It's time we used the only weapon we've got

[mpjh]

Just how fried did your brain get on drugs over the last year or so?

[Ditocoaf]

The only real weapon that is almost surefire is starting a forum using some free service and inviting every significant person on this website to join it in protest. But then everyone would want to be a leader in some way or there would be a fight over certain rules, causing factions to develop, and the one new forum would spawn a new new forum, and the cycle continues from there. Surefire indeed.

That other forum was created a while ago, and in fact still exists today.

Really? Well I wish I knew about that one.

Well, I don't have the URL on me, as I haven't visited it in a while. But I've just heard of plans to start a second wave of increased activity, so I might participate in that... which would involve finding the URL and spreading it around. So keep your eyes open!

[mpjh]

I think he is pulling your chevron, dito.

[jonesthecurl]

In the Tavern a hundred-buck bill
was demanded for talking (by Twill).
I've polled each CC member:
a result to remember -
Forum Gang 20,000 - Twill, nil.

[mpjh]

In the Tavern a hundred-buck bill
was demanded for talking (by Twill).
I've polled each CC member:
a result to remember -
Forum Gang 20,000 - Twill, nil.

Night and Twill went up the hill
To fetch a pail of quarters
Night fell down
and broke his helmet
and Twill came tumbling after

[pimpdave]

In the Tavern a hundred-buck bill
was demanded for talking (by Twill).
I've polled each CC member:
a result to remember -
Forum Gang 20,000 - Twill, nil.

Night and Twill went up the hill
To fetch a pail of quarters
Night fell down
and broke his helmet
and Twill came tumbling after

And then they went to dark Snake Mountain
Planning to poison the wish fountain
But there their boss, Skeletor
Said, I need cash for my whore
So they snatched that cash from wish fountain.

[PLAYER57832]

The only real weapon that is almost surefire is starting a forum using some free service and inviting every significant person on this website to join it in protest. But then everyone would want to be a leader in some way or there would be a fight over certain rules, causing factions to develop, and the one new forum would spawn a new new forum, and the cycle continues from there. Surefire indeed.

That would only possibly work if the CC forums were a paid function of CC. Instead, they are just an optional adjuct and one they actually could pull at any time. The purpose of CC is, after all games. (though I know a few stick around for the forums, they are not the CC "bread and butter" ... barely enought to make the sprinkles on top, I'd say).

[Twill]

Ok, I see where this whole "you're a biased participant" came from

For the record, I'm not a member of the Jesus freaks I regularly get added to groups, apparently I just havn't removed myself from this one yet.

Otherwise, I'm not in any clans with anyone who complained about anything in this case. In fact, I've never spoken to them before this, so chill. And either way, I'm not sure what this whole "it's a conservative group, therefore Twill hates everyone else" came from. Kinda comical seeing as I'm about as liberal as it gets, well done on doing your background checking

As for the whole "You have handled this unprofessionally in all your posts" - yup. I'll be snarky to anyone who's arguing just for the sake of arguing or who is arguing a ridiculous point.

I don't take 90% of the posts in here seriously:

They were intentionally messing with people, using someone elses account: They must be innocent

A private usergroup forum which has every right to exclude any member for any reason excluded them. It's not fair. They wanted to get in, therefore all methods are kosher and they are thus innocent

They signed up to use the site, therefore they have every right to do whatever they want, no matter what the rules are, and therefore are innocent

It's a conservative conspiracy, led by a bleeding heart liberal, free norse. (oh, and they're innocent)

I chose to interpret the "one account" rule to mean I can use more than one account, and because that's how I interpreted it, I cannot be held responsible for it.

And lets not forget the foolproof fallback:

Twilly willy was a willy because he's silly and has a willy, but I have a friend named nilly, who doesn't have a willy...so they must be innocent

Look, I will take you seriously when you guys start acting seriously. "Because they wanted to be in" and "I read the one account rule differently than you" are not valid reasons for claiming innocence or foul play by the admins. "You're a conservative religious freak" isn't a valid argument either, especially considering my actual political leanings. Anyone who has PM'd me with a non-rant question has gotten a reasoned and respectful reply. I'm just not going to seriously debate how CC "broke the law by busting accounts for misuse", it's just a waste of time.


Although I am enjoying the poems.

[Juan_Bottom]

Look, I will take you seriously when you guys start acting seriously.

I think you see this differently than we(the serious ones) do. No one is taking you seriously, because you never admit when you're wrong. And as far as I can tell, you do understand the problem at base. So if you wanted to find a legitimate solution, you would have found it already on your own.
The obvious problem is that you are the only one on this forum who interpretted the rule they way that you did. Even now, after it's been exposed that way, you're still the only one. And you even admitted that the rule you cited wasn't very clear at all. I'm not saying that what the 4 did was right, but that there was no banning rule for it. We all agree that there needs to be a re-write of the rules. In fact, I'd even like to see a rule about keeping clans private. So nothing similer can happen again.
Point is, the decision should not stand.


