I am seeking that some of xJuicy and Rutab's argument be rendered inadmissible as evidence on the case of Vilden being unbanned. I agree with a lot of the points this pair makes and commend them on their efforts. However I believe that any inference from Vilden's past "Catfishing" is inadmissible based on relevance.

Here is a summary of this pair's argument:

Reason 3 - Catfishing: This may seem like a joke to some, but we believe it firmly reinforces the widely believed opinion that Vilden is a toxic user and player. For a long time on this website Vilden pretended to be female in order to bait and lie to other players. Whether harmless or not, this is a testament to his dishonest, underhand, and generally negative impact upon the community. In other instances catfishing can result in serious consequences emotionally, financially, and physically. Whilst this ruse did not fulfill these potentials, it certainly could have if allowed to continue.

The conduct in question is completely irrelevant to the current reasons Vilden is banned. This evidence should only be drawn upon if it has significant probative effect and does not place an unfair prejudicial effect on Vilden. I believe that the latter is the case here and Vildens character should not be placed into question through evidence that is irrelevant to his situation.

Vilden's pretending to be a girl happened in the past and while xJuicy and Rutab heap negative connotations on Vilden for this, they provide no evidence of rule breaking or malicious intent. The pair also state that their is a "widely believed opinion that vilden is a toxic user and player." This statement has no factual bases and is hearsay at best. The fact that some other unrelated incidents of catfishing can result in negative consequences does not automatically make lying about gender online an offence.

If this is allowed as a "reason" for Vilden to be unbanned, it attached unfair negative connotations to Vilden and perhaps misleads the uninformed. In summary this should not be allowed as an argument as it is prejudicial towards Vilden's case.