Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote: Am I the only one noticing that NS and Twitler are the only vocal mod supporters of the ban? Twill, a member of the Jesus Freaks, and NS a conservative Christian too? Is this a case of "I am holier than thou art?" Are Twill and NS actually being Bigots here themselves? I'm not sure... But I know that they are twisting rules to suit their purpose.

Juan, I normally respect your posts, but I think you are reaching here ... There may be issues, but I don't think Twill, NS and Twitler being Christians is it. I suspect it is more that their forums are partially where the problems occured.

mpjh wrote:It does explain the intensity with which they ignore the spirit of the rules. Is there an appeal process where we can bring up this conflict of interest issue?

mpjh wrote:It does explain the intensity with which they ignore the spirit of the rules. Is there an appeal process where we can bring up this conflict of interest issue?

jonesthecurl wrote:

mpjh wrote:Then who is this guy Thor that keeps posting Nazi crap?

If Thor was Norse, Norse was over-rated (again, Norse was before my time)

Ditocoaf wrote:I was very upset earlier, but I really do think you have made a mistake in this instance. The only time "multiple accounts" is defined is in Rule #1: "...certain accounts belong to the same person..." and that certainly did not happen. While perhaps you may want to make a rule against what they did, there was no such rule at the time of the action. In fact, there is precedence: When browng-08 went on a vacation, he posted his password in Spamalot to let them joint-account-sit. Many of them posted with his account. This was reported several times, but no punishment was deemed necessary, as they had his permission. All other precedence regarding using anther's account has been about the game itself.

I realize you have every right to run the forum how you feel is best. I just really wish I could somehow convince you that this decision is not for the best. Skittles, etc. are certainly guilty of trolling; and they should all be treated as such.

Twill wrote: Hey Dit, Thanks for the reasoned PM.

We've enforced this rule many a time before. The principle behind the rule is to keep people from abusing the use of more than 1 account, be that in the forums or in the games. "belonging to the same person" does not necessarily mean exclusively. When Skittles is logged into someone else's account, that account belongs to them to do with as they wish, and that is something that we wish to stop. In games it leads to scoreboard abuse, in forums it least to posting abuse.

This is a perfect case of where people used multiple accounts for posting abuse - they accessed and posted in private usergroups without the group leader or the group's permission, thus violating the trust and integrity of that group.

As with all players who abuse multiple accounts, we busted them, should the choose to return they will have formal disciplinary warnings waiting for them for the trolling aspect of what they did.

Just because they are popular does not make them immune to the rules. Just because they have built friendships and a community here does not mean that they can overrule the rest of the community. There are 20,000 people on this site, 4 people do not get to be exempt from the rules which govern all.

Feel free to post this to the forums if you so choose.

Twill

Ditocoaf wrote: Basically, it all started way back when the Fireside Tavern (a usergroup) was made. It claimed to be a place for civil/rational/logical discussion, away from all the trolling and insults of off-topics. But that is only what it evolved into, under the guidance of CrazyAnglican: the OP (by protectedbygold) was all about getting away from liberals and "militant" atheists (by militant, he seemed to mean anyone who had an opinion on religion who wasn't religious. He's an agnostic himself, but just the kind who doesn't care).

Anyway as some of you know, many individuals in the Godless Heathens were pissed off at the idea. Some trolled the recruitment thread quite a bit, and so in the end very few liberals or atheists were allowed into the clan. Inside the clan, over the months, it was a large debate as to whether to relax admission standards. We claimed that, while Snorri and DM may troll in off-topics, if they were in a structured enviroment with a mutual trust to debate rationally, they would be able to. This was not accepted, because the purpose of the clan, it seems, was not to escape irrationality itself, but rather to escape specific people with a history of irrationality. When it came up that BES (the third leader) frequently trolled and flamed in off-topics, this was considered acceptable because he was already in... at the time the clan was formed, he had no history of uncivil behavior.

