As per how such a system would work, someone can't be banned if they no longer exist, including in the data/info. The rest of what you said isn't even remotely true. For one thing, I do have other names but I'm fully transparent about them. Whoever I am talking to at any given time is not on this list of who I might be.
Lilyunad
joined 1 week ago
Says the one with almost no commentary history who is nevertheless banned from the part of the feds you see me operating from. As far as anyone is concerned, you could be the person behind the names you accuse others of. I haven't impersonated anyone either just because I might have similarities (including name-related similarities) with anyone elsewhere. I've never set out to claim to be someone I'm not.
Due to the old instance shutting down.
Considering yourself as having "agreed" with something doesn't make it true. In disagreement, you provided a link to someone. Someone who never denied who she is and who has accepted all punishments. All while supporting someone who, by the same logic, is a ban evader. Why? For reasons that would never make sense outside this environment?
If you were traumatized by it somehow maybe.
Was it delicious?
That doesn't mean what I said is wrong. There's a whole slew of things to keep in mind that your conclusions skip over. For someone who is so eager to mention administration logs, it's odd then you then skip right to iconography as your proof. Assuming everything you were saying was true, it would have to be one or the other. Pick one.