Airmax was justified with his ban on Jifpop

Note : I put aside my rebuttals due to the debate structure which my adversary openly accepted. It clearly specifies my rebuttals are for the final round. My adversary accepted this debate when it was clearly outlined in the rules that were layed out in R1. Basically he accepted this debate and then says "The rules are not fair so therefore (x) should not be taken into consideration". This is entirely false since my adversary took the debate with the rules being specified. (a) There is no need to put aside by rebuttals because my adversary accepted this debate structure.(b) If you were to put aside my rebuttals ( he would have a round of rebuttals and I would not. In any debate someone receives the final word. In this it is myself. This was accepted when my adversary accepted the debate due to the round 1 guide lines and rules) [1]Reviewing the basic outline of this debate.[P1] Juggle is a privately owned company, and is allowed to set up a TOS. (View tos - [2])[P2] By joining the site you are agreeing to abide by the TOS that juggle set up[P3] Failure to abide by the TOS justifies a ban due to acceptance of the TOS when you sign up for the site[C] Jifpop did not abide by the TOS and received multiple warnings about his conduct and still chose not to abide by the TOS. Therefore a ban on jifpop is justified. Concession to the initial premise of my arguments " I won't be disputing this. Yes, Jifpop broke the TOS. "By him conceding this he essentially loses the debate. He tries to refute it with dancing around the word justified, but I will refute this in latter rounds. R1) Airmax has a personal grudge against meThis is entirely false and even if it was true there is no way to add credibility to this argument. These are the words coming from a member that was banned and banned with due cause. Note : Airmax was not the sole person to ban Jifpop. This was a general consensous between Airmax, Tuf, and Ore ele. He consulted both of them about the situation and all of them where in agreement. [3]Reviewing my adversaries Premise for this contention. "P1: Whenever there are two courses of action, one which would cause unnecessary drama, and the other not, the first course of action is unjustified.P2: In this case there are two courses of action, one which could cause unnecessary drama (Airmax banning Jifpop), and one which would not (Ore_ele banning Jifpop).C: Airmax was not justified in banning Jifpop"Operating under this assumption banning anyone could be considered non justified. Again this is entirely false. Banning anyone would almost always cause drama. Izbo, Askbob, RMM, and almost any member you can think of that has been banned has resulted in some type of drama. They all have friends on the site and people that wanted them to stay around, that however does mean the ban is not justified. Out of these members there was one that was trying to track peoples ip addresses and was threatening to find them in real life, and even harassing them on Facebook and other avenues. Under my adversaries premise anything is not justifiable because it could lead to drama which would promote and condone members being on the site no matter what offense they commit. This entire premise is false and based on a faulty reduction principle. We can discard this. R2) YouthReviewing the premise"P1: No member who is young and has promise to be a good DDO member should be banned by a moderatorP2: Jifpop is young and has promise to be a good DDO memberC: Jifpop should not be banned by a moderator"This premise shares the same failure in logic as the first. This is basically saying any member who is (x) in this case young, and promises (y) in this case to be a good member should not be banned.This entire premise is based off of words. If a member verbally promises to improve and shows the promise of becoming a good member he should not be banned.We can dismiss this for a majority of reasons(a) Airmax contacted jifpop on multiple occasions and asked him to improve his behavior. Jifpop failed to do this on countless occasions. (b) Since he was contacted and broke (x) and did not fulfill (y) my adversaries premise falls apart. In addition to this you are simply giving a member a free pass based on verbal communications and not actions. Just because someone promises to do better does not mean a ban is not justified. Anyone will always verbally promise to be a better member, but after being confronted on several occasions and with no change occurring this would lead to a loophole where no younger member would ever be banned due to false promises that could occur. We can dismiss this point because of the reasons listed above. Jifpop received due warning on many occasions and promised to change his behavior. A failure to change his behavior on several occasions defeats my adversaries premise. Thus we can dismiss it. R3) Jifpops reason for being bannedWe can dismiss this right off