Let's kill CC!

by **Simon Viavant** on Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:03 pm

Alright enough of this namby pambying about how bad the mods are, time to actually do something about it. Google search online risk. Under the "sponsored links" column is CC. Every time you click on it CC has to pay google $.0001. Think about what would happen if all of us sat there clicking on it for hours. We'd bankrupt CC. If all of us did it, in a month we'd cost them 3, maybe even 4 dollars. It's time the mods learned a lesson. KILL CC!!!

by **mibi** on Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:29 pm

Conquerclub likely has a maximum adwords budget, probably around $5 per day, so yeah. gfy.

by **targetman377** on Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:36 pm

wow you guys. honestly so you don't like the mods while then you can leave!!!! its not like cc is forcing you to stick around!!!!

by **Georgerx7di** on Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:56 pm

They would probably just pass the cost on to their customers, that's us. I don't think everyone hates cc like you think they do. I'm relatively happy with this place. I enjoy my games, post random bs that I hope might be funny, talk to my "e-friends". It's fun, gives me something to do at an extremely low cost. I'm sure I've spend over 250 hours on here this year, that comes out to 10 cents per hour, probably even less than that. Over all, I like this place.

by **n00blet** on Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:48 am

*whoosh*

by **Fruitcake** on Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:58 am

I find it fascinating that cc should need to advertise in any way at all. Does make one wonder....

by **angola** on Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:47 am

targetman377 wrote:wow you guys. honestly so you don't like the mods while then you can leave!!!! its not like cc is forcing you to stick around!!!!

I never liked this argument.

I've never had a run-in with a mod, but then I haven't been posting very long, so ...

Anyway, this sounds like the same corporate bullshit I hear at work: "Here, we are forcing you to take a 5 percent pay cut, but at least you have a job."

Nah, f*ck all that shit.

If bad moderating is disrupting paying customers, then don't try to play the "no one is making you stay here" card. That doesn't apply.

by **Fruitcake** on Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:36 am

targetman377 wrote:wow you guys. honestly so you don't like the mods while then you can leave!!!! its not like cc is forcing you to stick around!!!!

Indeed not, however, we are charged annually in advance, so have a right to expect a level of service and standardisation for the 12 months we have paid for.

Ever since the science of business started with bartering the inherent agreement of offer and acceptance between buyer and seller has remained as a basic tenet. Now while others may say the forums are not part of the contract I would disagree. The forums are there as part of the service so form part of the seller's (in this case Conquer Club's) service. It matters not whether the forums are included in the wording of the 'contract' which exists as it obviously forms part of the 'implied contract'.

To make the statement you have above would imply that whilst taking the buyers consideration (our premium payment) is accepted, the seller (Conquer Club) will change the contract and its obligation of that contract as and when it so decides. This is wrong on just so many levels and does little to further the cause of the business or the perception of the service by the buyers.

by **Mr Changsha** on Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:49 am

Fruitcake wrote:
targetman377 wrote:wow you guys. honestly so you don't like the mods while then you can leave!!!! its not like cc is forcing you to stick around!!!!

Indeed not, however, we are charged annually in advance, so have a right to expect a level of service and standardisation for the 12 months we have paid for.

Ever since the science of business started with bartering the inherent agreement of offer and acceptance between buyer and seller has remained as a basic tenet. Now while others may say the forums are not part of the contract I would disagree. The forums are there as part of the service so form part of the seller's (in this case Conquer Club's) service. It matters not whether the forums are included in the wording of the 'contract' which exists as it obviously forms part of the 'implied contract'.

To make the statement you have above would imply that whilst taking the buyers consideration (our premium payment) is accepted, the seller (Conquer Club) will change the contract and its obligation of that contract as and when it so decides. This is wrong on just so many levels and does little to further the cause of the business or the perception of the service by the buyers.

All perfectly true, Fc. However, I think you missed a key part of this puzzle. For while we may bemoan CC's deplorable standard of customer service, we are still addicted to on-line Risk. So we will keep handing out the cash. Couldn't one make an analogy with the local dope dealer? The first time you buy from him he's as attentive as could be. Yet within the month he's regressed into a surly specimen who is confident in the knowledge you'll come back because you need him. We need our Risk and CC is currently dealing out the cleanest shit we can find.

by **AAFitz** on Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:50 am

Well, as mentioned, there is a daily limit. What would more likely happen, is the increased searches would increase opportunities for exposure to new customers, and in the end generate income.