Meanwhile, DM was using skittle's account to post in FT, and snorri was posting using Simon Viviant's account to do the same. They both had a desire to participate in the (admittedly compelling) discussions that took place there. A thread called "the plan" was created in the godless heathen's forum, discussing if we should reveal this fact to the tavernites, hopefully changing their minds about whether DM and snorri were capable of posting constructively.

Around this time, TheLucas and Player had a spat (TheLucas got pissed at what he thought Player's opinion was, and demanded she be banned for her alleged anticapitalist views) and they were both removed by PBG. This caused a (polite) uproar, and people began questioning whether the standards should be changed. I took this as my cue to start The Real University, which I hoped could function alongside the FT as a less exclusive (and therefore less safe from trolling) alternative. But the actions of PBG continued to piss me off to the point I figured I should leave. I hoped that the DM and Snorri thing would get the clan to open up, at which point I would reapply.

But, of course, the opposite happened. PBG got pissed and banned every member of the Godless Heathens; CrazyAnglican quit his job as a leader because it was too much to deal with, and the only remaining liberal, got tonkaed, left. Apparently, PBG sent in an e-ticket to twill. I'm not certain it was him, but he makes the most sense.

diddle wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:

mpjh wrote:Then who is this guy Thor that keeps posting Nazi crap?

If Thor was Norse, Norse was over-rated (again, Norse was before my time)

I don't reckon so. Norse wouldn't come back with such an obvious username, but then post reasonably inconspicuously.

Frigidus wrote:I swear, I've never heard the term posting abuse. The only bans I've seen made for posting under multiple accounts is the case of someone posting to avoid a ban. At least it seems things will have a resolution, but if the higher-ups can charge us large amounts of money for breaking unexpressed rules...

GabonX wrote:It does seem a little unfair that they get penalized and the other two get a free ride. Correct me if I'm wrong but they never had access to more than one account. They may be able to appeal on the grounds that they weren't multis as they only ever had access to one account.

Curmudgeonx wrote:The irony of Dancing Mustard's return will be that Twill will probably forum ban him once he is back for trolling while using someone else's account. Double bans from the same event! Anyone want to bet otherwise?

GabonX wrote:It does seem a little unfair that they get penalized and the other two get a free ride. Correct me if I'm wrong but they never had access to more than one account. They may be able to appeal on the grounds that they weren't multis as they only ever had access to one account.

X ($50!)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O

mandyb wrote:

diddle wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:

mpjh wrote:Then who is this guy Thor that keeps posting Nazi crap?

If Thor was Norse, Norse was over-rated (again, Norse was before my time)

I don't reckon so. Norse wouldn't come back with such an obvious username, but then post reasonably inconspicuously.

No. There is no comparison, at all.
If you'd known Norse at all jonesy, you'd have no trouble separating the two.

X ($50!)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O Neo
O Dito

mandyb wrote:Are you sure they want to come back ? I don't want to put a damper on it for you guys, but if it were me, I wouldn't come back if I thought I were unfairly dismissed in the first place, at least not by conventional means.
Find out first if they want to return before you gift them something they'd rather not have.

Neoteny wrote:

mandyb wrote:Are you sure they want to come back ? I don't want to put a damper on it for you guys, but if it were me, I wouldn't come back if I thought I were unfairly dismissed in the first place, at least not by conventional means.
Find out first if they want to return before you gift them something they'd rather not have.

That's true. I'm not sure Skittles even plays games any more. Has anyone heard from them about this?

This is nonsense. Now with Skittles! gone who will be the source of ridicule for my clan? Anyway I do not believe the current punishment to be appropriate for the crime. As such I propose this: Overturn this ban, and instead when next I see Skittles I will slap him over the head and inform him what a knob he is. This, I believe, is more fitting for this crime.

And Iliad, please do not imply that all conservatives see athiests as uncivil, evil and amoral. Granted, most of you are Besides, we can be just as uncivil and amoral as you!

dsmsc1991 wrote: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