

Moderator: Community Team


Granted I'm not Jesus or a Trekkie, but I think they could be, yes. I think there would be better ways of phrasing what you want to get across through those tags. Maybe "Untrustworthy" for "Liar" would be best. As for "Cheater", that should just be thrown out. If someone cheated, it should be reported.thegreekdog wrote:Hi!
I have a question - if the two users had a truce, and one user violated the truce, are the words "liar" and "cheater" flames? I tend to think they are not, but I would like to hear the opinions of Woodruff and owenshooter particularly. They seem to have some strong feelings on the subject.
Before answering the question, I would also like to point out that the words "liar" and "cheater" as well as other somewhat harsh words are used on a regular basis by many of our users to describe others, whether fairly or otherwise. In answering the first question, please consider whether you would like those of us in the junior mint mod squad to go back and take a look at other uses of these words to determine whether flaming has occured. I would like you to keep this in mind because I know the community wants us to be as fair and consistent as possible.
Thanks for the help!
TGD
There is no "custom" one round warning,Evalaxis wrote:As I originated the thread, it is probably of no surprise that I think these strong words are entirely appropriate in this circumstance. Mind you, I do not use these words lightly. In fact, I have never used them in context of CC. In this case, I believed that someone holding the rank of general would be brave and trustworthy. Sounds very naive now, but I have always played honorably, and felt shocked and disappointed to discover Kiron does not. Simply, when faced with possible defeat in several rounds, Kiron unilaterally and without warning wiped out all of my armies. If he felt the truce was no longer equitable, he should have given the courteous and custom, one round warning. Kiron instead whined that he didn't want a "stalemate" (read: defeat) and that was sufficient provocation for shooting me in the back.
seriously,give it a rest... truces are for weak players and they only work WHEN BROKEN! there isn't a rule that a truce must be honoured... *rolling my eyes right out of my black jesus head*...-the black jesusEvalaxis wrote:No, clearly it was not true. The truce was broken in round 28. Obviously, I would not be calling this person out if he had not so egregiously broken our agreement.

*picks up owen's eyes off the floor and runs* I'd like to see the black jesus browse the forums now! (Haha, I'm so great...)owenshooter wrote:seriously,give it a rest... truces are for weak players and they only work WHEN BROKEN! there isn't a rule that a truce must be honoured... *rolling my eyes right out of my black jesus head*...-the black jesusEvalaxis wrote:No, clearly it was not true. The truce was broken in round 28. Obviously, I would not be calling this person out if he had not so egregiously broken our agreement.


by that token any post in the C&A is a flame... cool down owen. There are flames and flames.. Someone breaking a truce is a liar and a cheat. Someone calling a liberal commie, now thats a flameowenshooter wrote:he is a liar!!! he is a cheater!!!! revoke his membership!!!! *insert more flames here*!!!!...-the black jesus
Absolutely correct, truces are a part of the game, both honored and broken.the black jesus wrote:there isn't a rule that a truce must be honored...
lol, that was one occasion. Everyone screws up once in a while. Don't think it's fair to judge him forever on that one offense.Sword Master wrote:I'll avoid playing against both kiron and evalaxis because they clearly don't respect the rules of CC! Not because of in game chat but game chat on others walls!
