Twildo Leaving?

[b.k. barunt]

considering TheProwler never got banned for using deliaselene's account to post in the Tavernside Fire

I never used anyone's account to post to a forum. Period. The only thing I have ever posted while in another user's account is that I am taking his/her turn in Game Chat, and to discuss strategy with his/her teammates in Game Chat.

I've only ever logged into the account of someone else to babysit their games. Always with a temporary password. And I always stayed out of forums and PM's and Live Chat.

Seriously, you don't give the mods enough credit. They knew what was going on. And when you post incorrect information and state it as facts, and the mods know you are wrong, they are bound to give all of your words less credibility. It's like the boy who cried "Wolf!".

Anyone else here remember wrestler1ump's frequent use of "prowler"s account to post again and again in Flame Wars? How do you spell H Y P O C R I S Y?


Honibaz

[nagerous]

considering TheProwler never got banned for using deliaselene's account to post in the Tavernside Fire

I never used anyone's account to post to a forum. Period. The only thing I have ever posted while in another user's account is that I am taking his/her turn in Game Chat, and to discuss strategy with his/her teammates in Game Chat.

I've only ever logged into the account of someone else to babysit their games. Always with a temporary password. And I always stayed out of forums and PM's and Live Chat.

Seriously, you don't give the mods enough credit. They knew what was going on. And when you post incorrect information and state it as facts, and the mods know you are wrong, they are bound to give all of your words less credibility. It's like the boy who cried "Wolf!".

So you're saying that someone else wrote all those posts in flame wars, quoting me on what I had written in a private usergroup. I don't think so..

[TheProwler]

So your idea gets rejected and as a result your cynical and negative about the site.

That is hitting the nail on the head.

It has been my observation that there seems to be a lot of people here who get very upset when someone disagrees with them.

That said, let me make something clear about human nature. When someone is an inventor or creator of something and they work hard at it try to make it the best product possible, and then somebody else comes along and makes a suggestion to improve the product, the person in charge might become a little defensive. They might take a suggestion as a criticism. They might get the feeling that if they change things, it mean they were wrong to begin with. It is the same feeling of pride that makes people upset when their suggestion is rejected.

So there might be times when this "foolish pride" causes the mods and admins of this site to make a bad decision. That is how it is when dealing with other people. It can be a little frustrating, I know. But it is to be expected when dealing with people. Realizing this is something that will make you a happier person in day-to-day life.

People disappoint me a lot less when I expect very little of them.

[TheProwler]

Anyone else here remember wrestler1ump's frequent use of "prowler"s account to post again and again in Flame Wars? How do you spell H Y P O C R I S Y?

Are you being serious?

I would never allow WU to use my account. The only reason I would allow anyone to use my account would be to babysit my games. It hasn't happened yet. And if it does happen, it won't be WU. Have you seen his game play?

[nagerous]

By the way Prowler, before you critique me further you should have a read of more of my posts around the forum... Those two issues I take exception to, one because one of my close friends on this site, Skittles! got banned, which sucked majorly, especially when he had done little wrong compared to what you did, which was in a similar vein (using information posted in a private usergroup to your advantage), the other issue where I got a 24 hour ban for having a sig with pictures, which I had had for over 5 months and never been warned for in the past. In a lot of other moderation decisions, like the hunt on farming, the banning of norse, maxatstuy, disciplinary actions against players like scott-land etc. and even when I received a warning for tactical babysitting, which I didn't know was wrong at the time, I have understood and supported and think in the long run Twill's input on this site was more productive than destructive.

[TheProwler]

considering TheProwler never got banned for using deliaselene's account to post in the Tavernside Fire

I never used anyone's account to post to a forum. Period. The only thing I have ever posted while in another user's account is that I am taking his/her turn in Game Chat, and to discuss strategy with his/her teammates in Game Chat.

I've only ever logged into the account of someone else to babysit their games. Always with a temporary password. And I always stayed out of forums and PM's and Live Chat.

Seriously, you don't give the mods enough credit. They knew what was going on. And when you post incorrect information and state it as facts, and the mods know you are wrong, they are bound to give all of your words less credibility. It's like the boy who cried "Wolf!".

So you're saying that someone else wrote all those posts in flame wars, quoting me on what I had written in a private usergroup. I don't think so..

No, I wrote the posts in Flame Wars.

You said "for using deliaselene's account to post in the Tavernside Fire".

