Conquer Club

browng-08 wrote:Theism? Does that work?

I believe that's already taken.

Night Strike wrote:

Iliad wrote:Point number 2: The whining was unbased in any way. Want to know why? Look at the Fireside Tavern. A supposed clan for fair and civil discussion, which however discriminated against atheists and left-wingers from the start. What happened is that only two or so atheists made into the clan, them being Skittles and Simon viavant. Haggis and Zeak also made it in. Now the mods in charge of accepting people rejected the likes of Me, Medefe, Juan, DM, Snorri.. They said that their records obviously show they can never post civilly. Then one of the atheists who was in Fireside Tavern, I think it was simon, proposed to let the atheists in, for only three days. This was rejected because they would "obviously spam and troll". This is when the plan was formed. DM posted on Reed's(Skittles!) account, snorri on Simon's for a month. That's right- an entire month.

Just before this month was over "Reed" and "Simon" asked whether their behavior was civil enough. All the others replied how it was very pleasant and very civil. And then it was revealed how it was snorri and DM posting under simon's and Reed's account, respectively. You should've seen the uproar. I could literally see the froth, coming out of their mouths, from my chair. People posted how they are putting people on ignore lists. Shortly after this fiasco ALL the atheists were removed. All of them. That left tonka as the only left-winger left in the group, and he quit soon after that.

Iliad, nice post, but you pointed out a large inconsistency within the arguments. Some people do make a post or two while they are account sitting to make funny comments, but that happens once, maybe twice. It was clear from your statement that they planned it and did the actions over the course of a month. That's pretty clear abuse in my eyes, and it appears most of the members of the Fireside Tavern would agree. And how would you know whether or not they checked IPs? The hunters and admins are smart enough not to bust players without having proof that they used multiple accounts.

However, their purpose was not to destroy the clan, it was to demonstrate that they could engage in civil discussion, once the automatic prejudice against them was put aside. If they intended to do something utterly against the rules and offensive to destroy the clan, they never would have disclosed who they really were. If anything this was just a crude Midsummer's Night Dream scheme.

Night Strike wrote:

Iliad wrote:Point number 2: The whining was unbased in any way. Want to know why? Look at the Fireside Tavern. A supposed clan for fair and civil discussion, which however discriminated against atheists and left-wingers from the start. What happened is that only two or so atheists made into the clan, them being Skittles and Simon viavant. Haggis and Zeak also made it in. Now the mods in charge of accepting people rejected the likes of Me, Medefe, Juan, DM, Snorri.. They said that their records obviously show they can never post civilly. Then one of the atheists who was in Fireside Tavern, I think it was simon, proposed to let the atheists in, for only three days. This was rejected because they would "obviously spam and troll". This is when the plan was formed. DM posted on Reed's(Skittles!) account, snorri on Simon's for a month. That's right- an entire month.

Just before this month was over "Reed" and "Simon" asked whether their behavior was civil enough. All the others replied how it was very pleasant and very civil. And then it was revealed how it was snorri and DM posting under simon's and Reed's account, respectively. You should've seen the uproar. I could literally see the froth, coming out of their mouths, from my chair. People posted how they are putting people on ignore lists. Shortly after this fiasco ALL the atheists were removed. All of them. That left tonka as the only left-winger left in the group, and he quit soon after that.

Iliad, nice post, but you pointed out a large inconsistency within the arguments. Some people do make a post or two while they are account sitting to make funny comments, but that happens once, maybe twice. It was clear from your statement that they planned it and did the actions over the course of a month. That's pretty clear abuse in my eyes, and it appears most of the members of the Fireside Tavern would agree. And how would you know whether or not they checked IPs? The hunters and admins are smart enough not to bust players without having proof that they used multiple accounts.

I know why they didn't check IP's. Let me just say that I have quite irrevocable proof of that. And if they did they only very briefly skimmed them. I have my sources

Yes they planned it. Yes they lied. However as even the Fireside Taverners agreed, they were completely civil. It was not trolling, there was no baiting, flaming, etc. They were role-model civil debaters. They got banned for being slightly deceitful.
I do not see people backstabbing in truces getting permabanned. Hey, they were deceitful, they deserve it as much as DM and Snorri did.

