Yes, I am harsh, but I think they deserve it. TNT has a hard job freezing the correct people, but that's no excuse for doing a poor job? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? With Neopets, you're accused, found guilty, and are sentanced by a single person (or machine!) without any input. The chances of getting unfrozen anymore are very slim to none. That's not "guesswork"...that's fact. Even innocent people that get frozen (and it happens very often despite what many people say) never even receive a human response to their pleas to ber unfrozen.
Also, those statistics in my table are "guesswork", but it's a owrk in progress. It's not be perfectly accurate. It's to let people know a general idea of how likely people are to get frozen. If you do something against their rules, you are almost certain to be frozen. If you do stuff not against their rules but stand out, you are more likely to be frozen than somebody that just sits by and does nothing. For instance, being a guild leader of a large guild can attact attention. If something starts to look funny, TNT is likely to freeze the guild owner out of precaution. I know a number of people that have been frozen this way.
Just to note, I was personally frozen over a year ago (probably more now) and still have received no response to why I was frozen. If you try to log into my account (geowrian), it tells me that the system doesn't know why I was frozen and to contact the frozen department. Doesn't do much good when the frozen department doesn't even respond. I never cheated anybody, I was a guild owner of a very wonderful guild that strongly encouraged obeying the Neopets rules. I never used, nor know of any cheat programs, used any exploit/bug, discussed anything on the chat boards (ever!), and did everything else according to the Neopets rules. You don't have to believe me, but I know from experience that TNT freezes innocent people with no real justification and you have little chances of ever getting the account back.
LOL the numbers are not exact. I didn't mean for it to seem that way. It's a general idea based on my own observations and other people's accounts/observations. IF you disagree with me on any of them, let me know. The way I see it now, the current table looks accurate, but that can change.
Stijn wrote:
Numbers, numbers, numbers. I can't seem to find the numbers.
This all seems very interesting and all, it wouldn't exactly surprise me if it were actually through. But how did you end up with these percentages?
