Quote from: rapsaodan84 on April 03, 2018, 11:49:13 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on April 03, 2018, 11:42:15 PM

Quote from: rapsaodan84 on April 03, 2018, 11:37:19 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on April 03, 2018, 11:28:45 PM

It's a public agreement, terms stated in public, terms violated in public. Absolutely no wiggle room out of it. Especially when the violator quoted the exact rule they violated.

so you think quoting something is more important than explicitly confirming you agree to it? are you trolling? did you mean to post this 2 days ago on the 1st of April?

does anybody here believe an "implicit agreement" because of a local rule is an agreement to full extend? just curious

April 02, 2018, 14:12:13 on my screen.

Electronically quoting a contract of auction terms & replying underneath it when specifically, highlighted-ly, prohibited from do so, serves the same function as signing your name at the bottom of a contract IRL.

sure, just because you say so Roll Eyes

I'd be interested to know if anyone else agrees with you on that

I don't think it matters what anyone else - other than the moderators - thinks about it. And since the moderators can use their discretion, and seem to have done so, I don't really see what TBZ can do about it. If those trolls continue trolling perhaps a ban is in order just for that. Perhaps TBZ can appeal this all the way up to the Supreme Leader theymos.

Contracts IRL often get broken and voided and otherwise invalidated, sometimes on ridiculous technicalities, so I'm not sure that's a good example to follow.