+3

[Eagle]

Link to the source of punishment (report/post): 

Spoiler

Why the verdict is not fair: It was a direct reference to the discussion.

Additional statements/comments explaining your point of view: The topic of the discussion that was on going in that thread was the neutral stand point of the group, that has been using group goals that are supposed to stand for neutrality witch it isn't if it's assisting both sides, the simple reference was to WW2 and the way they stayed neutral through out the whole war coming to me asking the group member if they had heard of the country if you didn't know the reference a quick google search would've given you all the insight needed for the context of the post. 
As in that country did not support either side they stayed armed and shot anyone who threatened their country and didn't do any acts that would lead to both sides invading them and taking them over as in not snitch on one side to gain favors with the other.

What would you like to achieve with this appeal: Points removed.

What could you have done better?: 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Eagle

[Peril]

Hello @Eagle,

A separate team of staff has reviewed your appeal and come to the conclusion of denial.

What you've put in your additional statements and comments here is what should've been in your original post.  Had you explained that neutrality is not assisting both sides, but rather refraining from assisting either, and that Switzerland is a prime example of this, you would not have received points.  For good measure, you could've even hyperlinked the video for the uninformed, as googling, "Switzerland," doesn't return anything directly related to neutrality in wars.  In the future, elaborate on points you're trying to make, don't just throw a few words out there with no context.  Keep your posts constructive, contributing, and explained to avoid receiving further points for Unnecessary Posts.

With that said,
Appeal denied.  Warning points remain.

Signed by @Peril & @Eagles