Robert Adamant - go to this post

I never posted any sexual depictions of minors. Nor used the server with intent to commit sex crimes.

I will hand you that you did not post any graphic sexual depictions of minors, but you did depict minors in a sexual manner. "Sexualized depictions of minors […] may not be embedded in conversations or uploaded as profile pictures."

In my opinion, the rule should be changed not to use the word "embedded" because it implies an image, but literally speaking, it can also refer to literary depictions.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

I never asked for any reveling pictures and the unsolicited pictures from minors were deleted by the senders and not saved.

1. You were not accused of this, and;
2. This is irrelevant as to whether the pictures were in fact exchanged.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

Many attribute malicious intent to my actions where there is no such intent despite all good and bad faith attempts to reveal my alleged maliciousness.

The very fact that you engaged in a sexually-charged conversation with several underage girls is malicious by nature.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

If a sex crime has occurred I could charge the women I have been speaking to for intent to commit sex crimes.

Except that they're not women; they are girls. In this case, the only person who is a legal adult and could stand trial is you.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

When I have consistently made clear my age they have consistently said that they are aware of the taboo nature of the relationship and insisted nonetheless.

Once again, it doesn't matter if the underage girls "insisted" on anything, because once again, they are underage.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

I admit I continued to participate despite this being made clear. My intent has been and still is to establish and maintain connections with people.

Really? It seems that you are only interested in maintaining connections so long as you can jerk off to the thought of them.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

This requires respecting how others want to conduct themselves. I cannot control what they will do and what expectations are created for me.

You can easily avoid being characterized as a pedophile by not flirting with underage girls online.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

It does me no good to slander young whores so i wouldn't accuse them of wrongdoing. To accuse me of malicious intent ignores this benevolence.

By referring to the girls as "whores," you are already slandering them, which is actually libel, and so I fail to see any "benevolence" on your part. Either this is a Freudian slip and you are incapable of keeping secret your perception of the outside world, or you are intentionally doing this for some other reason than to be perceived as an idiot.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

I wouldn't appeal the ban because I already left. Elaine and Grant asked me to go back.

Once again, you are (intentionally?) contradicting yourself, because this is definitely an appeal to the masses.

The Arbitrator - go to this post

I will hand you that you did not post any graphic…

Genuinely impressive.
You can find that I have contradictions in my arguments but the meaningful refutation requires proving intent.
You have only claimed I have intent due to my actions. I argued that my actions imply another intent and you simply ignore that.
It's easy to "take someone down" when you make a bad faith attempt.
Your entire reason for being is a contradiction.
You are only the last person to enter a dogpile so you can feel like you're on the right side when you create some high effort post.

The whores thing was funny.

It's also really hard to speak on relevant things when I don't have anything specific brought against me. Just the broad accusation of wrong doing.
I can only assume that it's because that's the strongest argument against me. That there isn't anything except for what you insist must be wrong so you can oppose me.

The Arbitrator - go to this post

You were banned from the Discord server for breaking two rules in particular. (The rules which you broke were made public on the Discord server as an explanation for why you were banned.) There is no broad accusation of "doing wrong."

you actually do need to cite a specific grievance otherwise there's no opportunity for reform, just accusations.
I do want to make sure that I don't do something genuinely harmful.
Make a meaningful statement that can help me rather than trying to boost your confidence by trying to just win an argument everyone else has told you is impossible to lose.

The Arbitrator - go to this post

a. Your argument is not only contradictory, but there is no argument to be had…

None of these are accusations that have been brought against me for the purpose of the ban. If you have personal grievances they are between you and me.

The Arbitrator - go to this post

You outright stated that you will make any platform of which you are part a "dating server,"

That was a descriptive appraisal rather than a prescriptive one.
Your entire argument of intent requires that it is prescriptive.

Schizoid Man - go to this post

The difference between you and Socrates is that you are not Socrates.

TRUUUU everything else is exactly the same it's crazy. Same situation different man.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

That was a descriptive appraisal rather than a prescriptive one.

I will take it that you are referring to your own words, which only goes to further justify my claim that you did indeed break the rules and there is demonstrable intent with regard to sex crimes.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

you actually do need to cite a specific grievance otherwise there's no opportunity for reform, just accusations.
I do want to make sure that I don't do something genuinely harmful.
Make a meaningful statement that can help me rather than trying to boost your confidence by trying to just win an argument everyone else has told you is impossible to lose.

In my opinion, you have had too many chances. Winning an argument with you is only impossible to lose because of your inability to carry an argument, not because it is impossible to have an argument in good faith.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

None of these are accusations that have been brought against me for the purpose of the ban. If you have personal grievances they are between you and me.

How are they not directly relevant to the rules which you broke? The subject matter of my post revolves directly around the nature of the rules and how you did indeed violate them. This is nothing more than a contrary argument brought forth with absolutely no reasoning to justify it. How do you reason with this?

Robert Adamant - go to this post

Yes I am referring to my own words. I recognized that the server became something I was not interested in and left.
If I continued to pursue access to the server there would be clear intent.
I did try to get back onto the server but only after people asked me to return because I had no other intent than to listen to my friends.
I stated in the first post here that I do not intend to return even now.

Regardless of whether or not you intend to return, you stated in your original post that you didn't actually break the rules with which you were charged upon being banned from the server, and this is false.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

Just because you might believe it is relevant that doesn't mean that it is.

This is a non-sequitur. In fact, many of your responses are a non-sequitur. My personal convictions are irrelevant to the argument at hand, nor did I ever list my personal grievances other than by stating "you have had too many chances," which I made clear was my opinion and nothing more than that.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

On a tautological basis it's false but that's the point of claiming that there was an error.
Like yes if some authority says rules were broken then the rules have been broken.
If I believe that is wrong then I have to argue against the accusation.
It's absurd to assume that simply because someone said something bad happened it must dogmatically be believed.

…except that your violation of the rules is not justified solely by the word of an authority figure. It can be demonstrated how you did indeed break the rules, and I believe that I have aptly demonstrated such. Furthermore, no part of my argument relies upon "someone said something bad happened" other than in where I appeal to the several people who were witness to your posts on the server. There are also screenshots of your posts on the server, so the character of the witnesses, or the fact that there are witnesses, is not the fundamental basis for my statement.