If you don’t want to read the block of text, just skip over to the last part.
Contradictions (open me)
Offensive line nr. 1. Using ad hominems by attacking the person is offensive and doesn’t weaken their argument.
Offensive line Nr. 2. There was no need to insult Atrophy by calling them anti-social.
Hold on, let me add something:
Thank for once again proving my point on the community’s socials skills and maturity.
Offensive Line Nr. 3. Using the hasty generalization fallacy, you insulted the whole community as immature and anti-social.
Ad Hominem tu Quoque Fallacy. Atrophy’s behavior has nothing to do with your behavior. After all, you were the one who got banned, not Artrophy.
You are attacking a strawman. What Artrophy showed was evidence that were contradicting your argument. You claim that you are a “nice guy”; Athrophy proved you wrong, which already does the fact that you got penalized multiple times.
Wonderful, then stop being a hypocrite and give some proper context! You are claiming that Blizzard is the bad guy without the entire proper context behind your penalty because you haven’t appealed to lift the penalty yet. You know you got penalized but you don’t know why and start assuming that they were wrong, not you.
You claim to be the nicest person in the world, bragging how friendly and progressive you are, yet you showed multiple times that you can be offensive, too. Context doesn’t matter because if that line is offensive, it is offensive and thus reportable. So technically speaking, your reply where you call Artrophy a Troll and anti-social can be flagged for being insulting.
You made yourself look like the bad guy because you were bragging how “nice” you are and we just proved you wrong. None of us said that you are the bad guy. We provided contradictions, nothing more. In the end, it’s your prejudice towards people who disagree with you that made you think that way. It’s your own fear of being wrong that lead to your reaction. And you were calling us the guys with prejudice and assumptions. Ironic, isn’t it?
Now then, let’s boil it all down. Your argument, how “nice” you are, is completely anecdotal. Contradicting evidence on the forum and the multiple penalties are factual. If you really want to prove how “nice” you are, prove it with factual evidence. How? By eliminating one of the contradicting evidence.
If you truly are a “nice” guy, you should be able to appeal and get your penalty lifted. If it fails, then your whole thread falls apart because a review of a GM has proven you wrong. A GM would have proven that you aren’t the “nice” guy you brag to be.