It seems you overlooked the fact that the Cratoon account was active across multiple boards and forum threads, not solely limited to discussions about Paradice casino. Additionally, there is evidence of a merit hunt in the WO thread, where the user received a significant number of merits from his alt accounts (naim027 and AnotherAlt), and sent them to build his other alt accounts (Crypt0S0ul and John Abraham). That can't be right, can it?
I did not check anything about Cratoon account except found out that it's representing a casino. So if you are talking about Naim027 or AnotherAlt or Crypto0S0ul or John Abraham or anyone else or any other account - nothing is my concern. I am not into that discussion.
I even starting with saying that it's in general. I am trying to make a sense why it was so easily overlooked.
I think "ban evasion" is a very simple forum rule. This is how I understand it, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong: If one of your accounts is banned, you, as an individual, are no longer allowed to use this platform, regardless of who you represent or work for. The ban applies to the person, not just the account.
It's not that I don't know how a ban works to a person. Instead of making the font bold for me, do it for some newbie who needs your teaching.
So, you're saying that someone who gets banned can easily create a new account, pretend to represent a fictional (or real) business, and continue using the forum without any consequences?
25. Ban evasion (using or creating accounts while one of your accounts is banned) is not allowed
Why it's hard to understand. Isn't it self-explaining, assuming this is your reference for the argument.
Here is my interpretation:
Account x is owned by person a, he is the sole owner of the account.
Account y is owned by a company or business, it represent a business, a group of people, we have no idea who created it and who is handling it but it's representing a single entity and "Mr a" is one of them.
Your rule does not say anything about account y can not be used by "Mr a" as a part of the group. It says a person can not use or create another account and the interpretation is for his own personal account/s. In example cases we have seen all these were, their own personal accounts.
Forget about the rules, how a business account can be treated as a personal account where it's obvious that the business account was not handled by the single person who was accused to have a ban on the forum?
Show me which new account is pretending to represent a fictional business and continue using the forum?