RIP captain_Lion_Speaks

[SEAsportsfan]

he's definitely not lack. lack is canadian. canadians are socialist. so, therefore lack is a socialist. Capn Crazy is NOT socialist. so, he is either a Lion-Man or Bes....

I called it

[daddy1gringo]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=239&t=91333&start=0

captain.crazy was busted as Black_Elk_Speaks who was busted for being the_lion

Wait, you're telling me Capt. Crazy was the same person as black elk speaks, the guy who started the fireside tavern?

Some of us told you 2 months ago.........pay attention please

Must have missed that post. Doesn't make sense to me. BES always seemed reasonable, but then the fireside tavern didn't live long.

[PLAYER57832]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=239&t=91333&start=0

captain.crazy was busted as Black_Elk_Speaks who was busted for being the_lion

Wait, you're telling me Capt. Crazy was the same person as black elk speaks, the guy who started the fireside tavern?

Some of us told you 2 months ago.........pay attention please

Must have missed that post. Doesn't make sense to me. BES always seemed reasonable, but then the fireside tavern didn't live long.

I think I can remember why .

[JJM]

perma ban? if not ill rebuy his ass

What do you mean by rebuy him?

[JJM]

LOL he flamed out of FW i think and did it a few to many times and got the boot
wicked did it and blah blah but w/e to late now

Flamming wasen't he banned for being a multi?

[b.k. barunt]

Another gift to the membership by our administrators. If you get banned for cheating all you have to do to get back in is pay another 25 bucks. Lack and andy don't mind putting cheaters back on the site - it's no skin off their nose as they only play private games, but if you get permabanned for flaming you can't come back. Aren't we lucky to have an adminstration that cares so much about the membership?


Honibaz

[JJM]

I have appealed the decision I hope it works. I don't think he would be a multi. I have logged on from a hotel computer before. If another CC player logs on from it I could even be accused of being a multi.

[Woodruff]

Another gift to the membership by our administrators. If you get banned for cheating all you have to do to get back in is pay another 25 bucks. Lack and andy don't mind putting cheaters back on the site - it's no skin off their nose as they only play private games, but if you get permabanned for flaming you can't come back. Aren't we lucky to have an adminstration that cares so much about the membership?

It is ridiculous that the same stance isn't given for the "annoyance" bans as is given for cheating. In a reasonable world, cheating should be viewed much more harshly than simply being a pain in the ass.

I have appealed the decision I hope it works. I don't think he would be a multi. I have logged on from a hotel computer before. If another CC player logs on from it I could even be accused of being a multi.

I would certainly hope that the "matchup" of the IP addresses would have to occur on a somewhat consistent basis before someone would be considered a multi. Though I certainly don't KNOW that's the case.

[b.k. barunt]

Another gift to the membership by our administrators. If you get banned for cheating all you have to do to get back in is pay another 25 bucks. Lack and andy don't mind putting cheaters back on the site - it's no skin off their nose as they only play private games, but if you get permabanned for flaming you can't come back. Aren't we lucky to have an adminstration that cares so much about the membership?

It is ridiculous that the same stance isn't given for the "annoyance" bans as is given for cheating. In a reasonable world, cheating should be viewed much more harshly than simply being a pain in the ass.

Evidently what i said went over your head (big surprise). Ridiculous? It's about the bucks. Lack and andy make money - 25 bucks a pop - for putting cheaters back on the site. That's not "ridiculous", as it makes sense fiscally, but it is chickenshit to make money like that at the expense of your members. The fact that you treat it as a "ridiculous" oversight of some kind is as goofy as your "reasonable world" reference.

Also, whenever i reply to one of your posts you whine that i'm "trolling after" you. What do you call it when you reply to one of mine, as in this case? Are you stalking me?


Honibaz

[PLAYER57832]

You know, reading both of your posts all I can say is I got the feeling I was reading the dialoge of a school yard spat these past few posts. Haven't we had enough people banned in the past couple of weeks?

