Conquer Club

Allow permabanned users access to the private forums that they were involved in before their permaban. If a clan member is forum banned, for misbehaving in the general population, there really is not much reason to keep him/her from speaking to their friends, who usually are the ones complaining about the ban in the first place.

Plus some of us don't have each others real life info to contact outside of CC.

In other words, I miss DM. And probably a few others that will soon be banned.

jbrettlip wrote:Allow permabanned users access to the private forums that they were involved in before their permaban. If a clan member is forum banned, for misbehaving in the general population, there really is not much reason to keep him/her from speaking to their friends, who usually are the ones complaining about the ban in the first place.
Plus some of us don't have each others real life info to contact outside of CC.
In other words, I miss DM. And probably a few others that will soon be banned.

This seems very reasonable, so long as the individuals in question's (ignore my punctuation!) actions didn't piss off those private forum-goers (in other words, get the respective clan leader approval stamp on it).

I agree with this. Even with a small 'vacation'. I hate getting a 'vacation' and not being able to see the private forums. Greatly annoying.

Why? I'd bet that 99% of the people in a private forum are there because of first being in the public forums. If they can't follow the rules in public, why should they get the privilege of still being in a private forum?

Night Strike wrote:Why? I'd bet that 99% of the people in a private forum are there because of first being in the public forums. If they can't follow the rules in public, why should they get the privilege of still being in a private forum?

Congratulations, you've just completely missed the point!

Members on forum vacation are difficult to contact to pass clan related info on games they are required to play. That is the point that jbrettlip is trying to make. So by all means continue to bar them from posting in public as punishment for whatever transgressions they have committed, just don't punish their clans as well by making it difficult to contact the members under sanction.

Woodruff wrote:This seems very reasonable, so long as the individuals in question's (ignore my punctuation!) actions didn't piss off those private forum-goers (in other words, get the respective clan leader approval stamp on it).

Well there would be inherent approval. If the leader does not approve, they have the option to boot.

I've looked at making a few changes to clans and usergroups, and the Clan Directors (and other mods and player input) has been considered. I know the history, but I don't see a formal policy. I will look into this further, don't expect anything in the next few weeks though.

jpcloet wrote:

Woodruff wrote:This seems very reasonable, so long as the individuals in question's (ignore my punctuation!) actions didn't piss off those private forum-goers (in other words, get the respective clan leader approval stamp on it).

Well there would be inherent approval. If the leader does not approve, they have the option to boot.

I've looked at making a few changes to clans and usergroups, and the Clan Directors (and other mods and player input) has been considered. I know the history, but I don't see a formal policy. I will look into this further, don't expect anything in the next few weeks though.

Everything here is so slow.

It's also known as Turtle speed. Everyone wants instant gratification in this age of the internet My focus is on the Season 2 Clan League (over 1000 players impacted), rather than dealing with 1 off situations like this (5-10 players at best), but it is on my radar. Priorities are different to each I guess.

Thanks, Jp. I would even amend the suggestion to simply clan forums and not open social groups, as that would allow more potential to mingle with the general population for these nefarious rule breakers. But it would allow them to participate in clan challenges, and the clan leader could boot them if they were disruptive.

Artimis wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Why? I'd bet that 99% of the people in a private forum are there because of first being in the public forums. If they can't follow the rules in public, why should they get the privilege of still being in a private forum?

Congratulations, you've just completely missed the point!

Members on forum vacation are difficult to contact to pass clan related info on games they are required to play. That is the point that jbrettlip is trying to make. So by all means continue to bar them from posting in public as punishment for whatever transgressions they have committed, just don't punish their clans as well by making it difficult to contact the members under sanction.

Then the user should double check to make sure all their posts are following the guidelines. Clans are a forum privilege, so it's quite simple that those benefits are also lost while on a forum vacation/ban. Perhaps clans should think twice about allowing users who break the guidelines be members, or be prepared to make changes if a person is not allowed on the forum.

Night Strike wrote:

Artimis wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Why? I'd bet that 99% of the people in a private forum are there because of first being in the public forums. If they can't follow the rules in public, why should they get the privilege of still being in a private forum?

Congratulations, you've just completely missed the point!

Members on forum vacation are difficult to contact to pass clan related info on games they are required to play. That is the point that jbrettlip is trying to make. So by all means continue to bar them from posting in public as punishment for whatever transgressions they have committed, just don't punish their clans as well by making it difficult to contact the members under sanction.

Then the user should double check to make sure all their posts are following the guidelines. Clans are a forum privilege, so it's quite simple that those benefits are also lost while on a forum vacation/ban. Perhaps clans should think twice about allowing users who break the guidelines be members, or be prepared to make changes if a person is not allowed on the forum.

Night Strike, I think you are intentionally trying to annoy the creators of this thread. I accuse you of being Intentionally annoying, which breaks the forums rules. Tell me when your ban is up so I can feel justice has been served.

An apology will not suffice and I have no doubt that when you have been on the forums as long as you have, you should have already received a warning, if not then I can certainly go through all your posts and find adequate reasoning for your warning.

