@
Jason, I'd question your ability to boil a pot of water if you can't tell the similarities between A FALSE ACCUSATION and A FALSE ACCUSATION. This is like me saying gold and alluminum are both metals and you calling me dumb for putting them in the same category because gold OBVIOUSLY has a higher value than alluminum. Lol.
Listen genius...of course there's always a difference between how two things could be perceived. Me pointing out where they are similar doesn't negate that, neither does the fact that there are differences negate the fact that there are also similarities.
What I meant by "evidence" was "perceived evidence"...and yes people choose to believe things based on what they perceive as "evidence" including those who believe in god.
My whole point was on censorship and how giving an infraction for a particular false accusation is walking the line because people spew false accusations at each other all the time when they are beefing. Case in point: Phil has publicly accused RULE of being a cheater because of how the whole LBA thing went down with the rules being changed and whatnot and him not being granted an immediate re-match. Him pointing those things out while making the argument could be taken as corroborating "evidence" by those who choose to believe that RULE is a cheater. If he was a regular user, would you give him an infraction for making that accusation if you perceive it to be false?
Most of the time from what I've seen when people make such accusations, they tie it into something the leads them to that conclusion, whether its a line similarity or otherwise. If their conclusion is ultimately deemed false, they shouldn't receive an infraction for raising questions.