However, i still believe my initial support for this flag was correct. I read h4ns's topic and to the best of my knowledge, i tought it was valid.
I asked you to show the alleged
written contract and you are not able to deliver!
Therefore you knowingly support a flag containing incorrect fact-statements and abused the trust system!
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.
I am not a lawyer, and i'm not interested in discussing wether or not an e-mail is to be considered to be a written contract (or not), or that mixing the word "donation" into the conversation results in making every payment a donation (or not).
In other words, you publicly support that a
written contract was violated, but you do not want to know whether or not it is true!

3) Consideration (i.e., some form of payment);
Does not exist!
Game Protect only takes donations without any legally binding agreement.
Real world legal aspects: Donations are given without return consideration.4) An intention to be legally bound by the contract
Does not exist!
Game Protect does not make contracts and therefore can not intent to be legally bound by such!