[Neoteny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN75im_us4k

[AndyDufresne]

perma ban? if not ill rebuy his ass

Well his captain.crazy account was only busted, so if neither his BES or Lion account were permabanned, then I think you could buy him back in. But I'm pretty sure Lion did get the permanent boot and that's why he made the multis in the first place.

The user owning all the accounts is on a Permanent Website Vacation, so there are no buybacks. If he comes back as a multi, we'll just bust him again.


--Andy

[danfrank]

perma ban? if not ill rebuy his ass

A little off topic ... But billy may is DEAD... So i can talk forever...

[Woodruff]

Another gift to the membership by our administrators. If you get banned for cheating all you have to do to get back in is pay another 25 bucks. Lack and andy don't mind putting cheaters back on the site - it's no skin off their nose as they only play private games, but if you get permabanned for flaming you can't come back. Aren't we lucky to have an adminstration that cares so much about the membership?

It is ridiculous that the same stance isn't given for the "annoyance" bans as is given for cheating. In a reasonable world, cheating should be viewed much more harshly than simply being a pain in the ass.

Evidently what i said went over your head (big surprise).

It certainly didn't, though I don't understand why you feel the need to try to pretend that it did just so you can insult someone who is agreeing with you.

Ridiculous? It's about the bucks. Lack and andy make money - 25 bucks a pop - for putting cheaters back on the site. That's not "ridiculous", as it makes sense fiscally, but it is chickenshit to make money like that at the expense of your members. The fact that you treat it as a "ridiculous" oversight of some kind is as goofy as your "reasonable world" reference.

The fact of the matter is that I almost always believe in reasonable discussions, rather than rants. You seem to tend in the other direction. It doesn't make either of us wrong (there are good, valid times for both).

Also, whenever i reply to one of your posts you whine that i'm "trolling after" you. What do you call it when you reply to one of mine, as in this case? Are you stalking me?

I call it "an attempt at reasonable discussion", which differs from when you spend your entire response telling me what an ass-kisser I am in between your other insults.

[b.k. barunt]

Andy, since you're listening in, maybe you could explain to us why a cheat can buy his way back here and someone like Dancing Mustard, who * * flamed * * a very flamable person cannot. Is a flamer worse than a cheater? You can ignore a flamer - put him on your foes list and you won't see a flame - but you can't ignore a multi if you don't even know whothefook he is, right?

Is there some convoluted logic to this that i'm ignorant of? Tell us you guys are not just trying to make a few extra bucks at our expense.


Just trying to get both sides of the story.
Honibaz

[Woodruff]

Andy, since you're listening in, maybe you could explain to us why a cheat can buy his way back here and someone like Dancing Mustard, who * * flamed * * a very flamable person cannot. Is a flamer worse than a cheater? You can ignore a flamer - put him on your foes list and you won't see a flame - but you can't ignore a multi if you don't even know whothefook he is, right?
Is there some convoluted logic to this that i'm ignorant of? Tell us you guys are not just trying to make a few extra bucks at our expense.
Just trying to get both sides of the story.
Honibaz

Even if it IS just a way to make extra bucks, it seems like the extra bucks could come from the flamer/troller/etc as well. I mean, much as I personally dislike the flamers, there really isn't much question that the cheaters hurt the site more.

[Frigidus]

Andy, since you're listening in, maybe you could explain to us why a cheat can buy his way back here and someone like Dancing Mustard, who * * flamed * * a very flamable person cannot. Is a flamer worse than a cheater? You can ignore a flamer - put him on your foes list and you won't see a flame - but you can't ignore a multi if you don't even know whothefook he is, right?
Is there some convoluted logic to this that i'm ignorant of? Tell us you guys are not just trying to make a few extra bucks at our expense.
Just trying to get both sides of the story.
Honibaz

Even if it IS just a way to make extra bucks, it seems like the extra bucks could come from the flamer/troller/etc as well. I mean, much as I personally dislike the flamers, there really isn't much question that the cheaters hurt the site more.

