Dugcarr has went too far- I suggest he should be banned

boogiesadda · Post by **boogiesadda** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:46 pm

Wow i cant believe people have this much time on their hands and take a game so seriously. especially dugcarr at least in his photo he looks like a grown man. sure doesn't act like it. The young kids (most of them) act more mature than that on this site....WOW is all I can say to this rambling on.

Kid_A · Post by **Kid_A** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:51 pm

boogiesadda wrote:Wow i cant believe people have this much time on their hands and take a game so seriously. especially dugcarr at least in his photo he looks like a grown man. sure doesn't act like it. The young kids (most of them) act more mature than that on this site....WOW is all I can say to this rambling on.

...and you're one of us! welcome brother

and i think you have the best response under location ive ever seen.

qeee1 · Post by **qeee1** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:52 pm

Kid_A wrote:those would be the unethical humans who disagree qeee1

Who made you the judge of who's ethical and who's not. What's explicitly unethical to one such as eating meat might not be to another.

Nice win last night btw. ;D

Samus · Post by **Samus** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:52 pm

I'm here because my doctor advised me to:

http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/0314 ... boards.gif

Kid_A · Post by **Kid_A** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:01 pm

qeee1 wrote:
Kid_A wrote:those would be the unethical humans who disagree qeee1
Who made you the judge of who's ethical and who's not. What's explicitly unethical to one such as eating meat might not be to another.

Nice win last night btw. ;D

thanks

you can agrue the morality of anything really. but that's just B.S. most people know wrong and right. there is clearly something wrong with what he did

qeee1 · Post by **qeee1** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:05 pm

Kid_A wrote:
qeee1 wrote:
Kid_A wrote:those would be the unethical humans who disagree qeee1
Who made you the judge of who's ethical and who's not. What's explicitly unethical to one such as eating meat might not be to another.

Nice win last night btw. ;D
thanks

you can agrue the morality of anything really. but that's just B.S. most people know wrong and right. there is clearly something wrong with what he did

maybe, but if he didn't break the rules why should he be punished by the site? The site isn't here to punish people for unethical behaviour.

Kid_A · Post by **Kid_A** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:10 pm

asking to go into someones account to play someone else? regardless of what anyone thinks of blitzs, he has the right to play or not play anyone he wants.
and just because CC hasnt thought of that rule yet, doesnt mean its not wrong.
owning slaves wasnt breaking any rules 200 years ago, did that make it ok?

qeee1 · Post by **qeee1** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:20 pm

Kid_A wrote:asking to go into someones account to play someone else? regardless of what anyone thinks of blitzs, he has the right to play or not play anyone he wants.
and just because CC hasnt thought of that rule yet, doesnt mean its not wrong.
owning slaves wasnt breaking any rules 200 years ago, did that make it ok?

No, but

1. slavery's a far more obviously morally wrong case.

2. Would it have been right for that society to throw everyone with slaves in jail without first changing the law. Given it was a less emotionally heated case (like the his side is nazi's argument, everyone just reacts to slavery, and makes it hard to see logically), say laws on gay marriage were changed to have it outlawed, should all people who took part in gay marriage before it was outlawed be thrown in jail? It would be unfair of the authorities to do so.

or say other things, like de-facto double turns. No one was ever banned for them... though to most they are cleary immoral.

Kid_A · Post by **Kid_A** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:25 pm

qeee1 wrote:
Kid_A wrote:asking to go into someones account to play someone else? regardless of what anyone thinks of blitzs, he has the right to play or not play anyone he wants.
and just because CC hasnt thought of that rule yet, doesnt mean its not wrong.
owning slaves wasnt breaking any rules 200 years ago, did that make it ok?
No, but

1. slavery's a far more obvious case.

2. Would it have been right for that society to throw everyone with slaves in jail without first changing the law. Given it was a less emotionally heated case, say laws on gay marriage were changed to have it outlawed, should all people who took part in gay marriage before it was outlawed be thrown in jail? It would be unfair of the authorities to do so.

or say other things, like de-facto double turns. No one was ever banned for them... though to most they are cleary immoral.

i know its an obvious case. i was using an extreme as an example.
whats a de-facto double turn?

qeee1 · Post by **qeee1** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:33 pm

Back when there were both freestyle "no double turns" games and "double turns games", people used to come up with strategies of getting double turns in non double turn games, such as-

Teams would wait to go last, then have one person from their team finish the round, and the other person would start the next round. Technically neither player had a double turn, but effectively they did.

Players start their turn last in the round and then wait for the timer to run out so they could go again first in the next round.

I haven't played freestyle in years, so I don't know how they stand now... but there was a general consensus back in the day that they were cheap and shouldn't be allowed.

Rules were changed accordingly without punishment I think... which is what I'd recommend in this case.

Kid_A · Post by **Kid_A** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:38 pm

well that is something that's more annoying than wrong. which is why i dont play free, but i dont disagree with the strategy because everyone knows how it works and has a fair chance.

sneaking into someones account to ambush another player is wrong. simple as that. you know this qeee1. i like dugs passion for this site, but something should be done

Robinette · Post by **Robinette** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:41 pm

Kid_A wrote:owning slaves wasnt breaking any rules 200 years ago, did that make it ok?

