Reason you were banned: kys @Armadyl

Why you should be unbanned: kys @Armadyl

---

I'd like to add the faggot @Armadyl silenced me while I was telling him about this situation in the shoutbox. I beat him in a conversation one day and ever since then he's been against me. The power of jealousy.

---

You're genuinely fucking disgusting @Armadyl you should be ashamed.

To be fair @thekilob, the site you're promoting sells fullz, which is against our rules.

6.3) Selling or Posting Credit/Debit cards is not allowed, and will result in you being banned instantly.

and you have admitted to being affiliated, which means you are responsible for the site.

3.2) Advertisements in your signature should be products owned by you or something you're affiliated with. You are responsible if something goes wrong with a product you're advertising.

I agree with @Armadyl that maybe the rules aren't as clear, but you did violate both of them. Not our fault you don't vet what you advertise.

@pompompurin can chime in, as the rules may require additional modification.

(November 10, 2022, 08:10 PM)penis Wrote: To be fair @thekilob, the site you're promoting sells fullz, which is against our rules.

6.3) Selling or Posting Credit/Debit cards is not allowed, and will result in you being banned instantly.

and you have admitted to being affiliated, which means you are responsible for the site.

3.2) Advertisements in your signature should be products owned by you or something you're affiliated with. You are responsible if something goes wrong with a product you're advertising.

I agree with @Armadyl that maybe the rules aren't as clear, but you did violate both of them. Not our fault you don't vet what you advertise.

@pompompurin can chime in, as the rules may require additional modification.

I did not violate both rules, pomp cleared me for at least the first.
I am fully in the clear here, since @pompompurin himself removed my ban the first time, making me think I was doing nothing wrong. If he now changes his mind, that's different, but my ban should be removed as @pompompurin had made me believe I did nothing wrong by unbanning me last time.
If we want to get real in depth about 6.3 , I'm not directly selling credit cards, I'm simply promoting a site which may or may not exchange certain products for certain currencies once you sign up. By this I'm simply saying I thought pompy made an indirect exception to a sort of gray area.
Again though, since @pompompurin unbanned me the first time, I am fully in the clear and my ban should be removed, along with an apology for the shoutbox thing and @Armadyl's general behavior.

(November 10, 2022, 08:18 PM)thekilob Wrote:

(November 10, 2022, 08:10 PM)penis Wrote: To be fair @thekilob, the site you're promoting sells fullz, which is against our rules.

6.3) Selling or Posting Credit/Debit cards is not allowed, and will result in you being banned instantly.

and you have admitted to being affiliated, which means you are responsible for the site.

3.2) Advertisements in your signature should be products owned by you or something you're affiliated with. You are responsible if something goes wrong with a product you're advertising.

I agree with @Armadyl that maybe the rules aren't as clear, but you did violate both of them. Not our fault you don't vet what you advertise.

@pompompurin can chime in, as the rules may require additional modification.

I did not violate both rules, pomp cleared me for at least the first.
I am fully in the clear here, since @pompompurin himself removed my ban the first time, making me think I was doing nothing wrong. If he now changes his mind, that's different, but my ban should be removed as @pompompurin had made me believe I did nothing wrong by unbanning me last time.
If we want to get real in depth about 6.3 , I'm not directly selling credit cards, I'm simply promoting a site which may or may not exchange certain products for certain currencies once you sign up. By this I'm simply saying I thought pompy made an indirect exception to a sort of gray area.
Again though, since @pompompurin unbanned me the first time, I am fully in the clear and my ban should be removed, along with an apology for the shoutbox thing and @Armadyl's general behavior.

Not both* rules, what I meant by that is you violated 6.3 via 3.2. I'll let @pompompurin decide on the rest.

(November 10, 2022, 08:27 PM)penis Wrote:

(November 10, 2022, 08:18 PM)thekilob Wrote:

(November 10, 2022, 08:10 PM)penis Wrote: To be fair @thekilob, the site you're promoting sells fullz, which is against our rules.

6.3) Selling or Posting Credit/Debit cards is not allowed, and will result in you being banned instantly.

and you have admitted to being affiliated, which means you are responsible for the site.

3.2) Advertisements in your signature should be products owned by you or something you're affiliated with. You are responsible if something goes wrong with a product you're advertising.

I agree with @Armadyl that maybe the rules aren't as clear, but you did violate both of them. Not our fault you don't vet what you advertise.

@pompompurin can chime in, as the rules may require additional modification.

I did not violate both rules, pomp cleared me for at least the first.
I am fully in the clear here, since @pompompurin himself removed my ban the first time, making me think I was doing nothing wrong. If he now changes his mind, that's different, but my ban should be removed as @pompompurin had made me believe I did nothing wrong by unbanning me last time.
If we want to get real in depth about 6.3 , I'm not directly selling credit cards, I'm simply promoting a site which may or may not exchange certain products for certain currencies once you sign up. By this I'm simply saying I thought pompy made an indirect exception to a sort of gray area.
Again though, since @pompompurin unbanned me the first time, I am fully in the clear and my ban should be removed, along with an apology for the shoutbox thing and @Armadyl's general behavior.

Not both* rules, what I meant by that is you violated 6.3 via 3.2. I'll let @pompompurin decide on the rest.

I explained why I wasn't violating 6.3

---

To reinforce my point, tell me why pomp would directly upload this if it wasn't allowed:

accepted