Quite. We were able to buy DM and three others back after they were busted as "multis" (used each others accounts to post in a private forum). So is the solution to our problem to only use other people's accounts for more egregious posts? That seems rather ridiculous to me.

[TheProwler]

Quite. We were able to buy DM and three others back after they were busted as "multis" (used each others accounts to post in a private forum). So is the solution to our problem to only use other people's accounts for more egregious posts? That seems rather ridiculous to me.

This brings up another interesting point.

DM's account was "bought back", but he didn't get to start from square one. In this system of escalating punishment, all his previous offenses were still on the books.

Doesn't it make sense that if a person is able to buy his way back onto the sight, he should be given a clean slate? It just doesn't seem right to me to offer someone the opportunity to re-pay his membership, but to then reinstate the privileges with the disadvantage of his past record.

[Woodruff]

Quite. We were able to buy DM and three others back after they were busted as "multis" (used each others accounts to post in a private forum). So is the solution to our problem to only use other people's accounts for more egregious posts? That seems rather ridiculous to me.

This brings up another interesting point.

DM's account was "bought back", but he didn't get to start from square one. In this system of escalating punishment, all his previous offenses were still on the books.

Doesn't it make sense that if a person is able to buy his way back onto the sight, he should be given a clean slate? It just doesn't seem right to me to offer someone the opportunity to re-pay his membership, but to then reinstate the privileges with the disadvantage of his past record.

That does seem unfair, I agree. Taken to a legitimate extreme, someone could buy back, commit one minor offense, and be banned. If the payment is made, it seems to me that it should include the clean slate.

[b.k. barunt]

A few people here with questions for you andy - will you give us the simple courtesy of an answer?


Honibaz

[GabonX]

You guys are so banned

[b.k. barunt]

You guys are so banned

On what grounds?


Honibaz

[PLAYER57832]

Quite. We were able to buy DM and three others back after they were busted as "multis" (used each others accounts to post in a private forum). So is the solution to our problem to only use other people's accounts for more egregious posts? That seems rather ridiculous to me.

This brings up another interesting point.

DM's account was "bought back", but he didn't get to start from square one. In this system of escalating punishment, all his previous offenses were still on the books.

Doesn't it make sense that if a person is able to buy his way back onto the sight, he should be given a clean slate? It just doesn't seem right to me to offer someone the opportunity to re-pay his membership, but to then reinstate the privileges with the disadvantage of his past record.

That does seem unfair, I agree. Taken to a legitimate extreme, someone could buy back, commit one minor offense, and be banned. If the payment is made, it seems to me that it should include the clean slate.

Worse yet, he could have a perfect record for the next 5 years, commit another small infraction and then be perma-banned.

This is why there are several suggestions to modify this in GD forum.

[Woodruff]

Quite. We were able to buy DM and three others back after they were busted as "multis" (used each others accounts to post in a private forum). So is the solution to our problem to only use other people's accounts for more egregious posts? That seems rather ridiculous to me.

This brings up another interesting point.

DM's account was "bought back", but he didn't get to start from square one. In this system of escalating punishment, all his previous offenses were still on the books.

Doesn't it make sense that if a person is able to buy his way back onto the sight, he should be given a clean slate? It just doesn't seem right to me to offer someone the opportunity to re-pay his membership, but to then reinstate the privileges with the disadvantage of his past record.

That does seem unfair, I agree. Taken to a legitimate extreme, someone could buy back, commit one minor offense, and be banned. If the payment is made, it seems to me that it should include the clean slate.

Worse yet, he could have a perfect record for the next 5 years, commit another small infraction and then be perma-banned.

Quite true...that's a better "extreme" than mine.

You guys are so banned

On what grounds?

He seems to be basing it on the fact that we're calmly and rationally questioning the policies of the administrators.

[b.k. barunt]

You guys are so banned

On what grounds?

He seems to be basing it on the fact that we're calmly and rationally questioning the policies of the administrators.

Well i believe in my case that would be a first offense, and therefore a warning would be the appropriate disciplinary step.


Honibaz