I said I never used delia's account to post anywhere except maybe Game Chat if I babysat her account. I don't recall ever babysitting her account, though.

[Bones2484]

I, for one, hope for more forum "vacations" from our new overlords for a few other people around these parts.

This is possibly why you've never been considered an essential part of our once-vibrant forum community. F1fth said it well: Just because the rules are blind doesn't mean the moderators have to be.

Do you really think I care if someone like you cares if I'm around or not?

I don't participate in the same forums that you do, so we have absolutely zero interaction. I'm pretty sure that any of the tournament regulars or clan directors would be just as upset about my departure as you are about the "departure" of those that break the rules in the Off-Topic/Flame Wars forums.

Just because someone helps create a "vibrant community" doesn't give them a pass when they act like a child, and as someone who is here to have fun playing the game without people ruining it I hope the new admins have just as short of a leash.

[TheProwler]

By the way Prowler, before you critique me further you should have a read of more of my posts around the forum...

I was only addressing the one statement you made which was incorrect.

I am not commenting on each and every thing you have ever said.

Regarding the "Banner Decision", I can say that I disagree with the mods' decision **if I really know all the facts**. But I realize that many times there is information that will not be made public for one reason or another. Also, it was a pretty insignificant ban. I suggest you move on. It isn't doing any good to dwell on negative issues of the past.

[Timminz]

Does anyone else find it odd that one of the most interesting CC-related discussions in recent memory in the off-topics forum?

[john9blue]

This is possibly why you've never been considered an essential part of our once-vibrant forum community. F1fth said it well: Just because the rules are blind doesn't mean the moderators have to be.

Do you really think I care if someone like you cares if I'm around or not?

I don't participate in the same forums that you do, so we have absolutely zero interaction. I'm pretty sure that any of the tournament regulars or clan directors would be just as upset about my departure as you are about the "departure" of those that break the rules in the Off-Topic/Flame Wars forums.

Just because someone helps create a "vibrant community" doesn't give them a pass when they act like a child, and as someone who is here to have fun playing the game without people ruining it I hope the new admins have just as short of a leash.

Just because you don't understand the humor & community of other forums doesn't mean they don't matter. I have more fun reading Off-Topics than anything else here. Who are you to judge what we do?

Although I doubt you can hear me way up there on your high horse.

[Bones2484]

Just because you don't understand the humor & community of other forums doesn't mean they don't matter. I have more fun reading Off-Topics than anything else here. Who are you to judge what we do?

Although I doubt you can hear me way up there on your high horse.

Did you even bother reading what I said?

When did I say anything negative about Off Topic and Flame Wars? I only said that I have no interaction with them so I don't expect the people here to know or care about who I am.

The only negative things I said were about the people who break the rules in these forums. Just because they add to the "humor & community" does not give them the right to break the rules of the site as a whole. I'd expect the same punishments from people who act like douchebags in the tournament forum as well, and I wouldn't whine about it when someone receives a due punishment.

[MeDeFe]

Just because you don't understand the humor & community of other forums doesn't mean they don't matter. I have more fun reading Off-Topics than anything else here. Who are you to judge what we do?

Although I doubt you can hear me way up there on your high horse.

Did you even bother reading what I said?

When did I say anything negative about Off Topic and Flame Wars? I only said that I have no interaction with them so I don't expect the people here to know or care about who I am.

Then please keep it that way and go back to your fabled realms of peace and tranquility where you may be who you want to be and do not have to be questioned by people who do not know you.

[Bones2484]

Then please keep it that way and go back to your fabled realms of peace and tranquility where you may be who you want to be and do not have to be questioned by people who do not know you.

I apologize, I could have sworn that civilized discussion was appropriate around these parts.

[Timminz]

I'm likely a bit off-base on this, but it seems to me that anytime someone shows support for something other than a free-for-all, some people come around attempting to bait them into losing their cool by referring to a high horse, self-righteousness, or some other holier-than-thou behaviour.

"I don't like the rules (or possibly, the way they're enforced), but you say you do. If I can goad you into breaking a rule, or two, I will have successfully shown you to be a hypocrite. Thus proving my point that the rules should be reduced, or removed."

It's a clever ruse, and I can certainly respect the intelligence involved, yet underhanded, which I cannot respect.