Everyone is breaking the rules if CC wants them to be... The rules are so general and vague. How would a clan owner know if someone has been warned or punished for an offense before? Ask them? Yeah, if they knew they wouldn't get into the clan saying they had a previous offense, don't you think they would just lie?

Perhaps CC needs to make a record db and the clan leaders can do background checks on their new recruits before hiring them... I mean allowing them on the team.

4myGod wrote:Perhaps CC needs to make a record db and the clan leaders can do background checks on their new recruits before hiring them... I mean allowing them on the team.

most forums just have a member rating near the avatar. like a warning level or something. i think if you are going to pay for the service, you should have to be able to meet the full agreement of gaming. you cant just ban someone for being bad on the forums when they pay to play the game. that is just rong.

King Berzerker wrote:most forums just have a member rating near the avatar. like a warning level or something. i think if you are going to pay for the service, you should have to be able to meet the full agreement of gaming. you cant just ban someone for being bad on the forums when they pay to play the game. that is just rong.

Forum bans general do not stop you from playing the game...

spiesr wrote:

King Berzerker wrote:most forums just have a member rating near the avatar. like a warning level or something. i think if you are going to pay for the service, you should have to be able to meet the full agreement of gaming. you cant just ban someone for being bad on the forums when they pay to play the game. that is just rong.

Forum bans general do not stop you from playing the game...

oh. i thought there was a diffarence between forum ban and permaban.

there is, perma ban means no access to the site what so ever..forum ban means no access to any and all forums.

jpcloet wrote:

Woodruff wrote:This seems very reasonable, so long as the individuals in question's (ignore my punctuation!) actions didn't piss off those private forum-goers (in other words, get the respective clan leader approval stamp on it).

Well there would be inherent approval. If the leader does not approve, they have the option to boot.

That's true...good point.

4myGod wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Artimis wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Why? I'd bet that 99% of the people in a private forum are there because of first being in the public forums. If they can't follow the rules in public, why should they get the privilege of still being in a private forum?

Congratulations, you've just completely missed the point!

Members on forum vacation are difficult to contact to pass clan related info on games they are required to play. That is the point that jbrettlip is trying to make. So by all means continue to bar them from posting in public as punishment for whatever transgressions they have committed, just don't punish their clans as well by making it difficult to contact the members under sanction.

Then the user should double check to make sure all their posts are following the guidelines. Clans are a forum privilege, so it's quite simple that those benefits are also lost while on a forum vacation/ban. Perhaps clans should think twice about allowing users who break the guidelines be members, or be prepared to make changes if a person is not allowed on the forum.

Night Strike, I think you are intentionally trying to annoy the creators of this thread.

I don't think he is. To be honest, his position is a very legitimate one. I don't happen to agree with it, but I can certainly see the validity of what he's saying and I can certainly see how that might turn out to be the official position of the site, as well (not because of him, but just because they see it as logical).

Woodruff wrote:I don't think he is. To be honest, his position is a very legitimate one. I don't happen to agree with it, but I can certainly see the validity of what he's saying.

Well unfortunately it doesn't say how many people or who needs to think someone is intentionally annoying in the rules. Therefor if I think he is intentionally annoying then what is to say he doesn't deserve a ban any less than someone else who is getting banned for being intentionally annoying?

clapper011 wrote:there is, perma ban means no access to the site what so ever..forum ban means no access to any and all forums.

so ur saying that u can ban a player that paid for site access because of stuff done on forums?

Yes with racism/bigotry being one of the more offensive wrong-doings.

King Berzerker wrote:

clapper011 wrote:there is, perma ban means no access to the site what so ever..forum ban means no access to any and all forums.

so ur saying that u can ban a player that paid for site access because of stuff done on forums?

uh no, i was say that there IS a difference between the 2. Please do not put words in my mouth. Thank you.

This is waste of time- they have right to kick people out of CC,and you can not do nothing about this. Soon or later you will realised that. If im in hes position,maybe will do same thing.

4myGod wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I don't think he is. To be honest, his position is a very legitimate one. I don't happen to agree with it, but I can certainly see the validity of what he's saying.

Well unfortunately it doesn't say how many people or who needs to think someone is intentionally annoying in the rules. Therefor if I think he is intentionally annoying then what is to say he doesn't deserve a ban any less than someone else who is getting banned for being intentionally annoying?

True enough...that essentially comes down to what the moderators perceive to be annoying. That is, after all, rather what they're there for...to make those sorts of determinations. "How many people are annoyed" isn't really relevant, in my opinion...nor do I think it should be. Otherwise, individuals could essentially harass only one person endlessly (to the amusement of everyone else) and get away with it, potentially.

Woodruff wrote:

4myGod wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I don't think he is. To be honest, his position is a very legitimate one. I don't happen to agree with it, but I can certainly see the validity of what he's saying.

Well unfortunately it doesn't say how many people or who needs to think someone is intentionally annoying in the rules. Therefor if I think he is intentionally annoying then what is to say he doesn't deserve a ban any less than someone else who is getting banned for being intentionally annoying?