Explain to me, how it was a breach of the rules. Show me where it says that you cannot post under someone else. There are rules about creating more than one account. There are rules against secret diplomacy. There are forum guidelines. And nowhere does it say anything about not posting under someone else's account.

Explain to me, how it was abuse. The members of Fireside Tavern only got angry after we revealed the truth. If we had not told them and just continued to go like that for the next year there would have been no complaints. We did something, to show them why they were wrong about us being really uncivil. They showed how they really didn't care about the pretexts and just wanted us out. While a couple did acknowledge that they were wrong about us, and I salute them for being able to look at a picture objectively.

mpjh wrote:However, there purposes was not to destroy the clan, it was to demonstrate that they could engage in civil discussion, once the automatic prejudice against them was put aside. If they intended to do something utterly against the rules and offensive to destroy the clan, they never would have disclosed who they really were. If anything this was just a crude Midsummer's Night Dream scheme.

I private forum is private for a reason. If the leaders of the group did not want those members to have access, then they had NO RIGHT to use other accounts to gain access. Every member is granted access to post in the public forums (General Discussion, Off-topics, Flame Wars, etc.) unless they abuse it, but they DO NOT and NEVER WILL be allowed to post in groups to which they do not belong and are not welcome. If they wanted access to that group, they could have conducted themselves more respectfully in the public forums then showed the group leaders that they really could be responsible. In my new discussion group, if I find out that a player is consistently using a member's account to post within the private forum, they will immediately get the boot and I would ask for the situation to be reviewed by an admin.

And if that's not enough, even if their posts were civil, it's clearly trolling based on the definition 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)

NO ONE can deny that their actions clearly had the intent to "cause chaos" in a group's private forum. That is a pretty cut-and-dry case of trolling.

And just because something is not specifically spelled out in the Rules page or Forum Guidelines does NOT mean that is automatically allowed. No one would bother reading a thread that was 30 posts long full of what is and is not allowed on the site. And even then, as some users on this site consistently demonstrate, some would find gaps to try to exploit. And then they would whine and bitch when they get caught, at the very least, bending the rules.

Night Strike wrote:I private forum is private for a reason. If the leaders of the group did not want those members to have access, then they had NO RIGHT to use other accounts to gain access.

Question. If the leaders of a group refused to allow African-American into their forum because they were not capable of being "civilized", would you ban said African Americans for sneaking in anyways?

Frigidus wrote:

Night Strike wrote:I private forum is private for a reason. If the leaders of the group did not want those members to have access, then they had NO RIGHT to use other accounts to gain access.

Question. If the leaders of a group refused to allow African-American into their forum because they were not capable of being "civilized", would you ban said African Americans for sneaking in anyways?

Race has NOTHING to do with not conducting yourself respectfully in the forums, so please, never even consider equating the two situations.

Night Strike wrote: And if that's not enough, even if their posts were civil, it's clearly trolling based on the definition 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)

NO ONE can deny that their actions clearly had the intent to "cause chaos" in a group's private forum. That is a pretty cut-and-dry case of trolling.

There was no attempt to cause chaos, disruption or headaches to the community members. They simply wanted to demonstrate that they should be LET INTO the forum because they could be civil. I don't see any cut-and-dry case here.

Night Strike wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

Night Strike wrote:I private forum is private for a reason. If the leaders of the group did not want those members to have access, then they had NO RIGHT to use other accounts to gain access.

Question. If the leaders of a group refused to allow African-American into their forum because they were not capable of being "civilized", would you ban said African Americans for sneaking in anyways?

Race has NOTHING to do with not conducting yourself respectfully in the forums, so please, never even consider equating the two situations.

They wouldn't let athiests into their forum, so it absolutely, 100%, can not stress it enough DOES relate. I ask you again. If the leaders of a group refused to allow African-American into their forum because they were not capable of being "civilized", would you ban said African Americans for sneaking in anyways?[

Night Strike wrote:

mpjh wrote:However, there purposes was not to destroy the clan, it was to demonstrate that they could engage in civil discussion, once the automatic prejudice against them was put aside. If they intended to do something utterly against the rules and offensive to destroy the clan, they never would have disclosed who they really were. If anything this was just a crude Midsummer's Night Dream scheme.

