Your point was focusing on an insignificant turn of phrase ("one feels") and arguing that we had too little evidence to go on. The first part is silly, but if you'd like me to ignore it for the sake of moving to constructive discussion, I'd be happy to do so.
No, my point was that you have almost nothing to go by.
You keep citing this misinterpretation as if it had anything to do with my counter-arguments in this comment, but it's totally irrelevant and harking on about it is what's silly. So, yes, we should move on.
What we can do is look at things from a historical point of view. Historically, people that say things like "no, no, he's just my brother/friend/etc" after being confronted for acting suspiciously like that person, they tend to be that person putting on airs to get around a ban.
Historically, there are some cases like this, but not that many, and it's not evidence in and of itself or anything.
Even if he's learned, nevertheless, don't you think it's at least a little suspicious that after multiple sockpuppeting accounts, suddenly he just has a group of like-minded people who are willing to fulfill the same, exact purpose of sockpuppeting for him, but now all above board? I do.
Firstly, we knew the discord already existed, IIRC, just not that Hollow was part of it. This isn't sudden. It's kind of like how Donatien was a sock puppet that ran an anti-God of War discord with lots of like minded people, many of whom separately made accounts just to target GoW ratings.
Secondly, sorry, when did I say that this wasn't suspicious, or suggest that suspicion is unwarranted? Literally all I said was that we should actually wait for him to drop the ball or get hard evidence (not even proof) before we ban him.
Hell, I'll say it now, I do think this guy probably is Vapourrrr (even bearing in mind what Arnold said), but the problem is that A) I don't have any reason to act on that, and B) the behavioural/calculation similarities are laser-focused half-truths.
Keep an eye on him, sure, because, at the very least, we have
real evidence that Vapourrrr is vicariously sharing opinions through the HollowVanity account.
Now, I'd like to clarify: I was tentative on this situation, but you seem to have misunderstood what it is I was saying, so I hope this helps.
You said the ban is justified (not maybe, or probably justified) based on their correlations, and I disagreed. I don't see what's to be misunderstood about that.