Ron Paul 2012 (yes... mozart A FOURTH TIME!)

[CYBER]

yeah, ninja has a point. it looks extremely suspicious when someone is banned, then another person joins immediately with an extremely similar name.

i can understand where cyber is comming from. hopefully this'll all get straightened out. if it turns out a mistake was made, then cyber will apologize

thank u aco, at least someone knows where i stand from that issue..mikey buddy, i know it's possible to have another player with Ron Paul 2012, and that is the ONLY reason i unbanned him FOR NOW, until someone compares the IP addresses. And i also apologized temporary above for rushing into the ban,

HOWEVER, you have to understand mikey that, a guy banned at 2:07 or so, and then 13 minutes later a guy with the EXACT name , in the same format RON PAUL 2012, joins in with only the "mozart" part missing...
Heck i would understand if some random guy joined with "Vote Ron Paul", "Ron Paul For president", "President Ron Pauk" , "2012 Go Ron Paul" ...
but having the EXACT name join IMMEDIATELY after getting banned...

And keep in mind, it wasnt me who thought it was Mozart at first, jerm saw the guy join after i banned mozart and left the game to post on forums. So when two admins and then aco see the "coincidence" a bit fishy... well then, that's how i ended up banning him TEMPORARY from web... and clearly stated that it was an ASSUMPTION, just for the sake of protecting the server while the FIRST mozart ban is active.

Please stop argueing about this name thing, only an IP study will be conclusive, he is UNBANNED for now, until the other guy is proven hacking or not, and until the IP matching returns ( im going to gungame stats to compare this as we speak...).

Lets all go to the other thread now and read what i wrote about the fishy patterns this guy has in walling?

[DJ_MikeyRevile]

insufficient evidence.


/bump

[CYBER]

insufficient evidence for the hacks on the OTHER thread? or for assuming it was the same guy?
because if u are answering for "assuming it was the right guy" then i want to point out that he has already been unbanned temporary.

now if you were referring to the hacks by the OTHER thread, i would have appreciated it if you replied to the other thread.

EDIT: never mind u answered my question by posting on the other thread. thx for feedback, although a more elaborate answer explaining certain ticks would have been nice, just so that we see what you saw.

[DJ_MikeyRevile]

insufficient evidence for the hacks on the OTHER thread? or for assuming it was the same guy?
because if u are answering for "assuming it was the right guy" then i want to point out that he has already been unbanned temporary.

now if you were referring to the hacks by the OTHER thread, i would have appreciated it if you replied to the other thread.

EDIT: never mind u answered my question by posting on the other thread. thx for feedback, although a more elaborate answer explaining certain ticks would have been nice, just so that we see what you saw.

both threads need to be resolved and closed, you cant just let this one hang in limbo never to be seen again, thus the bump. Inconclusive evidence is still relevant here because you are banning him on the basis that he has multiple accounts, you have 0 proof to provide us with that backs your claim regarding this individual being the same individual from the other ban thread.

[maynard]

closed. unbanned.