[MeDeFe]

Timminz, it wouldn't be so bad if the high horses would do more than whinny and maybe respond to the claim that the rules are being enforced in a too heavy-handed manner and unevenly.

[Bones2484]

Timminz, it wouldn't be so bad if the high horses would do more than whinny and maybe respond to the claim that the rules are being enforced in a too heavy-handed manner and unevenly.

Again I apologize, I'll try to be more clear for you since you obviously need it.

I have respect for these forums. Just because I don't participate in them often doesn't mean I don't realize that they are important and fill a great need for others.

What I don't have respect for is people who break the rules.

I will 100% agree with you that the rules are enforced unevenly. You will not see me arguing that point. What I do disagree with is that they are heavy-handed. From my point of view, there are numerous other people running around the site (not only Off Topic/Flame Wars) that should be punished just as much as those that have been.

Cliff Notes: Blah blah opposing view point from your own, dismiss this post as someone you don't know and claim that they don't know what they are talking about.

[Timminz]

Timminz, it wouldn't be so bad if the high horses would do more than whinny and maybe respond to the claim that the rules are being enforced in a too heavy-handed manner and unevenly.

I will (and have) acknowledge(d) that there has been inconsistency in moderation, and occasionally heavy-handedness. However, it is my opinion that the inconsistency sat on the side of leniency more often than not, and that the heavy-handed approach was almost exclusively reserved for people who had "earned" it. Other than one incident (the Bullet proof BAN-dit fiasco), I cannot recall ever seeing someone punished without warrant, but I have witnessed plenty of posters receive "slaps on the wrist" or less for what (in my opinion) should have garnered harsher penalties. Not just due to my views, but based on what had been done in the past.

So, yes. The rules are enforced unevenly on occasion, but that leads to letting people go too far sometimes, not cutting people short.

[john9blue]

I'm likely a bit off-base on this, but it seems to me that anytime someone shows support for something other than a free-for-all, some people come around attempting to bait them into losing their cool by referring to a high horse, self-righteousness, or some other holier-than-thou behaviour.

Who said anything about a free-for-all? The real disrespect the mods show is when they ban people for bad reasons.

"I don't like the rules (or possibly, the way they're enforced), but you say you do. If I can goad you into breaking a rule, or two, I will have successfully shown you to be a hypocrite. Thus proving my point that the rules should be reduced, or removed."

I'm not trying to bait him. Sometimes I just don't appreciate peoples' attitudes. Besides, if I made him talk like the "average Off-Topic posters", while supporting the AOTPs, and disliked him for it, then I would be practicing double standards, which is the reason many of us are dissatisfied with the mods. THAT'S hypocrisy.

It's a clever ruse, and I can certainly respect the intelligence involved, yet underhanded, which I cannot respect.

Umm... thanks, but no thanks. See above.

[Bones2484]

I'm not trying to bait him. Sometimes I just don't appreciate peoples' attitudes.

There's a difference between not appreciating an attitude and not liking what they have to say. Had you actually read what I wrote, you would have realized that I had nothing against Off Topic/Flame Wars. Maybe next time you can finish reading a response before immediately dismissing it for having an opposing view point.

[F1fth]

When are people going to get it through their heads that this is a business, not a democracy.

And we're trying to give tips on how to make it a better, more consumer-friendly business. There's no need to take the exasperated tone; if your argument isn't convincing people, try reshaping it.

I think this is funny. It seems to me that there are very few people trying to give tips on how to improve the site. In fact most of the time all I see are people bitching and complaining about how much this site sucks and how they hate how things are done here. How exactly does that make this a better more consumer-friendly site. There are very few serious posts on how things could be improved or problems fixed. Perhaps if someone put together some well worded, non confrontational suggestions, the mods would be more willing to listen. Unfortunatly these types of posts seem few and far between esspecially here and in flame wars. Perhaps if you put more time into trying to improve this site instead of trying to convince each other of how crappy it is you might get some of the changes you want.

Are you kidding? Sure, there's a fair bit of bitching that goes on around here, but don't you think people have tried the constructive approach, and it didn't work, and that's why people are so cynical? Seriously, I have and the only effect it had was the admins were polite in telling me that what I said made no difference.

