Dancing Mustard Skittles Snorri Simon Viviant

[Frigidus]

oh Frigidus, I know you dont like me much, but it has nothing to do with myself, or other mods. Admin has already commented, but that was not good enough for some of you. Don't make this about your hatred towards a certain mod, or moderators.

Fair enough. To be fair, I think you're one of the more even-handed mods. Perhaps you're right that it would be better that I blame the admins for these unfair actions.

[Frigidus]

Also, all of these people who are complaining about "inconsistent enforcement" don't have a foot to stand on unless they reported the other incident. Just because it slipped under the radar doesn't mean a rule wan't broken...

It's not a rule though.

[mpjh]

Also, all of these people who are complaining about "inconsistent enforcement" don't have a foot to stand on unless they reported the other incident. Just because it slipped under the radar doesn't mean a rule wan't broken...

It was reported, believe me, numerous times.

[GabonX]

Also, all of these people who are complaining about "inconsistent enforcement" don't have a foot to stand on unless they reported the other incident. Just because it slipped under the radar doesn't mean a rule wan't broken...

It's not a rule though.

It's being counted as a violation of the multis rule, rule #1 on this site. If you use multiple acounts for any purpose you have broken rule #1. You can disagree but you're in the wrong. This site conforms to the standards of Twill, Lack, and Andy (as I understand it), not your (mis)understanding of the rules. What they say is absolute.

[mpjh]

The rule says "own" multiple accounts.

The rules are only meaningful if they are enforced the same to all members. Prowler has violated the rules in the same manner without consequence. I understand that matter is still under investigation, and hope that the admins do justice in this matter.

[F1fth]

If the admins are gonna make up a fucking rule to ban someone, at least have the balls to admit you made it up.

The multi rule is obviously meant to prevent cheating in games. Like pimpdave said it should be about the spirit of the rule and not the exact wording. But the funny thing is that none of them owned multiple accounts. They didn't even break that rule. TWILL HIMSELF said that the one offense was for "using each others accounts to post to the forum." Nowhere in the forum guidelines does it say anything about that.

The thing that especially pisses me off is that if this had been anyone else but friends of DM (or some other posters), it would have been at MOST a warning. The fact that this particular rule is not clearly defined should be reason enough for a warning first. If the rules don't saying anything about posting, how would they know it was against the rules?

You know what this tells me? It tells me that the admins dislike people on the site, and are willing to forgo professionalism to satisfy their ego. That's fucking wrong. I'm disgusted with whoever did this.

[GabonX]

The rule says "own" multiple accounts.

The rules are only meaningful if they are enforced the same to all members. Prowler has violated the rules in the same manner without consequence. I understand that matter is still under investigation, and hope that the admins do justice in this matter.

Actually it doesn't say own, that was you that said it said that.

I don't know anything about the prowler case. It's possible that he will get in trouble too.

[mpjh]

It is ok to engage in some hyperbole, however, the rule is not, by it own language, limited to games. So that is an argument that is going to get us nowhere.

[Frigidus]

It's being counted as a violation of the multis rule, rule #1 on this site.

Yes, it is. Unjustly so, but yes.

If you use multiple acounts for any purpose you have broken rule #1.

Debatable, as the separate rules section for the forums (with no mention of multis whatsoever) indicates. Not only that, but I am almost positive that this sort of a ban has never been enacted before.

You can disagree but you're in the wrong. This site conforms to the standards of Twill, Lack, and Andy (as I understand it), not your (mis)understanding of the rules. What they say is absolute.

Owning a website does not automatically make you correct, no matter what you do. I don't know why some people seem to think this. They can do whatever they want, as we have no power here, but this damn well isn't justified. If they banned me for having the letter "F" in my name, it would happen because they want it to. That doesn't make it fair.

[Ditocoaf]

The rule says "own" multiple accounts.

The rules are only meaningful if they are enforced the same to all members. Prowler has violated the rules in the same manner without consequence. I understand that matter is still under investigation, and hope that the admins do justice in this matter.

Actually it doesn't say own, that was you that said it said that.

I don't know anything about the prowler case. It's possible that he will get in trouble too.

The rule does in fact say own. Read the rule. "If you suspect certain accounts belong to the same person, please report it." Belong = own; belong does not = "use." Just because I use something, that does not mean it belongs to me.

This is the only place that "multiple accounts" is defined.

[mpjh]

The rule says "own" multiple accounts.

The rules are only meaningful if they are enforced the same to all members. Prowler has violated the rules in the same manner without consequence. I understand that matter is still under investigation, and hope that the admins do justice in this matter.

Actually it doesn't say own, that was you that said it said that.

I don't know anything about the prowler case. It's possible that he will get in trouble too.

The rule says:

Multiple accounts are discovered by routine scans and community cheating reports. They are strictly forbidden whether or not they play in the same games. If you suspect certain accounts belong to the same person, please report it following the instructions at the top of the Cheating & Abuse Reports forum.

It say "belong" which I think means own; same same.

[Frigidus]

The rule says "own" multiple accounts.