Funny you would say that... it happens to be EXACTLY 200 years ago that Britain outlawed the slave trade with the Slave Trade Act in 1807.

Aradhus · Post by **Aradhus** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:41 pm

He didn't sneak into someone's account. You can't ban him for intent.

Kid_A · Post by **Kid_A** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:44 pm

Aradhus wrote:He didn't sneak into someone's account. You can't ban him for intent.

attempting to commit any crime is just as bad as doing it.
if i try to kill someone, but am not successful, does that mean that no action should be taken against me?

Aradhus · Post by **Aradhus** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:47 pm

Meh, poor argument.

If I say that I will kill someone, but I don't, should I recieve the punishment that is befitting a murder?

Hey, I want the pussy that started this topics password so I can wreck his doubles games. I demand that I have it. Now.

What am I guilty of?

Exactly. Having a big mouth. And that is all.

qeee1 · Post by **qeee1** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:49 pm

But the point of no double turns was not to allow double turns. People were exploiting loop holes in the system to get around this, just like Dug was planning on exploiting a loophole in the ignore list/account sitting features allowed by the site.

Also you had a lot of confused posts of people going, this guy got a double turn WTF! so no everyone didn't know about it.

You feel in your gut it's wrong, so do I, but my gut version of morality (as with yours) has been totally influenced by the society in which I live, you must accept that. As such it can't be binding on other people.

I agree this sort of behaviour should be prevented in future, as the majority of players are against it, and the site is here to cater for the majority of the players.

However I don't thing dug should be seriously punished, perhaps some punishment because it's not exactly fair play, but an outright ban is too severe for someone who didn't break the rules.

Kid_A · Post by **Kid_A** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:49 pm

Aradhus wrote:Meh, poor argument.

If I say that I will kill someone, but I don't, should I recieve the punishment that is befitting a murder?

Hey, I want the pussy that started this topics password so I can wreck his double games. I demand that I have it. Now.

What am I guilty of?

Exactly. Having a big mouth. And that is all.

you missed my point. i didnt say "talking about" commiting crimes.
he wasnt talking about it. He tried to do it!!

Kid_A · Post by **Kid_A** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:53 pm

theres a difference between talking about shooting someone, and actually shooting at someone but missing.

Sammy gags · Post by **Sammy gags** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:41 pm

Gavino07 wrote:No CC Player shall be banned because he or she is simply playing with hardcore methods of CC strategies that is beyond the norm of movement within this site.

I will not throughly explain this, but CC thrives on players like Dug.

Wisest post I have seen for a while, without dug, CC would be full of spammers, people afraid to play lower ranked players to protect their score, people complaining of cheaters, & combinations of the above

hendy · Post by **hendy** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:00 pm

dug is innocent!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aradhus · Post by **Aradhus** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:14 pm

I'm starting to think that Hendy might possibly be Blitz and Dug's secret lovechild. Notice how he hates Blitz(his father) and wants to do Dug(his mother).

There should be a play.

Kid A wrote:theres a difference between talking about shooting someone, and actually shooting at someone but missing.

He asked someone to do something. They strung him along for a while and then refused.

Had he gained access to someone else's account, that's a different matter. He didn't.

Can I have your password Kid A? Is asking that question a bannable offense? Or is it something that requires a slap on the wrist.

hendy · Post by **hendy** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:24 pm

Aradhus wrote:I'm starting to think that Hendy might possibly be Blitz and Dug's secret lovechild. Notice how he hates Blitz(his father) and wants to do Dug(his mother).

There should be a play.

Kid A wrote:theres a difference between talking about shooting someone, and actually shooting at someone but missing.
He asked someone to do something. They strung him along for a while and then refused.

Had he gained access to someone else's account, that's a different matter. He didn't.

Can I have your password Kid A? Is asking that question a bannable offense? Or is it something that requires a slap on the wrist.

Nah I just dont like the way blitz plays, hes a nice guy, and as I said before, dug and I just have the same view on things, but I didnt need view when I was up your mommas skirt last night

UCAbears · Post by **UCAbears** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm

did dug get banned yet?

I would shoot him in the foot if i could.

Aradhus · Post by **Aradhus** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:36 pm

hendy wrote: Nah I just dont like the way blitz plays, hes a nice guy, and as I said before, dug and I just have the same view on things, but I didnt need view when I was up your mommas skirt last night

Necrophiliac.

I need a 'Hendy translator' program.

All I know is my mom is involved in some way. I hope you tidied up the grave after you were done.

hendy · Post by **hendy** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:52 pm

Aradhus wrote:
hendy wrote: Nah I just dont like the way blitz plays, hes a nice guy, and as I said before, dug and I just have the same view on things, but I didnt need view when I was up your mommas skirt last night
Necrophiliac.

I need a 'Hendy translator' program.

All I know is my mom is involved in some way. I hope you tidied up the grave after you were done.

WOW another sped what is up cc? everything in the paragraph was understandable and gramticaly correct. Sorry I gotta go back to your moms pussy.