The bolded statement is actually irrelevant. I won't go into details, but Vox's ban has at the most nothing more than a coincidental relationship with yours.

Also, you shouldn't disregard Fish's post just because "he had nothing to do with your ban". If you want us to dig into the semantics of a ban from that long ago, we'll end up having to do some guesswork, but we'd probably come to exactly the same conclusion that Fish has already posted.

Besides things done on the internet and outside of Toribash; what do you like to do on your free time?

I draw posters for friends, study programming, write crappy short stories, play basketball, sometime do fencing, do stuff with friends, and eat ice cream.

this is to hanz0:

What was your inspiration for making your comic log and when will you start posting out new content? I love it and post it places frequently. The hunting and gathering one made me die laughing

Lots of gaming, work, gym, volunteer at the concession stand of my old high school.

However the fact remains that you guys have refused to say why Vox was banned. And it is well known that many people who were banned by Vox incorrectly had their bans reversed.

Since there is a continued refusal to say why Vox actually was banned, it doesn't make sense for us to just take your word for it that it was unrelated to his power abuse that he was apparently being investigated for at the time.

Even if a train of logic sounds legitimate, doesn't mean it is actually correct. Fish did not have ANYTHING to do with the ban, so at best he is making a guess.

At the time it was well known that I was banned just because Vox didn't like me, and only recently Fish decided to change the official reason to "trolling" without offering any kind of proof or citations.

So long as you accept that Fish is making an attempt to offer a reason without having any direct observation of the actual events, it's fine to consider his reasoning. He wasn't even part of the post-ban conversation that Juntalis linked in the ban thread.

i find it hilarious when members like you give false answers to why vox was banned

It's always been sort of a hobby of mine - only got the website recently thanks to Jarmund. Been real busy lately with final exams, graduation, etc., but am planning on resuming updates as soon as I've simmered down from all my recent stuff and gotten some inspiration back.

I find it hilarious when you fucking suck at reading shitpost.

I said we are not being told why he was banned, and that it's suspicious as fuck that he was banned then a ton of users that he banned was unbanned, whilst he was apparently under investigation for power amuse.

At any time you guys could clear up and explain why everything points to him being removed for power amuse, but you guys choose not to.

You can't blame people for expecting the obvious when no other alternatives are even being suggested.

We haven't told you why he was banned because it was entirely internal and does not need to be otherwise. Please note that "power amuse" is generally not "entirely internal", and that we have been fairly straightforward with explaining people who were in fact removed for that reason.

Yes, other users that were banned by Vox have been unbanned. Other users that have been banned by me, Fish, hampa, veb, etc have been unbanned. Unbanning is occasionally quite normal.

As an aside, perhaps you should consider Fish's answer to be less "why you were banned in the first place" and more "why you're still banned on that account".

As a further aside, if you would like to continue this discussion, drop a word and I can re-enable a Gorm[a-zA-Z]n alt of your choice in Ban Appeals. It'd be nice if this thread didn't get derailed for this.