The rules are only meaningful if they are enforced the same to all members. Prowler has violated the rules in the same manner without consequence. I understand that matter is still under investigation, and hope that the admins do justice in this matter.

Actually it doesn't say own, that was you that said it said that.

certain accounts belong to the same person

In a few words, "own".

[Frigidus]

The rule says "own" multiple accounts.

The rules are only meaningful if they are enforced the same to all members. Prowler has violated the rules in the same manner without consequence. I understand that matter is still under investigation, and hope that the admins do justice in this matter.

Actually it doesn't say own, that was you that said it said that.

I don't know anything about the prowler case. It's possible that he will get in trouble too.

The rule does in fact say own. Read the rule. "If you suspect certain accounts belong to the same person, please report it." Belong = own; belong does not = "use." Just because I use something, that does not mean it belongs to me.

This is the only place that "multiple accounts" is defined.

Indeed, by that definition they have done nothing wrong. Nothing in the rules says that what they have done is wrong. They have been condemned for breaking a non-existent law. This is garbage. Any response from the men behind the curtain, or will you just do whatever the hell you want (like usual)?

[GabonX]

The rule says "own" multiple accounts.

The rules are only meaningful if they are enforced the same to all members. Prowler has violated the rules in the same manner without consequence. I understand that matter is still under investigation, and hope that the admins do justice in this matter.

Actually it doesn't say own, that was you that said it said that.

certain accounts belong to the same person

In a few words, "own".

That part of the rule isn't describing what the rule is or how it is broken, it is merely making a request of members of the site.

At the top of the page there is a clause which reads: "Conquer Club reserves the right to suspend accounts and cancel Premium Memberships, with or without warning, of those players who are deemed to have violated the rules."

It's their website and they are free to do whatever they want with it. If you don't like the way it's run you are free to leave, and even to start your own site. You don't have a say as to how this one is run.

[Curmudgeonx]

Also, all of these people who are complaining about "inconsistent enforcement" don't have a foot to stand on unless they reported the other incident. Just because it slipped under the radar doesn't mean a rule wan't broken...

Eh, are you directing this to me?

I think that the game portion of this site should be rabid in its enforcement of any game irregularities.

I think that the forum portion makes up rules as they see fit. I did not consider posting under another person's account for trolling purposes a cardinal sin, so I did not report Prowler/Khazalid. Evidently, squeaking wheels get greased, but because the admins don't have a consistent policy, louder noises get silenced before milder noises, a.k.a inconsistent enforcement.

[GabonX]

Also, all of these people who are complaining about "inconsistent enforcement" don't have a foot to stand on unless they reported the other incident. Just because it slipped under the radar doesn't mean a rule wan't broken...

Eh, are you directing this to me?

I think that the game portion of this site should be rabid in its enforcement of any game irregularities.

I think that the forum portion makes up rules as they see fit. I did not consider posting under another person's account for trolling purposes a cardinal sin, so I did not report Prowler/Khazalid. Evidently, squeaking wheels get greased, but because the admins don't have a consistent policy, louder noises get silenced before milder noises, a.k.a inconsistent enforcement.

At the top of the rules page there is a clause which reads: "Conquer Club reserves the right to suspend accounts and cancel Premium Memberships, with or without warning, of those players who are deemed to have violated the rules."

These players were deemed to have violated the rules and were banned, some having had recieved warnings for past infringements.

[mpjh]

The rule says "own" multiple accounts.

The rules are only meaningful if they are enforced the same to all members. Prowler has violated the rules in the same manner without consequence. I understand that matter is still under investigation, and hope that the admins do justice in this matter.

Actually it doesn't say own, that was you that said it said that.

certain accounts belong to the same person

In a few words, "own".

That part of the rule isn't describing what the rule is or how it is broken, it is merely making a request of members of the site.

At the top of the page there is a clause which reads: "Conquer Club reserves the right to suspend accounts and cancel Premium Memberships, with or without warning, of those players who are deemed to have violated the rules."

It's their website and they are free to do whatever they want with it. If you don't like the way it's run you are free to leave, and even to start your own site. You don't have a say as to how this one is run.

Sorry, but anyone who pays for the membership enters into a contract with the owners of the site. The rules are part of that contract, and the owners cannot refuse to follow the rules or make up arbitrary rules without risking a breach of that contract. Of course in the case of a breach, the injured party can sue.

[Frigidus]

The rule says "own" multiple accounts.

The rules are only meaningful if they are enforced the same to all members. Prowler has violated the rules in the same manner without consequence. I understand that matter is still under investigation, and hope that the admins do justice in this matter.

Actually it doesn't say own, that was you that said it said that.

certain accounts belong to the same person

In a few words, "own".

That part of the rule isn't describing what the rule is or how it is broken, it is merely making a request of members of the site.

At the top of the page there is a clause which reads: "Conquer Club reserves the right to suspend accounts and cancel Premium Memberships, with or without warning, of those players who are deemed to have violated the rules."

It's their website and they are free to do whatever they want with it. If you don't like the way it's run you are free to leave, and even to start your own site. You don't have a say as to how this one is run.

