GabonX wrote:They are justified to do whatever they want on their website as it is their property.
As long as you're no longer claiming that what they're doing is anything but arbitrary, I'm fine. We agree... they can do whatever the hell they want, no matter how stupid and out-of-the-blue. It may be okay because it's their site, but it doesn't make it any less stupid.
GabonX wrote:
Ditocoaf wrote: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?
Ah, so you really do agree... heh. They can get away with crappy customer service, that is pretty sweet for them! I just don't understand why you seem so happy about it.
GabonX wrote:No, no, seriously..I'm on the pay roll.
Stop throwing up a straw man and argue against what we're actually saying. I can pretend you're making a really obviously dumb argument, then beat that easily. But I won't.
It's not like I have a non biased and objective view on this...
Just because you're unconnected, doesn't mean you're correct.
GabonX wrote:They are justified to do whatever they want on their website as it is their property.
Hm. So, does that mean that dictators can do whatever they want because they own the country? That makes sense under this theory, right? I can do absolutely anything in my home, as it's my home, right?
Let me guess, this only applies to the internet. Of course.
I could keep rolling my eyes forever, and it would never show how stupid I think this argument is.
Last edited by Frigidus on Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
GabonX wrote:They are justified to do whatever they want on their website as it is their property.
Hm. So, does that mean that dictators can do whatever they want because they own the country? That makes sense under this theory, right. I can do absolutely anything in my home, as it's my home, right?
Let me guess, this only applies to the internet. Of course.
I could keep rolling my eyes forever, and it would never show how stupid I think this argument is.
Sorry to turn against my own side for a second, but you're wrong. This is not a country, this is a business. If I own a coffee shop, I have the right to arbitrarily kick random people out of it if I want. It doesn't mean I'm not stupid to do so, but I have every right to, certainly.
GabonX wrote:They are justified to do whatever they want on their website as it is their property.
As long as you're no longer claiming that what they're doing is anything but arbitrary, I'm fine. We agree... they can do whatever the hell they want, no matter how stupid and out-of-the-blue. It may be okay because it's their site, but it doesn't make it any less stupid.
I don't see it that way. Letting this kind of thing slip by opens the door to flagrant and unchecked in game abuse.
Ditocoaf wrote:
GabonX wrote:
Ditocoaf wrote: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?
Ah, so you really do agree... heh. They can get away with crappy customer service, that is pretty sweet for them! I just don't understand why you seem so happy about it.
It really doesn't bother me. If I do something wrong and they tell me to stop I stop. If they want to ban me that's completely their decision. Frankly I would love to have a turn key operation like this someday.
GabonX wrote:They are justified to do whatever they want on their website as it is their property.
Hm. So, does that mean that dictators can do whatever they want because they own the country? That makes sense under this theory, right. I can do absolutely anything in my home, as it's my home, right?
Let me guess, this only applies to the internet. Of course.
I could keep rolling my eyes forever, and it would never show how stupid I think this argument is.
Sorry to turn against my own side for a second, but you're wrong. This is not a country, this is a business. If I own a coffee shop, I have the right to arbitrarily kick random people out of it if I want. It doesn't mean I'm not stupid to do so, but I have every right to, certainly.
Well, we're discussing the nature of property, correct? I see no reason that dictators can't kill people if they deem them their property. I'm simply taking his theory to the extreme, something that's very useful in magnifying logical flaws.
GabonX wrote:They are justified to do whatever they want on their website as it is their property.
Hm. So, does that mean that dictators can do whatever they want because they own the country? That makes sense under this theory, right. I can do absolutely anything in my home, as it's my home, right?
Let me guess, this only applies to the internet. Of course.
I could keep rolling my eyes forever, and it would never show how stupid I think this argument is.
Sorry to turn against my own side for a second, but you're wrong. This is not a country, this is a business. If I own a coffee shop, I have the right to arbitrarily kick random people out of it if I want. It doesn't mean I'm not stupid to do so, but I have every right to, certainly.
Well, we're discussing the nature of property, correct? I see no reason that dictators can't kill people if they deem them their property. I'm simply taking his theory to the extreme, something that's very useful in magnifying logical flaws.
Well, first you'd have to accept that people are the property of dictators. I think the coffeeshop metaphor is more accurate: people may not be the property of the shop owner, but the store itself is, and the store owner doesn't have to let you in.
GabonX wrote:No, no, seriously..I'm on the pay roll.
Stop throwing up a straw man and argue against what we're actually saying. I can pretend you're making a really obviously dumb argument, then beat that easily. But I won't.
You're missing the point.. They pay me
Stop misusing logic terms to debate. You understand what they mean but you don't know how to put them in context.
Ditocoaf wrote:
GabonX wrote:It's not like I have a non biased and objective view on this...
Just because you're unconnected, doesn't mean you're correct.
Correct about what? That it's their website and they can do what they want with it? I'm right about that as evidenced by the fact that that's how it is.
