Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-9062114-20151024212230/@comment-26074798-20151029224815

Wulfharth wrote: The Crusader of Truth wrote:

I even told you that Wulf-. I haven't seen much of this proof, just a bunch of Timeion saying something that I havn't seen. Bwaha, I see Sajuuk has taught you well - screenshot ALL the convos!!!

Like I said to you in the chat - the chances of a random user that is NOT Sajuuk (but has the SAME IP as him) coming into our chat - with NO history on here AND asking questions about him specifically.... to say that was not him..... chances are so astromonical that its not even funny.

I know how dynamic/static IPs work.

Duck. Quack quack. I'm kind of upset I managed to get internet an expected to see this. I'm not working with Sajuuk (why would I? That would be weird) But my main point is this (Which it appears you're ignoring, I hope not) I still havn't seen any proof, and many of the users agree with "Innocent until proven guilty", so there is no full reason to keep Sajuuk banned. Although you keep saying "I know how dynamic/static IPs work." I never said you don't- I just said that Usercheck can't be good evidence.