I private forum is private for a reason. If the leaders of the group did not want those members to have access, then they had NO RIGHT to use other accounts to gain access. Every member is granted access to post in the public forums (General Discussion, Off-topics, Flame Wars, etc.) unless they abuse it, but they DO NOT and NEVER WILL be allowed to post in groups to which they do not belong and are not welcome. If they wanted access to that group, they could have conducted themselves more respectfully in the public forums then showed the group leaders that they really could be responsible. In my new discussion group, if I find out that a player is consistently using a member's account to post within the private forum, they will immediately get the boot and I would ask for the situation to be reviewed by an admin.

And if that's not enough, even if their posts were civil, it's clearly trolling based on the definition 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)

NO ONE can deny that their actions clearly had the intent to "cause chaos" in a group's private forum. That is a pretty cut-and-dry case of trolling.

And just because something is not specifically spelled out in the Rules page or Forum Guidelines does NOT mean that is automatically allowed. No one would bother reading a thread that was 30 posts long full of what is and is not allowed on the site. And even then, as some users on this site consistently demonstrate, some would find gaps to try to exploit. And then they would whine and bitch when they get caught, at the very least, bending the rules.

Actually I can.
We never wanted any chaos or disruption to the forum. We wanted the opposite. We wanted to show that their image of us is wrong. We wanted to show that DM and Snorri can post civilly which they did, as the member of Fireside Tavern had agreed. So no it's not trolling.


And no again. If some action is bannable, and it seems permabannable without any warning, it needs to be there. Why do you think countries have laws? So people know what to do, and what is against the rules. You cannot permaban us for something we did not even know was against the rules. Which it isn't .

nor should we necessarily have to. The argument can be made simply enough out of the reality of the situation, without the need for analogies.

I can understand that a group of people wanted to create a group where they did not feel demeaned. I also can understand the idea behind why they were selective in how they allowed entry into the group, not withstanding the right as a private usergroup. I do believe though that there was some poor decision making in regards to how to react to the situation.

I do believe the goal was not to bring the group down. After all, there was a time when people didnt really have private usergroups for this type of thing, they simply posted in OT. When a group of people were deemed unfit to discuss with anymore i can understand why they wanted to prove themselves. I also understand why many were less willing to give them a chance (i do believe some in the group were a little too inflexible but such is life).

It stands to reason that a few people took what would seemingly amount to sore feelings a little too far. I dont believe by any stretch the four people should been banned. Not because there wasnt some type of rule violation (which seems to be argued, though it certainly is nebulous) but because someone should have probably practiced a little more discretion.

Iliad wrote:And no again. If some action is bannable, and it seems permabannable without any warning, it needs to be there. Why do you think countries have laws? So people know what to do, and what is against the rules. You cannot permaban us for something we did not even know was against the rules. Which it isn't .

I mean, I can't even count the number of deceits their actions imply. Their motives are so transparent. Let's see: no warnings, no written rule, assertion that there was a written rule, no prior examples of the enforcement of such rule...the list goes on.

Did anyone ever read the book "Black Like Me?" Seems we have some atheists posing as believers for the purpose of showing that they are reasonable people who should be allowed into the discussion. Sort of like the white man posing to be black for the purpose of seeing how the other half lived. It is all a question of using creative means to expose prejudice and bias, and to try to overcome it.

Just so nobody misses the more level-headed anti-ban argument, I'll quote what GT wrote on the last page here.

got tonkaed wrote:nor should we necessarily have to. The argument can be made simply enough out of the reality of the situation, without the need for analogies.

I can understand that a group of people wanted to create a group where they did not feel demeaned. I also can understand the idea behind why they were selective in how they allowed entry into the group, not withstanding the right as a private usergroup. I do believe though that there was some poor decision making in regards to how to react to the situation.