Also, I know the super strict rules against adding people to clans without their permission. Is Luns or Caleb going to loose leadership status?

[Juan_Bottom]

Ok, I see where this whole "you're a biased participant" came from

For the record, I'm not a member of the Jesus freaks I regularly get added to groups, apparently I just havn't removed myself from this one yet.

Otherwise, I'm not in any clans with anyone who complained about anything in this case. In fact, I've never spoken to them before this, so chill. And either way, I'm not sure what this whole "it's a conservative group, therefore Twill hates everyone else" came from. Kinda comical seeing as I'm about as liberal as it gets, well done on doing your background checking

Hey don't blame me for the conclusion. You're the one in the clan. I was just trying to understand why someone would make such a ridiculous ruling, and then not admit that they were wrong.

[yeti_c]

Also, I know the super strict rules against adding people to clans without their permission. Is Luns or Caleb going to loose leadership status?

Ya - I hate it when I get added to clans that I don't want to join - and can then not leave.

C.

[F1fth]

Twill,

I agree the contract extends only to paying members, and I stated that a long time ago.

I agree that the language is confusing. I suggest that is a sufficient reason to undo the most recent disciplinary actions.

I suggest that you use language like "members may not use another member's account for any purpose except babysitting the account, and may take a game turn or make entries in forums only after identifying themselves as a babysitter" if you want clarification.

I also suggest that you need to address the conflict of interest problem. I suggest a rule that prohibits an admin or mod from taking disciplinary action against any member when the admin or mod is a member of a clan involved or is a friend of the accused or accuser.

QFT.

I would also like to add that I feel their intentions should be taken into account. Quite transparently, one can see that their goal was to prove they could act civilly when given an unprejudiced shot and thus get legitimate access to the forum. This is the exact opposite of trying to "cause chaos" that the rules are in place to prevent. Granted, rules have been broken so some sort of punishment is justified. But for the reasons I just gave, as well as mpjh's reason that the rules were confusing, I would suggest that the sentence be reduced to a temporary ban as the very most severe.

*Is completely serious*

[denominator]

As for the whole "You have handled this unprofessionally in all your posts" - yup. I'll be snarky to anyone who's arguing just for the sake of arguing or who is arguing a ridiculous point.

Look, I will take you seriously when you guys start acting seriously.

Perhaps you should do your job seriously and properly.

We are allowed to act like assholes all we want because we are the customers here. You, on the other hand, are required to act professionally because it is your job to do so.

[Iliad]

Ok, I see where this whole "you're a biased participant" came from

For the record, I'm not a member of the Jesus freaks I regularly get added to groups, apparently I just havn't removed myself from this one yet.

Otherwise, I'm not in any clans with anyone who complained about anything in this case. In fact, I've never spoken to them before this, so chill. And either way, I'm not sure what this whole "it's a conservative group, therefore Twill hates everyone else" came from. Kinda comical seeing as I'm about as liberal as it gets, well done on doing your background checking

As for the whole "You have handled this unprofessionally in all your posts" - yup. I'll be snarky to anyone who's arguing just for the sake of arguing or who is arguing a ridiculous point.

I don't take 90% of the posts in here seriously:

They were intentionally messing with people, using someone elses account: They must be innocent

A private usergroup forum which has every right to exclude any member for any reason excluded them. It's not fair. They wanted to get in, therefore all methods are kosher and they are thus innocent

They signed up to use the site, therefore they have every right to do whatever they want, no matter what the rules are, and therefore are innocent

It's a conservative conspiracy, led by a bleeding heart liberal, free norse. (oh, and they're innocent)

I chose to interpret the "one account" rule to mean I can use more than one account, and because that's how I interpreted it, I cannot be held responsible for it.

And lets not forget the foolproof fallback:

Twilly willy was a willy because he's silly and has a willy, but I have a friend named nilly, who doesn't have a willy...so they must be innocent

Look, I will take you seriously when you guys start acting seriously. "Because they wanted to be in" and "I read the one account rule differently than you" are not valid reasons for claiming innocence or foul play by the admins. "You're a conservative religious freak" isn't a valid argument either, especially considering my actual political leanings. Anyone who has PM'd me with a non-rant question has gotten a reasoned and respectful reply. I'm just not going to seriously debate how CC "broke the law by busting accounts for misuse", it's just a waste of time.


Although I am enjoying the poems.

Maybe you should do your job. Customers, and here's an news flash -we're customers, may sometimes act rudely but customer relation managers cannot.

Try acting like that in a store, when a customer brings back a faulty product, just see how quickly you will get fired. That is why it is unproffesional