So let me get htis straight. You come up with a good suggestion about how to make CC better and present it to the mods in a polite and constructive fashion. They tell you just as politly that it is not reasonable to implament your idea. Now I don't know if they gave reasons to you or not but I would think that they have some pretty good ones for not taking your suggestion. So your idea gets rejected and as a result your cynical and negative about the site. Seems a little counter productive to me. Perhaps you should look back over your suggestion find out what you could improve on, change it and resubmit your idea. Cause like the1exile said

if your argument isn't convincing people, try reshaping it.

Haha, yes, that's what happened! I asked the administration team nicely to do something once (only just once) and it was probably an unreasonable and selfish thing anyway, and they told me of course that I couldn't have it, and so I started getting all pissy over it and have been a bitch ever since.[/sarcasm]

A few of the suggestions I've made:

--The Administration should not enforce rules they have not announced yet (no posting personal information ever) for which a whole clan got banned. I feel as though both the rule (in the context of FW it makes sense, but why anywhere else?) and the subsequent banning of an entire clan without warning were unreasonable. Admins didn't think so, so nothing I could do. There was no way to phrase my argument to convince them.

--DM/Snorri/Skittles/Simon all permabanned for multi abuse when what they did was use each other's account for no other reason than to show a usergroup that DM and Snorri could be well-mannered in a friendly debate, and that they were unfairly prejudiced against them. I disagreed that the admins interpretation of the multi rule applied, and also I felt the sentence was far too heavy-handed, given that a temp ban and a serious warning could have easily prevented the behavior from ever happening again. The admins did not agree, so nothing I could do.

--I've asked repeated for more clarity in the rules, given the fact that at that point many people I liked on this site had been banned based on rules interpreted in weird ways and even rules not even mentioned yet, publicly this time, and I get called a "whiner" by everyone who supports everything the admins do. Constructive, huh?

The point is that there have never been once where the administration team has conceded anything to the community (at least this community) so long as I have been here. But it's not the repeated times that the rules are interpreted in new ways against them, or the fact that the sentences are far too harsh (and sometimes spiteful), or that the rulings are final that causes people to be cynical (it helps though!). It's the fact that many friendly faces in this community have been banned or have up and left because of it that causes this. I hope this will change though.

Yes, yes, I know: tl;dr. Whatever.

[F1fth]

I'm not trying to bait him. Sometimes I just don't appreciate peoples' attitudes.

There's a difference between not appreciating an attitude and not liking what they have to say. Had you actually read what I wrote, you would have realized that I had nothing against Off Topic/Flame Wars. Maybe next time you can finish reading a response before immediately dismissing it for having an opposing view point.

I, for one, hope for more forum "vacations" from our new overlords for a few other people around these parts.

You said you hoped more people on these boards were banned. If not an inflammatory statement, then it's just a very rude thing to say.

[Bones2484]

You said you hoped more people on these boards were banned. If not an inflammatory statement, then it's just a very rude thing to say.

Again, reading comprehension. These two posts explain the one you questioned that are located on the very same page of this thread:

I have respect for these forums. Just because I don't participate in them often doesn't mean I don't realize that they are important and fill a great need for others.

What I don't have respect for is people who break the rules.

I will 100% agree with you that the rules are enforced unevenly. You will not see me arguing that point. What I do disagree with is that they are heavy-handed. From my point of view, there are numerous other people running around the site (not only Off Topic/Flame Wars) that should be punished just as much as those that have been.

I will (and have) acknowledge(d) that there has been inconsistency in moderation, and occasionally heavy-handedness. However, it is my opinion that the inconsistency sat on the side of leniency more often than not, and that the heavy-handed approach was almost exclusively reserved for people who had "earned" it. Other than one incident (the Bullet proof BAN-dit fiasco), I cannot recall ever seeing someone punished without warrant, but I have witnessed plenty of posters receive "slaps on the wrist" or less for what (in my opinion) should have garnered harsher penalties. Not just due to my views, but based on what had been done in the past.

So, yes. The rules are enforced unevenly on occasion, but that leads to letting people go too far sometimes, not cutting people short.

If people are going to break the rules, they deserve to be punished. I don't understand why that simple concept is so hard to grasp. It really isn't that difficult to not act like a child.

[Timminz]

--The Administration should not enforce rules they have not announced yet (no posting personal information ever) for which a whole clan got banned. I feel as though both the rule (in the context of FW it makes sense, but why anywhere else?) and the subsequent banning of an entire clan without warning were unreasonable. Admins didn't think so, so nothing I could do. There was no way to phrase my argument to convince them.

