Moderator: Community Team

lv i would agree but he point dumped a account (auto site ban) and gained from the point dump(warning) so middle ground should of been a temp banlord voldemort wrote:thats a fault in the escalating ban system not the actual offence.
I said it in the thread that the best you could hope for was a warning.
He clearly cheated and only got a warning from it because it was his first offence

point dumping = auto ban if they had a warning or not so what you are saying is all players that point dump but never had a warning should not be striped of premium and banned. will cc reinburse them said players and put the record straight because like you just saidlord voldemort wrote:not how it works...obviously...its suprising eddie...for a guy who has not much of a life except to be on cc. you really know little of how things are run around here
Like I just told Owen in a PM... if I were a betting man I would have guessed that Blitz was going to get off free (again) and escape even a warning. An official warning is a huge step in the right direction and surprised me.eddie2 wrote: listen i dont care who the player was but feel he abused someone elses account. and to only get a warning is very light.
I had assumed that the accusation couldn't be right on the basis that it isn't that hard to find a cook who can follow orders. Nor a private or a corporal for that matter. Once they've reached a point (say sgt.), find another one. Therefore, I logically presumed that the original account must have started a bunch of games, quit, and Blitz watched them drop.eddie2 wrote:point dumping = auto ban if they had a warning or not so what you are saying is all players that point dump but never had a warning should not be striped of premium and banned. will cc reinburse them said players and put the record straight because like you just saidlord voldemort wrote:not how it works...obviously...its suprising eddie...for a guy who has not much of a life except to be on cc. you really know little of how things are run around here
not how it works...obviously. but it does work in that case.
listen i dont care who the player was but feel he abused someone elses account. and to only get a warning is very light.

Bones2484 wrote:I think a bigger punishment would have been a point increase for Jobiwan. Then he'd lose one of his dummy accounts and have to try to find someone else's to take over... I mean, give directions to.


Indeed Mr C, you are correct. Dumper involved himself in a crime. More than this he has been found guilty of actually perpetrating the crime. However, there is no precedence for some one dumping as dumper has done. This is the first case of these circumstances. You will no doubt be aware that most law is based on precedent. CC is still growing up, it will take years before every crime that can be committed will be. So the question surely must be 'should Admin now review the punishment meted out for such a crime'. I think the answer to this is a resounding yes. The punishment should be increased to Draconian levels as it is for certain other crimes. Maybe the enactment could be called the 'Dumper Blitz enactment' so as to remind every one here and to come how this set of rules and punishments came about. Dare one put forward the idea that within the rules there could be a couple of lines explaining the circumstances of how the rule came into being?Mr Changsha wrote:I disagree Fc. Quite sincerely. May i suggest that you are looking a this from the standpoint of a sequential general. And you are quite right that a high ranker should have the right to put a striper or lower on their team. I've always followed this approach when i play in such exalted circles and often suggest they do it.
The issue is that he dumped point. This results in a point reset if you do it to your own account so I think it should if you do it to someone else's.
Let me repeat..this is not about cheating to keep your score high (i've supported almost everyone who has done that...i often positively approve of it)..it is about dumping points.
Indeed Graybridge. Dumper should really do the decent thing and take his own name off the top 100 scores list. To do otherwise only goes to prove the feeling of many that in fact he is a craven individual. Would be good to see some real backbone from him for a change.gradybridges wrote:Is it a warning for 1 infraction or many? When was the last time Jobiwan was actually on? Did he even have a death in the family or did someone else wall me that?
I guess the tainted Conqueror title is a fitting punishment. Like Bonds, Clemens, or Sosa. They might have gotten away with it, have loyalists support them, but any records they hold are tainted.

shorely you mean either jobiwan or leolou2...oh wait....eddie2 wrote:lol i see there is one vote for nothing has blitz been here
I must say that I agree. There have been other situations in which the egregiousness of the offense was such that the ladder system was ignored. Which is precisely how this should have been handled. But I'm not sure why any of us would expect common sense or good judgement to rule.eddie2 wrote:i really cannot believe they have came back with a warning for this case.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
I understand your thoughts woodruff, but I stand by my support of this decision. There is no actual precedent for this kind of cheating. It is also almost impossible to prove that Dumper was doing this to ensure his reign at the top continued.Woodruff wrote:I must say that I agree. There have been other situations in which the egregiousness of the offense was such that the ladder system was ignored. Which is precisely how this should have been handled. But I'm not sure why any of us would expect common sense or good judgement to rule.eddie2 wrote:i really cannot believe they have came back with a warning for this case.
But then, theherkman didn't have the ears of those in charge, I suppose...