Maybe next we can all go paint some grafitti...that will show them whos boss.

by **JOHNNYROCKET24** on Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:56 am

if you hate it now than how much will you like it when I start my mod duties next week ?

by **jiminski** on Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:57 am

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:if you hate it now than how much will you like it when I start my mod duties next week ?

heheh! well you should've been a multihunter long ago anyway.

by **targetman377** on Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:30 am

Mr Changsha wrote:
Fruitcake wrote:
targetman377 wrote:wow you guys. honestly so you don't like the mods while then you can leave!!!! its not like cc is forcing you to stick around!!!!

Indeed not, however, we are charged annually in advance, so have a right to expect a level of service and standardisation for the 12 months we have paid for.

All perfectly true, Fc. However, I think you missed a key part of this puzzle. For while we may bemoan CC's deplorable standard of customer service, we are still addicted to on-line Risk. So we will keep handing out the cash. Couldn't one make an analogy with the local dope dealer? The first time you buy from him he's as attentive as could be. Yet within the month he's regressed into a surly specimen who is confident in the knowledge you'll come back because you need him. We need our Risk and CC is currently dealing out the cleanest shit we can find.

I think this is a valid argument after all you really do not have to be here no one forces you. As for the work place i would agree about that however that is true you can always move if you are unhappy were you live you move nobody force's you to do anything so therefor if you don't like it dont be here its simple as that i mean why would you want to bankcrupt a place that others like just cause you do not like it? i like it i like the service they provide. i love playing risk this site is great!!!! and for you to want to close it down i down just makes me angres you my friend are not everone!!

by **owenshooter** on Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:40 am

targetman377 wrote:wow you guys. honestly so you don't like the mods while then you can leave!!!! its not like cc is forcing you to stick around!!!!

WHOOSH!!!! um, did you skip the part where he said that if we all did this continually that we would cost the site a whopping $3-$4? WHOOSH!!!!...-0

by **targetman377** on Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:43 am

owenshooter wrote:
targetman377 wrote:wow you guys. honestly so you don't like the mods while then you can leave!!!! its not like cc is forcing you to stick around!!!!

WHOOSH!!!! um, did you skip the part where he said that if we all did this continually that we would cost the site a whopping $3-$4? WHOOSH!!!!...-0

yes yes i did I FAIL

by **Fruitcake** on Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:05 am

targetman377 wrote:I think this is a valid argument after all you really do not have to be here no one forces you. As for the work place i would agree about that however that is true you can always move if you are unhappy were you live you move nobody force's you to do anything so therefor if you don't like it dont be here its simple as that i mean why would you want to bankcrupt a place that others like just cause you do not like it? i like it i like the service they provide. i love playing risk this site is great!!!! and for you to want to close it down i down just makes me angres you my friend are not everone!!

Well apart from the huge leaps of logic and the cutting of my text regarding basic tenets of contract I am baffled as to what you are trying to say.

Of course no one forces anyone to be here. However, if one pays for a service, then one expects that service to continue upon the basis it was started. How you make the jump to people wanting to bankrupt the operation is quite beyond me. You, in fact, are acting as though there are no shades of grey on a matter of discussion. All we are asking for is a stable set of paremeters within which we are able to operate, this is not unreasonable. The argument you introduce regarding moving if one is unhappy where one lives has no relativity to this situation. Neither does the workplace scenario. However, I repeat, the basic tenet regarding the exchange of goods or services (in this case services) for consideration on both parties (cc service for our moolah) is being bent out of shape.

Your histrionic tone regarding bankruptcy and closing the site down does not bear close scrutiny. We are entitled to voice our dissatisfaction if we feel we are not being given the service we were led to believe (through historic relationship) we would receive.

by **targetman377** on Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:23 am

Fruitcake wrote:
targetman377 wrote:I think this is a valid argument after all you really do not have to be here no one forces you. As for the work place i would agree about that however that is true you can always move if you are unhappy were you live you move nobody force's you to do anything so therefor if you don't like it dont be here its simple as that i mean why would you want to bankcrupt a place that others like just cause you do not like it? i like it i like the service they provide. i love playing risk this site is great!!!! and for you to want to close it down i down just makes me angres you my friend are not everone!!

