am posting to dispute the following claims.

1. Claim of griefing
2. Claim of Warning of Griefing
3. Claim of "Hacked client"

Section 1:
--
Claim of griefing. (Photo memory assists in these situations)
1. Broke three blocks (Stone Brick) to Kill (PK) a user (ColdSpyro) Broke blocks with hands, went back to base to make stone, then turn it into stone brick...
2. Broke 1 block (Stone Brick) in entrance to cobble/obsidian house, Straight South of spawn. Went to base to make stone...
3. (ASSUMED GRIEFING) I had permission from the user "Crittersa" Who owns the land when I cleaned up the dirt clumps... the user even thanked me within a sign. Mod's rolled it back... and user asked me if I could go back and redo the dirt... I had to log due to the fact I have a life to live at certain times.

Conclusion: As you can clearly see, I have a understandable reason for statures 1-2, and stature 3 points out the mod's ignorance of the situation, and conclusion jumping abilities.

Section 2:
--
Claim of Warning of Griefing.

Warning as shown in stature 3 is Invalid, and void. Warning was given by Mod: Luke G, and for all intents and purposes wrongly placed.

Conclusion: Mod's warning of griefing when there in fact was none, creates the invalidation of such warning.

Section 3:
Claim of "Hacked Client"

I cannot think of any evidence even slightly solid the staff member may have.. I am sure it is both circumstancial and bias.

Circumstancial evidence that may assist a obviously incompetnet staff member in jumping to accusations and a ban without notice:

1. A user questioned my and others knowledge on the subject of Computers, while the subject of the conversation/dispute was Avo and how they connect/hack. I mentioned to said user how easy it is to maniupilate code, I gave a simple example of how to disable the death menu and just instant respawn, this way would prevent users from disconnecting from accidentally hitting the disconnect button. This is both ALLOWED and PERMITTED. Having simple understanding of JAVA/Eclipse/MCP is not against the rules, explaining a mod idea that gives no advantage to the user also is not against the rules, toggable sneak is more of a advantage then this, which is just a current fix for a problem with logging out during pvp.

That's it, I would like to see this proof of rule breaking, I ask not to be allowed into the server, I ask only for a image/log evidence of me using a so called "Hacked client" I am absolutely sure no such evidence can be procured, so sure that I would ask not to be allowed into the server if evidence can be shown.