TWC because of TV'S false accusations.
He claims I have sniped his names, but he has no proof. Obvious I can't just say I deny that claim(though I will maintain that I haven't) because this is the internet, and anything can be said. So instead let's rely on the proof from TV supporting his claims.
The only proof he has is my strong dislike of him(which has resulted in trolling as seen in this thread
), but ended in us becoming somewhat friends(We had some good chats on RS). He also knows I'm friends with ORLY and I believe he's basing
a lot of this fact.
In that sense, I am an avid rare name trader. I have bought names off this site and often view threads because I'm a collector.
Looking at someones vouches and thread constitutions NOTHING but mindless assumptions. Essentially whats being said is if someone views a thread/vouches, they are going to scam/snipe.
There is NO solid proof that I got any of his accounts that he sold. Him putting his accounts up for sale is a risk, and just because someone else got them, he's seeking revenge, but the revenge is on someone who has done nothing.
Furthermore, here is a conversation I had with Matthew the day this was made.
[20:25] <caseyctrl> obviously me saying "I havent sniped his names" holds nothing because really I can say anything
[20:26] <Matthew> this report will probably get locked
[20:26] <caseyctrl> but he gives no proof
[20:28] <caseyctrl> plus if it matters i tried to buy a name of him anyways but he wouldnt sell it to me
[20:28] <caseyctrl> but i cba to search for the tread
[20:28] <caseyctrl> thread*
[20:31] <Matthew> right
[20:31] <Matthew> so if he has no proo
[20:31] <Matthew> *proof
[20:31] <Matthew> it'll get locked
Of course, it really is moderator discretion so when I questioned him why I received it, he suggested I post about it to get in touch with the mod who issued it as it's not his deal.
He followed up with this quote
[13:51] <Matthew> I didn't say you wouldn't get the ran
[13:51] <Matthew> *rank
[13:52] <Matthew> I said it would depend on the proof
I don't know if he's personally seen the thread, but from any stand point the proof is less than adequate and proves nothing.