OK, I'm satisfied. As long as you drop the garbage "they're justified" bit, I can just classify you as a shill and ignore you.

[Frigidus]

The rule says "own" multiple accounts.

The rules are only meaningful if they are enforced the same to all members. Prowler has violated the rules in the same manner without consequence. I understand that matter is still under investigation, and hope that the admins do justice in this matter.

Actually it doesn't say own, that was you that said it said that.

certain accounts belong to the same person

In a few words, "own".

That part of the rule isn't describing what the rule is or how it is broken, it is merely making a request of members of the site.

At the top of the page there is a clause which reads: "Conquer Club reserves the right to suspend accounts and cancel Premium Memberships, with or without warning, of those players who are deemed to have violated the rules."

It's their website and they are free to do whatever they want with it. If you don't like the way it's run you are free to leave, and even to start your own site. You don't have a say as to how this one is run.

Sorry, but anyone who pays for the membership enters into a contract with the owners of the site. The rules are part of that contract, and the owners cannot refuse to follow the rules or make up arbitrary rules without risking a breach of that contract. Of course in the case of a breach, the injured party can sue.

That would be awesome.

[mpjh]

Yes, but expensive and very unlikely. Nevertheless, it is the only remedy if we cannot work something more reasonable out with the admin.

[Curmudgeonx]

Also, all of these people who are complaining about "inconsistent enforcement" don't have a foot to stand on unless they reported the other incident. Just because it slipped under the radar doesn't mean a rule wan't broken...

Eh, are you directing this to me?

I think that the game portion of this site should be rabid in its enforcement of any game irregularities.

I think that the forum portion makes up rules as they see fit. I did not consider posting under another person's account for trolling purposes a cardinal sin, so I did not report Prowler/Khazalid. Evidently, squeaking wheels get greased, but because the admins don't have a consistent policy, louder noises get silenced before milder noises, a.k.a inconsistent enforcement.

At the top of the rules page there is a clause which reads: "Conquer Club reserves the right to suspend accounts and cancel Premium Memberships, with or without warning, of those players who are deemed to have violated the rules."

These players were deemed to have violated the rules and were banned, some having had recieved warnings for past infringements.

You are absolutely correct. There is no due process here, no right of appeal under any enforceable guidelines. It is Lack's site, "Mongo but pawn in game of life". However, so long as the forums and admins allow the decrying of the inequities of seemingly or completely arbitrary decisions, people will bitch. If anyone learned anything from the Wicked blow-up, it is that the admins will let people vent for a day or two (or three), and then people will either move on, move out, or f*ck off. Your one-note tune has been heard, but to quote American Bandstand, "You can't really dance to it"

[Ditocoaf]

Yep, they can do whatever the hell they want, without risking anything by pissing off customers, thanks to their 1-year renewal cycle. They really don't need to justify themselves to us in any way. Twill could literally random-ban someone three times a week, and there would be a barely noticeable loss in profit. They've found a business where quality of customer service doesn't affect them in the slightest.

[GabonX]

Sorry, but anyone who pays for the membership enters into a contract with the owners of the site. The rules are part of that contract, and the owners cannot refuse to follow the rules or make up arbitrary rules without risking a breach of that contract. Of course in the case of a breach, the injured party can sue.

Well not really, but even if that were the case, the rules page states that players who are "deemed to have violated the rules" can be banned without warning. They wouldn't even have to have violated a rule to be banned so long as the site deems that they have. They can deem that a rule has broken even if one hasn't.

That's all beside the point though as this is a pretty clear cut case of four people having four multis.

OK, I'm satisfied. As long as you drop the garbage "they're justified" bit, I can just classify you as a shill and ignore you.

Ya, I'm secretly on the pay roll..
..Did I say that out lowed? Oops...

They are justified to do whatever they want on their website as it is their property.

[GabonX]

Yep, they can do whatever the hell they want, without risking anything by pissing off customers, thanks to their 1-year renewal cycle. They really don't need to justify themselves to us in any way. Twill could literally random-ban someone three times a week, and there would be a barely noticeable loss in profit. They've found a business where quality of customer service doesn't affect them in the slightest.

Pretty sweet gig huh?

[Frigidus]

Sorry, but anyone who pays for the membership enters into a contract with the owners of the site. The rules are part of that contract, and the owners cannot refuse to follow the rules or make up arbitrary rules without risking a breach of that contract. Of course in the case of a breach, the injured party can sue.

Well not really, but even if that were the case, the rules page states that players who are "deemed to have violated the rules" can be banned without warning. They wouldn't even have to have violated a rule to be banned so long as the site deems that they have. They can deem that a rule has broken even if one hasn't.

That's all beside the point though as this is a pretty clear cut case of four people having four multis.

OK, I'm satisfied. As long as you drop the garbage "they're justified" bit, I can just classify you as a shill and ignore you.

Ya, I'm secretly on the pay roll..
..Did I say that out lowed? Oops...

They are justified to do whatever they want on their website as it is their property.

"Shill" can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws.