lgoasklucyl wrote:While I'm 100% in favor of Neo in the case, I think you're all missing the purpose of the block.
Though I won't normally post in any way, shape, or form to defend something out of the mouth of the likes of the moderation, Neo wasn't blocked specifically for the severity (or lack thereof) of the actions. Rather, the account was blocked to prevent future issues arising from whoever it is that happens to be in Neo's account. I'm assuming as soon as Neo returns to state his case it will be reopened and will get the typical 'slap-on-the-wrist'/'foe and move on, whiney bitch' response that is usually merited from this type of complaint.
If I happen to be incorrent and he was banned based on the actions, then I'm fully behind Changsha's statment and the moderation needs to take its head out of its ass.
Neoteny wrote:Clearly a flame. I suppose I do have a history of flaming, but I am willing to withdraw any comments that might be found to be offensive. I'd rather get banned for flaming in the forums than for misusing this travesty of a rating system.
Neoteny quite clearly writes here that he wrote the comments. So what was the babysitter doing? You'd think the hunters would have illustrated the
other banworthy actions of the babysitter. What were they?
So we are left with the impression that Neoteny was banned (not account frozen...BANNED) because of something his babysitter did, that we haven't been informed about. However, the only 'bannable' action we have are the comments he left on his own ratings board. Which he quite clearly says HE DID.
So either Neoteny is lying for the babysitter (possible I suppose) or Team CC is up to its old tricks again.
However I would genuinely like to be proved wrong! The idea that a player can be banned for this is absurd, that the hunters would cover up the banning in this way seems equally absurd to me. Yet with the facts we have, that's the only conclusion I can draw.