Frigidus wrote:
GabonX wrote:They are justified to do whatever they want on their website as it is their property.
Hm. So, does that mean that dictators can do whatever they want because they own the country? That makes sense under this theory, right? I can do absolutely anything in my home, as it's my home, right?
Let me guess, this only applies to the internet. Of course.
I could keep rolling my eyes forever, and it would never show how stupid I think this argument is.
This isn't a straw man at all. Countries are the same as websites and human lives are the same as accounts.
Yes, people have a right to do what they want with their property, so long as it is legitimately theirs. Dictators do not legitimately own the lives of their countrymen while the owners of this site do legitimately own it.
GabonX wrote:They are justified to do whatever they want on their website as it is their property.
Hm. So, does that mean that dictators can do whatever they want because they own the country? That makes sense under this theory, right. I can do absolutely anything in my home, as it's my home, right?
Let me guess, this only applies to the internet. Of course.
I could keep rolling my eyes forever, and it would never show how stupid I think this argument is.
Sorry to turn against my own side for a second, but you're wrong. This is not a country, this is a business. If I own a coffee shop, I have the right to arbitrarily kick random people out of it if I want. It doesn't mean I'm not stupid to do so, but I have every right to, certainly.
Well, we're discussing the nature of property, correct? I see no reason that dictators can't kill people if they deem them their property. I'm simply taking his theory to the extreme, something that's very useful in magnifying logical flaws.
Well, first you'd have to accept that people are the property of dictators. I think the coffeeshop metaphor is more accurate: people may not be the property of the shop owner, but the store itself is, and the store owner doesn't have to let you in.
Fair enough, let me revise. Is it OK for dictators to declare a state religion? They don't have to allow those that don't follow their religion into their country.
Edit: It was only a matter of time before we turned on each other.
This has nothing to do with national dictators. You're grasping at straws.
Honestly the answer here may be to give these guys a pass, not because they recieved unfair treatment, but because it upset a number of other customers. The administrators of this site are completely justified in letting the bans (which gives the banned parties the option of paying for premium and returning to the site) stand, or repealing them. You aren't entitled to take liberties with your account. There may be, and in this case there were, consequences.
GabonX wrote:They are justified to do whatever they want on their website as it is their property.
Hm. So, does that mean that dictators can do whatever they want because they own the country? That makes sense under this theory, right. I can do absolutely anything in my home, as it's my home, right?
Let me guess, this only applies to the internet. Of course.
I could keep rolling my eyes forever, and it would never show how stupid I think this argument is.
Sorry to turn against my own side for a second, but you're wrong. This is not a country, this is a business. If I own a coffee shop, I have the right to arbitrarily kick random people out of it if I want. It doesn't mean I'm not stupid to do so, but I have every right to, certainly.
Well, we're discussing the nature of property, correct? I see no reason that dictators can't kill people if they deem them their property. I'm simply taking his theory to the extreme, something that's very useful in magnifying logical flaws.
Well, first you'd have to accept that people are the property of dictators. I think the coffeeshop metaphor is more accurate: people may not be the property of the shop owner, but the store itself is, and the store owner doesn't have to let you in.
Are you sure they don't? What if a coffee shop started refusing service to someone based on race, wouldn't they face legal repercussion?
GabonX wrote:No, no, seriously..I'm on the pay roll.
Stop throwing up a straw man and argue against what we're actually saying. I can pretend you're making a really obviously dumb argument, then beat that easily. But I won't.
You're missing the point.. They pay me
Stop misusing logic terms to debate. You understand what they mean but you don't know how to put them in context.
They do not pay you, and you are only pretending to claim that, in an attempt to ridicule us. You are pretending that we have accused you of being on the payroll, and making sarcastic remarks about such. This is a clear straw man.
GabonX wrote:
Ditocoaf wrote:
GabonX wrote:It's not like I have a non biased and objective view on this...
Just because you're unconnected, doesn't mean you're correct.
Correct about what? That it's their website and they can do what they want with it? I'm right about that as evidenced by the fact that that's how it is.
What I mean, is that your status as "not predisposed to favor either side" does not mean that you're automatically correct, and therefore is irrelevant.
Frigidus wrote:Well, we're discussing the nature of property, correct? I see no reason that dictators can't kill people if they deem them their property. I'm simply taking his theory to the extreme, something that's very useful in magnifying logical flaws.
Well, first you'd have to accept that people are the property of dictators. I think the coffeeshop metaphor is more accurate: people may not be the property of the shop owner, but the store itself is, and the store owner doesn't have to let you in.
Are you sure they don't? What if a coffee shop started refusing service to someone based on race, wouldn't they face legal repercussion?
It's not based on race though, it's based on the arbitrary whims of the store owner, and that's perfectly legal.
GabonX wrote:Honestly the answer here may be to give these guys a pass, not because they recieved unfair treatment, but because it upset a number of other customers. The administrators of this site are completely justified in letting the bans (which gives the banned parties the option of paying for premium and returning to the site) stand, or repealing them. You aren't entitled to take liberties with your account. There may be, and in this case there were, consequences.