I do believe the goal was not to bring the group down. After all, there was a time when people didnt really have private usergroups for this type of thing, they simply posted in OT. When a group of people were deemed unfit to discuss with anymore i can understand why they wanted to prove themselves. I also understand why many were less willing to give them a chance (i do believe some in the group were a little too inflexible but such is life).

It stands to reason that a few people took what would seemingly amount to sore feelings a little too far. I dont believe by any stretch the four people should been banned. Not because there wasnt some type of rule violation (which seems to be argued, though it certainly is nebulous) but because someone should have probably practiced a little more discretion.

We saw it the first time.

HEY! I just remembered, I used Skittles! account months back to gain access into esoog na si !selttikS clan many times. They never had ANY problem. And they gave me access after that. Should i be banned? Wheee

Waiting?
:]
You really went too far with an instant ban, when Skittles! had NO warning before. Your killing off people, which in turn will just put your site down. Bad reviews/talk=less people. Would you want that?
Edit:I'm not too sure about the others, if they have had any warning. I just know Skittles! had no intentions of causing chaos within the clan when he gave his account. Look at the amount of people against this, doesn't it tell you something.. Maybe along the lines of RETHINK YOUR DECISION AND LOOK AT THE RULES..

The goal really wasn't to cause chaos... It was surprising to me, but they seemed to have a sincere goal; to simply demonstrate that DM is capable of posting civilly in the right setting; and so is Snorri.

So simply: yes, I very much can deny that the intent was to cause chaos. Pop into the usergroup and read what they said while planning this; the intent was always to defiantly yet civilly prove a point.

Ditocoaf wrote:The goal really wasn't to cause chaos... It was surprising to me, but they seemed to have a sincere goal; to simply demonstrate that DM is capable of posting civilly in the right setting; and so is Snorri.

So simply: yes, I very much can deny that the intent was to cause chaos. Pop into the usergroup and read what they said while planning this; the intent was always to defiantly yet civilly prove a point.

I'm not able to. I'm only in Essog. :[
Yeah first thing i heard from Reed this morning. "I got a perma-ban" and i just laughed. Then yeah. He's pissed. Just said on MSN "I just wanna check fooking usergroups"

GabonX wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote: If I feed your dog one day, and I also own a dog, this does not mean I own two dogs. I am interacting with yours.

If a husband and wife have a regular home and a beach house they each have two houses.

This is not a valid comparison.

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

No, you just have a hard-on for Dancing Mustard.

So: troll-happy sophistry from Gabonx, self-righteous posturing from Shrill, bans for 'troublemakers' using anti-cheating laws.
And somewhere on CC, a dirty fucking rat who knew that if he/she ran crying to the mods, that Shrill-'I am the law!!1!'-Do would come down on them as if they were, to use Shrill's ridiculous, disingenuous and pathetic language, 'liars and cheaters'.

a) this forum is full of liars - you could start by banning BES for pretending to know what words like 'communism' mean, or how his income tax is calculated.

b) no cheating went on

c) More bullshit about 'the integrity of this community' - well, a start on 'integrity' would be manning up when you get shown up or responding in kind, instead of bleating to the teachers like a whinging fucking rat. I'm sure there were a few clammy high-fives in the nerd room afer this went down, and I'd like you to know, crawlers, that you really fucking suck.

Holy moley. This has been an interesting morning.
Perhaps we should learn a lesson form this:
It's the Admins who banned them, not the mods. The mods are just protecting the site, and probably their paychecks.

This is all quite laughable really, I mean honestly, what have any of them done to warrant a ban?

If it's true that they used each others accounts for a little debate in a private forum then I don't understand why they should be banned from all the forums. Surely if any ousting was deemed necessary, it should have been from the Fireside Tavern and the Fireside Tavern only.

These people did not use each others accounts to cheat in a game or to put in jeopardy the forum's integrity.

What I understand even less is CC's policy on 'rule breakers'.
In this case, the powers that be decided that the 'broken rules' were serious enough to bring about an immediate ban for all concerned; yet, oddly enough, there is a way back in....simply pay another premium fee and all will be well.