the start. (a) Whatever jifpop is claiming is not proven to be true(b) Two moderators and the president confirmed the reasons he was banned and he still argued against it saying it was unfairEssentially this points holds no weight. Anyone who is banned is generally going to have a problem with it. He was banned for multiple personal attacks on people, spam, attack threads, and ignoring a moderators request to change his behavior. This is an objective fact that multiple others can testify too. See C2 in R2 to clarify this further. R4) His attack on premise 1 and everything that followed itThis essentially boils down to this. This is juggles site and juggle makes the rules. My adversary claims in spite of this breaking the TOS and receiving a ban may not be justifiable. Again review what justified means. Justified - to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable[4]Basically all I have to do is show that the ban on Jifpop is right or reasonable. When you join this site you are accepting the TOS and everything that it entails. Literally there is no need to go in depth with this due to character limitations and common sense so I am going to cite wiki since my adversary fails to realize what a TOS is [5]A TOS is something someone has to agree to before they can use (x) service. In this case you are agreeing to use [2] when you sign up for DDO. If you do not like the rules, do not sign up for the site. By keeping your account open on the site and by this site being privately owned they are allowed to set up their own rules. The same is true with facebook, myspace, and probably another other social networking site/game you can think of. When you sign up for (x) you are almost always agreeing to abide by (y). Since they own the company and the rights to this site, when you choose to join and stay on the site you are agreeing to abide by the rules that are set upHe makes a poke saying that jif probabbly did not read the TOS. This is entirely irrelevant to anything that can be presented. Anytime something prompts you read to the TOS, by choosing not to read it and simply clicking I agree, you are still agreeing to abide by the TOS. In addition to this he states that jifpop had no idea what the TOS meantThis is false. Airmax went out of his way to explain to jifpop what he was doing wrong, and even specified what a personal attack was in the thread he made about the new site policy[6]. When you accept the rules of DDO you are agreeing to abide by [2], since jifpop did not abide by [2] and received multiple warnings and still chose not to change his behavior. A ban is definitely justified. R5) A debate trialA debate trial is something that is used for the most contraversiol members and usually only in the case of perma bans. Jifpop was temp banned for chosing to ignore moderation. A tiral is something that is not mandatory and is generally a mass agreement by the community at large only in cases of perma bans. There have also only been 2 in the history of DDO, one being the trial of IZBO which was one of the most if not most controversial members to ever use the site. He was loved by a minority within the community and banned countless times and upon a final ban being implemented it was decided to put him on trial as a community to see the outcome and if he was detrimental to the community as a entity. This is only used in severe and rare situations and is not required to ban someone. Juggle gives the mods power to ban whom they feel they need to ban as far as breaking site rules and policies. By breaking the TOS and ignoring multiple warnings a ban is justified. A trial is just a courtesy in the most severe situations and at the discretion of juggle and the moderators. (a) Jifpop was temp banned in a attempt to reform his behavior(b) After being tempt banned he logged on to DDO fans harassing member on there for being bannedA trial could be a possible solution to a perma ban should it occur, but a temp ban is used often to reform the user. Therefore we can dismiss this premise because this ban was clearly an attempt to correct his behavior. ConclusionThis entire debate boils down to this.I have the BOP and have met it. My job is to simply show that the ban is justified, which I have did. Therefore I have upheld my end of the BOP. For my adversary to win he must have shown that the ban is not justified, which he has not done. I have shot down all of his contentions and arguments and shown how the ban is justified throughout this debate. Again it boils down to this[P1] Juggles site, juggles rules[P2] By joining you are agreeing to the TOS and their rules[P3] Failure to abide by their rule justifies a ban[C] Jifpop failed to abide by the rules set in place and received warnings in the process therefore a ban is justifiedSources[1] Round 1 rules[2] http://www.debate.org...[3] Personal source from airmax, ore ele and TUf[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.debate.org...