Nobody is denying that, but where were these rules written? No where in either the rules, the guidelines or the FAQ does it say "though shalt not make posts on other peoples accounts", nor did they receive a warning about it. You can scream "Rule #1!" all you want, but it doesn't apply in this case as it was not one person owning two accounts, which is what rule #1 says (paraphrased).
Last edited by hecter on Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine... You got your things, and I've got mine.
GabonX wrote:You aren't entitled to take liberties with your account.
I do agree (as you might have noticed) that the sentence should be lenient. But I really dispute this fact. Where, on the website, is this stated? The multi rule simply doesn't cover this situation.
Frigidus wrote:Well, we're discussing the nature of property, correct? I see no reason that dictators can't kill people if they deem them their property. I'm simply taking his theory to the extreme, something that's very useful in magnifying logical flaws.
Well, first you'd have to accept that people are the property of dictators. I think the coffeeshop metaphor is more accurate: people may not be the property of the shop owner, but the store itself is, and the store owner doesn't have to let you in.
Are you sure they don't? What if a coffee shop started refusing service to someone based on race, wouldn't they face legal repercussion?
It's not based on race though, it's based on the arbitrary whims of the store owner, and that's perfectly legal.
Then how about not letting them in because they're liberal? Because he doesn't like the way they carry themselves? Perhaps he doesn't face legal repercussions, but is he morally in the right? Is morality truly defined by your location?
Allow me to echo every intelligent person's sentiments:
WHAT THE F*CK?
DM and Snorri were definitely 2 of the most entertaining posters in all of CC. The other two, I don't really know much about.
In any event, this is ridiculous. I would like to file a formal complaint at this time, by posting in this thread which will inevitably bury my one post within the surging wave of others' comments, and then doing nothing else besides emailing DM or dito, possibly.
Hoepfully they went out with a bang at least (ala KLOBBER2-8 ....That was genius).
This is fucking ridiculous. I don't think Skittles and Simon even had any warnings beforehand.
Twilldo, next time you make up something to ban people that don't want to suck you off, change the rules before, it might go unnoticed.
Good luck banning all account sitting btw. I'm sure you'll find a way to piss even more customers off in all the games ruined by pseudo-busted deadbeats when it's enforced (by our good legion of zealous mods of course )
I think everyone ranting should go post e-tickets. It might at least be more difficult to ignore for them.
Anarkistsdream wrote:If you guys can't tell that Doom is being forced to post this drivel, you are fools...
ga7 wrote:I'm sure you'll find a way to piss even more customers off in all the games ruined by pseudo-busted deadbeats when it's enforced (by our good legion of zealous mods of course )
Oh, don't worry, I'm sure we'll never hear about this non-rule ever again. It's a one-hit wonder.
As what have been said before, Dancing Mustard, Skittles, Snorri and Simon Viviant have all been busted and not perma banned as what most of you thinks. They can come back as a premium member anyway.
A case was brought to us through a support ticket and it was conveyed to the attention of an admin. They were found to have done something that has an equal consequence of being a multi account.
There is the public forum and there are PRIVATE forums. The details of the case need not be publicized but we should always respect each clan's private forum. Their actions were deemed very wrong and they were busted for it.
As what it says in the Forum Guidelines: Trolling (including multiple postings, spam, abusive content, and specific attempts to cause chaos, disruption or headaches to the community members or staff)
and as what the rules states:
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.
They shared their accounts and trolled into a private forum to deceit and confuse the members in that clan. If you can find ways to get around the system, you will also be accountable for it once caught.
GabonX wrote:It seems pretty obvious that the people who are defending these guys aren't doing it for any reason other than the fact that they like the people who got busted. If it were me who was in trouble they would all be silent right now.
Incidentally, when DaGip started a thread some while ago specifically to ask if it was alright to post while babysitting someone else's account, no mods found the question interesting enough to respond to.
If merely doing this is "instant bust" youda thought they'd have thought it worth mentioning.
king achilles wrote:As what have been said before, Dancing Mustard, Skittles, Snorri and Simon Viviant have all been busted and not perma banned as what most of you thinks. They can come back as a premium member anyway.
A case was brought to us through a support ticket and it was conveyed to the attention of an admin. They were found to have done something that has an equal consequence of being a multi account.
There is the public forum and there are PRIVATE forums. The details of the case need not be publicized but we should always respect each clan's private forum. Their actions were deemed very wrong and they were busted for it.
As what it says in the Forum Guidelines: Trolling (including multiple postings, spam, abusive content, and specific attempts to cause chaos, disruption or headaches to the community members or staff)
and as what the rules states:
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.
They shared their accounts and trolled into a private forum to deceit and confuse the members in that clan. If you can find ways to get around the system, you will also be accountable for it once caught.
Oh, they're certainly guilty of trolling. But trolling generally has a day-ban, not a "bust (permaban unless you pay)".
....That was genius).