Agreed. The bandit ordeal was a bit much. Although, it was Owen pushing, and pushing for the personal info rule to be applied across the board, and it was, to prove a point, and to "teach him a lesson". Not how I would have handled it, but the desired result was achieved, and on top of that, Owen is now one of Twill's biggest supporters. Again I will say that this fiasco was handled poorly by people on both sides (note that that includes Twill to a large degree).

--DM/Snorri/Skittles/Simon all permabanned for multi abuse when what they did was use each other's account for no other reason than to show a usergroup that DM and Snorri could be well-mannered in a friendly debate, and that they were unfairly prejudiced against them. I disagreed that the admins interpretation of the multi rule applied, and also I felt the sentence was far too heavy-handed, given that a temp ban and a serious warning could have easily prevented the behavior from ever happening again. The admins did not agree, so nothing I could do.

Your use of the prefix "perma" is out of place here. At least 2 of those users (snorri & Simon) are currently active, with full access to the forums. In fact, snorri has continued pushing the boundaries, and has received at least one more temp ban since then, yet is still allowed back again. Most of your argument in this section is just plain false.

--I've asked repeated for more clarity in the rules, given the fact that at that point many people I liked on this site had been banned based on rules interpreted in weird ways and even rules not even mentioned yet, publicly this time, and I get called a "whiner" by everyone who supports everything the admins do. Constructive, huh?

Who are these people who have been banned without warning, or for a rule that was completely new and unannounced? Yes, I mean other than the Bandit situation. We've covered that already.

The point is that there have never been once where the administration team has conceded anything to the community (at least this community) so long as I have been here. But it's not the repeated times that the rules are interpreted in new ways against them, or the fact that the sentences are far too harsh (and sometimes spiteful), or that the rulings are final that causes people to be cynical (it helps though!). It's the fact that many friendly faces in this community have been banned or have up and left because of it that causes this. I hope this will change though.

You ask for concessions, but you fail to acknowledge that they've been a fair bit more proactive than simply conceding things. The fact that we have forums in the first place. Flame Wars being there for people who like to be "naughty" with their words. The option we have to create our own, un-moderated, private forums. These are all things that we have been given as a privilege. You make it sound as though Team CC has never done anything of use to anyone here, when the fact is that the matter s that the number of users who've felt wronged or treated unfairly is minuscule, and none of them is nearly as innocent as proclaimed.

[MeDeFe]

--DM/Snorri/Skittles/Simon all permabanned for multi abuse when what they did was use each other's account for no other reason than to show a usergroup that DM and Snorri could be well-mannered in a friendly debate, and that they were unfairly prejudiced against them. I disagreed that the admins interpretation of the multi rule applied, and also I felt the sentence was far too heavy-handed, given that a temp ban and a serious warning could have easily prevented the behavior from ever happening again. The admins did not agree, so nothing I could do.

Your use of the prefix "perma" is out of place here. At least 2 of those users (snorri & Simon) are currently active, with full access to the forums. In fact, snorri has continued pushing the boundaries, and has received at least one more temp ban since then, yet is still allowed back again. Most of your argument in this section is just plain false.

They were busted as multis when they hadn't taken a single turn for each other but only used the accounts to gain access to FT, it's true it's not exactly the same as being permabanned because in addition to not being able to use the forums or pms you also can't start any new games. In any case, please stop being anally retentive regarding terminology, or at least only be that way when it works in your favour. This is a case where it doesn't.
Weird thing was that all 4 accounts were given the option of buying back in as premium instead of only the "original" one as is usually the case. 4 people, 4 accounts, no taking turns for each other to gain advantages in freestyle team games or for secret cooperation in singles. Multis? It is possibly the weirdest interpretation of a rule in the history of CC.

[mpjh]

--DM/Snorri/Skittles/Simon all permabanned for multi abuse when what they did was use each other's account for no other reason than to show a usergroup that DM and Snorri could be well-mannered in a friendly debate, and that they were unfairly prejudiced against them. I disagreed that the admins interpretation of the multi rule applied, and also I felt the sentence was far too heavy-handed, given that a temp ban and a serious warning could have easily prevented the behavior from ever happening again. The admins did not agree, so nothing I could do.

Ah, they weren't permabanned. Snorri is back, Simon is back (I think), Skittles doesn't want to come back, and I heard DM was coming back for a new user group set up by Snorri. In any case, they were not permabanned.