You know it's rather like the Catholic Church in a way: sin all you want, but go to confession, say a few hail Marys and all will be forgiven. I never could understand the concept of regaining God's grace through an simple act of contrition.
I think I'll stop with the religious analogy - Twill and Co. are not God(s) and likening them to Him is blasphemy at it's worst, even for non-believers such as myself.

Big question now is...will any of them buy their way back in?
Gotta say, I wouldn't blame them if they didn't, but this place will be decidedly dreary if they don't.

i don't think we'll see DM again as Dancing Mustard. he went past the point of no return. it's sorry state of affairs, with a shit load of double standards. Twildo for one seems to ignore my fellow Chap Curm when he poited out Khazalid/Prowler posting on each others accounts. was anything done to them 2, i don't think so. not even a rap on the knuckles. i doubt we'll see snorri again, Skittles most probably aswell as Simon.


DM was getting a bit tired of the site and forums and alas this will be the last nail in the coffin(maybe).

hopefully this will be the last time i am forced to explain that i never had access to the prowlers account and he never had access to mine.

the 'khaz for prow' stuff was just prowler trying to wind me up, i seriously cannot get over the sheer number of people who actually thought i'd be signing my posts khazadiddledoodoo out, it staggers to this day.

Frigidus wrote:

Night Strike wrote:By the way hecter, you aren't supposed to make posts for people who are forum banned or busted.

Here it comes!

Tell me about it...

I didn't make any post for him, I simply posted the other side of the story at his request. Those were, 100%, my own words. If you guys are such Nazi's that you'll get upset over that, well then f*ck man, you guys have some truly messed up priorities. I constantly see you (the mods) complain about how much work you have to do, but the only work I ever see you do is the work you create for yourself.

Night Strike wrote:I private forum is private for a reason. If the leaders of the group did not want those members to have access, then they had NO RIGHT to use other accounts to gain access. Every member is granted access to post in the public forums (General Discussion, Off-topics, Flame Wars, etc.) unless they abuse it, but they DO NOT and NEVER WILL be allowed to post in groups to which they do not belong and are not welcome. If they wanted access to that group, they could have conducted themselves more respectfully in the public forums then showed the group leaders that they really could be responsible. In my new discussion group, if I find out that a player is consistently using a member's account to post within the private forum, they will immediately get the boot and I would ask for the situation to be reviewed by an admin.

Sorry, but that doesn't fly. As the moderator for a group, you must accept the fact that you're letting in an account, not a person. If, at any time, you are unhappy with the way the account is conducting itself in your private forum, you have every right to give it the boot. You have to trust that the owner of the account will be careful with who they give the accounts password to, but you have no control over that and that's the way it should be. Usergroups, while still a part of CC, should be treated as a completely separate entity from the public forums. I don't want Twill or King or anybody meddling in the affairs of any of my clans, as any situation can be dealt with by the usergroup mod.

Let me make one thing perfectly, 100%, crystal clear.

THERE WAS NO PERMABAN
I love hugely annoying fonts at times of whiny misconception

Let me make a second thing perfectly, 100%, crystal clear.

If we were trying to get rid of them, we simply would have banned them, not concocted some convoluted and ridiculous multi accusation. I for one have clearly never shied away from pissing everyone off, so why would I bother busting them when they can just buy back in? If I wanted them gone I would have just banned em.

Let me make a third thing perfectly, 100%, crystal clear.

The mods didn't do this, and they aren't paid (although the deserve it for putting up with a lot of the crap they do). They are volunteers and deserve your respect.
I pressed the bust button after looking into the case. If you have a problem, come talk to me.

Let me make a fourth thing perfectly, 100%, crystal clear.

The rule clearly states that you will only have 1 account. Enough of "the rules apply to part a of the site but not part b" crap. The rule is the rule is the rule.
And they want to claim that using multiple accounts (that's right they each USED more than one account, regardless of who created it) to troll a PRIVATE usergroup, which is hosted on THIS website is kosher? Please. Come back when you have something better than that.



Now, let me make this last point perfectly 100% crystal clear.

They can buy back if they want. This is NOT a permaban. If THEY want to appeal this they can. If YOU don't like the way this site is moderated or run, vote with your feet and leave. If you don't want to leave, quit whining and deal with it.

Twill