Thezzaruz wrote:Mr Changsha wrote:Those with a genuine moral code don't need to be told not to set up multiple accounts, or not to play in the same games as real-life friends and relatives or not to play speed games on other player accounts, or not to play whole casual games for players. This is so blindingly OBVIOUS to anyone who plays the game in a decent fashion that it doesn't need to be said.
So sitting in casual games is fine but never for speed games??? I really can't see the difference tbh (have never seen a rule that separates them either).Mr Changsha wrote:True enough as far as it goes but at what point would it become illegal?
All your examples had the aim of the sitter to gain points by playing whole games, so they would certainly qualify.Mr Changsha wrote:Who is to say that Hulmey didn't specifically ask Maxstasguy to play a game for him in the hope of ending a worrying drop of points?
When you have some facts to back that statement up then I might start taking you serious, atm you're just coming off as accusing someone of cheating because of a grudge. That's just low.Jeff Hardy wrote: you cant complain about the service you pay for
we only pay 25 dollars a year which is hardly anything
The amount paid is what CC asks for so your opinion about it being "hardly anything" is completely irrelevant here. However CC do have the right to restrict a users access to their services (partly or fully) if that user breaks the rules. In this case they seem to think so and all we (or Hulmey) can do is discuss/influence that assessment.
You know in a seperate thread (I think it was in the cheating abuse forum and related to this issue) maxatstuy explained how his account sitting was simply an act of pure selflessness; he monitored various accounts just in case one of his good friends might miss a turn. There he was, single-handedly saving his friends from missing turns, manfully taking over accounts if someone had to go away on business...it really was very creditable indeed. But then I thought about it a little and realised that no, max was in fact writing utter crap. Very few acts are purely selfless (though that is a seperate debate) and whenever someone claims there actions are, my 'total bullshitometer' just, to be perfectly honest with you about it, starts pinging wildly.
So this is where old hulmey comes into it. As I had stated before I suspect that hulmey is an innocent party in this and also suggested he consider who he makes friends with here more carefully. But maxatstuy is far from innocent in all this and let me tell you why...
Max hates to lose points and therefore doesn't play competitive games. He plays his friends games for them so he can remember the thrill of a proper game without risking those oh so priceless points. That is why lot's of guys were blocked. Hulmey made the regrettable mistake of asking this person to play on his account which was truly stupid given the known history of maxstasguy. As I said I am leaning towards stupidity rather than dishonourable conduct here. My comment above referred to the fact that we don't KNOW that hulmey didn't ask the infamous max to play a game for him and if we didn't know hulmey from the forums (and he has always come across as a decent sort) many would probably assume that is what happened.
Assuming it can be proved that Hulmey wasn't trying to cheat in any way then he should be allowed to play with whomever he chooses to. I am not sure how that can be proved which is why it was seriously stupid to ask max to play on his account for him. It doesn't look good, does it?
Well Bumley me ol mucker,i certainly wont, your a moron 