True enough...that essentially comes down to what the moderators perceive to be annoying. That is, after all, rather what they're there for...to make those sorts of determinations. "How many people are annoyed" isn't really relevant, in my opinion...nor do I think it should be. Otherwise, individuals could essentially harass only one person endlessly (to the amusement of everyone else) and get away with it, potentially.

Yes that is true, however leaving it to the judgment of the moderators doesn't work, because some people get banned for doing the same things as others, but the others don't get banned. So relying on a mod to tell us when something is intentionally annoying doesn't work. A vast majority of us in a thread could be discussing one thing and then someone comes in and tells us that we are all stupid for even caring, that to me would be a reasonable "intentionally annoying" act, however things like that get ignored, unless there is some other reason that the admins/mods don't like the users, then they may or may not punish the user it seems.

Even you would agree woodruff that the admins have not been fair in their punishment system, and I don't feel we can trust them to tell us what is annoying or not. So if we are to rely on their opinion, which I think we should, for the reasons you said, we need new mods/admins who we can trust. Who are fair in their punishments.

4myGod wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

4myGod wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I don't think he is. To be honest, his position is a very legitimate one. I don't happen to agree with it, but I can certainly see the validity of what he's saying.

Well unfortunately it doesn't say how many people or who needs to think someone is intentionally annoying in the rules. Therefor if I think he is intentionally annoying then what is to say he doesn't deserve a ban any less than someone else who is getting banned for being intentionally annoying?

True enough...that essentially comes down to what the moderators perceive to be annoying. That is, after all, rather what they're there for...to make those sorts of determinations. "How many people are annoyed" isn't really relevant, in my opinion...nor do I think it should be. Otherwise, individuals could essentially harass only one person endlessly (to the amusement of everyone else) and get away with it, potentially.

Yes that is true, however leaving it to the judgment of the moderators doesn't work, because some people get banned for doing the same things as others, but the others don't get banned. So relying on a mod to tell us when something is intentionally annoying doesn't work. A vast majority of us in a thread could be discussing one thing and then someone comes in and tells us that we are all stupid for even caring, that to me would be a reasonable "intentionally annoying" act, however things like that get ignored, unless there is some other reason that the admins/mods don't like the users, then they may or may not punish the user it seems.

When that happens, do you report it? A mod isn't going to see every thread.
If you do report it, do you KNOW that nothing happens? Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. For instance, captain.crazy recently got a 3-day ban apparently...even as active as he posts, I didn't notice he was gone. I recently received a 24-hour ban...as often as I post and I doubt anyone noticed.

4myGod wrote:Even you would agree woodruff that the admins have not been fair in their punishment system, and I don't feel we can trust them to tell us what is annoying or not. So if we are to rely on their opinion, which I think we should, for the reasons you said, we need new mods/admins who we can trust. Who are fair in their punishments.

Even I? I was complaining about the consistency in punishments long before most of you "woke up" with the recent spate of bannings, so you won't get any argument from me on that count. However, I don't believe that the fix is to necessarily replace the mods. I do honestly believe the mods have the best interests of the site at heart. I simply believe that some of them need to better understand their roles and perhaps tighten up the rules/consequences some.

4myGod wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Artimis wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Why? I'd bet that 99% of the people in a private forum are there because of first being in the public forums. If they can't follow the rules in public, why should they get the privilege of still being in a private forum?

Congratulations, you've just completely missed the point!

Members on forum vacation are difficult to contact to pass clan related info on games they are required to play. That is the point that jbrettlip is trying to make. So by all means continue to bar them from posting in public as punishment for whatever transgressions they have committed, just don't punish their clans as well by making it difficult to contact the members under sanction.

Then the user should double check to make sure all their posts are following the guidelines. Clans are a forum privilege, so it's quite simple that those benefits are also lost while on a forum vacation/ban. Perhaps clans should think twice about allowing users who break the guidelines be members, or be prepared to make changes if a person is not allowed on the forum.

Night Strike, I think you are intentionally trying to annoy the creators of this thread. I accuse you of being Intentionally annoying, which breaks the forums rules. Tell me when your ban is up so I can feel justice has been served.

An apology will not suffice and I have no doubt that when you have been on the forums as long as you have, you should have already received a warning, if not then I can certainly go through all your posts and find adequate reasoning for your warning.

Everyone is breaking the rules if CC wants them to be... The rules are so general and vague. How would a clan owner know if someone has been warned or punished for an offense before? Ask them? Yeah, if they knew they wouldn't get into the clan saying they had a previous offense, don't you think they would just lie?

Perhaps CC needs to make a record db and the clan leaders can do background checks on their new recruits before hiring them... I mean allowing them on the team.

The most annoying about Night Strikes post was your reply.

It would appear you have a problem. Either a) You dont like people taking the opposite side of a discussion, or b) you dont like Night Strike. If it is a) then you must find life pretty tough at times. If it is b) then you are the one doing the harrassing and annoying. Whichever is the case it doesnt stop him from being entitled to his opinion.