Well apart from the huge leaps of logic and the cutting of my text regarding basic tenets of contract I am baffled as to what you are trying to say.

Of course no one forces anyone to be here. However, if one pays for a service, then one expects that service to continue upon the basis it was started. How you make the jump to people wanting to bankrupt the operation is quite beyond me. You, in fact, are acting as though there are no shades of grey on a matter of discussion. All we are asking for is a stable set of paremeters within which we are able to operate, this is not unreasonable. The argument you introduce regarding moving if one is unhappy where one lives has no relativity to this situation. Neither does the workplace scenario. However, I repeat, the basic tenet regarding the exchange of goods or services (in this case services) for consideration on both parties (cc service for our moolah) is being bent out of shape.

Your histrionic tone regarding bankruptcy and closing the site down does not bear close scrutiny. We are entitled to voice our dissatisfaction if we feel we are not being given the service we were led to believe (through historic relationship) we would receive.

ok i am sorry it was early in the morning while i responded to that last post. you are correct sir if you feel the service is failing then you should not pay agian. saying that though all of you said that the service here is failing well how is it failing. give us some examples of failing service otherwise if you have nothing to back it up with then there is nothing wrong with this site

by **mibi** on Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:24 am

Fruitcake wrote:
targetman377 wrote:I think this is a valid argument after all you really do not have to be here no one forces you. As for the work place i would agree about that however that is true you can always move if you are unhappy were you live you move nobody force's you to do anything so therefor if you don't like it dont be here its simple as that i mean why would you want to bankcrupt a place that others like just cause you do not like it? i like it i like the service they provide. i love playing risk this site is great!!!! and for you to want to close it down i down just makes me angres you my friend are not everone!!

Well apart from the huge leaps of logic and the cutting of my text regarding basic tenets of contract I am baffled as to what you are trying to say.

Of course no one forces anyone to be here. However, if one pays for a service, then one expects that service to continue upon the basis it was started. How you make the jump to people wanting to bankrupt the operation is quite beyond me. You, in fact, are acting as though there are no shades of grey on a matter of discussion. All we are asking for is a stable set of paremeters within which we are able to operate, this is not unreasonable. The argument you introduce regarding moving if one is unhappy where one lives has no relativity to this situation. Neither does the workplace scenario. However, I repeat, the basic tenet regarding the exchange of goods or services (in this case services) for consideration on both parties (cc service for our moolah) is being bent out of shape.

Your histrionic tone regarding bankruptcy and closing the site down does not bear close scrutiny. We are entitled to voice our dissatisfaction if we feel we are not being given the service we were led to believe (through historic relationship) we would receive.

I understand you are upset, and I expect your resignation on my desk by the end of the day.

by **Mr Changsha** on Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:25 am

Fruitcake wrote:Well apart from the huge leaps of logic and the cutting of my text regarding basic tenets of contract I am baffled as to what you are trying to say.

He quoted both of us, so maybe he was responding to me? To be honest with you I'm not sure, as his comments seemed to fall somewhere in between our positions.

Nonetheless, target is writing better than he was (a few days ago one line of target was enough to make my eyes bleed) so I don't want to be too hard on him. Spelling is improving, there is some attempt at a structured sentence, once he's got to the point of actually having a clear meaning we can consider him house trained. A few days ago I was frankly concerned he'd lift his leg on the best sofa and take a sly crap in the closet when we weren't looking!

by **targetman377** on Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:26 am

Mr Changsha wrote:
Fruitcake wrote:Well apart from the huge leaps of logic and the cutting of my text regarding basic tenets of contract I am baffled as to what you are trying to say.

He quoted both of us, so maybe he was responding to me? To be honest with you I'm not sure, as his comments seemed to fall somewhere in between our positions.

Nonetheless, target is writing better than he was (a few days ago one line of target was enough to make my eyes bleed) so I don't want to be too hard on him. Spelling is improving, there is some attempt at a structured sentence, once he's got to the point of actually having a clear meaning we can consider him house trained. A few days ago I was frankly concerned he'd lift his leg on the best sofa and take a sly crap in the closet when we weren't looking!

well hardy har har. :lol: