FREDVIII [Permanent Website Vacation]

[Renegades]

IRT pimphawks70

my point was not to accuse people but to show everyone swears and that FredVIII shouldn't have been banned

[the.killing.44]

Everybody keeps yelling about "this is just swearing" and how that's not breaking the rules. Apparently, the presumption is that Fred didn't devolve past that into routinely abusive behavior. Why is that so easy to overlook for all of you?

Uh, yeah. Hence his Forum and Live Chat bans, which SUIT THE CRIME. But the perma-ban for something breaking the rules cannot fit the crime, because there is none! I said it before — if he made some abuse of the game, I would see nothing wrong with his ban because he would've broken the rules, and tied with his previous punishments it would make sense. But because he didn't break any rules it doesn't make sense for him to have been perma-banned. Just because he has had punishments other than warnings for game chat (which he has none, I might add) does not make it okay for an "offense" that isn't really one to force him into a perma-ban.

Previous punishments cannot morph a legal action into a crime.

.44

[owenshooter]

Previous punishments cannot morph a legal action into a crime.

.44

that is where you are wrong. team CC routinely sites past instances of bans, etc, as grounds for a new punishment. once you serve your time, your record is not cleared, and you are no longer given the benefit of the doubt. you would think they would treat each infraction of and in itself, but they don't. they should treat each infraction as a new infraction, and only after deciding if it is a violation, should they be able to open the big book of your offenses to help in the punishment phase.

i was warned in live chat by a mod that i would be banned if i said anything, due to my past bans in other areas. i had never been warned in live chat before and had never been in trouble in live chat before, so why the threat of a ban for no history of disruption in the live chat forum? "my reputation", despite live chat and the forums being wholly different... jeff hardy didn't do anything wrong. his offense is far less than that of codeblue. so, i guess codeblue is next? this new regime is bending the rules to toss people as they see fit. it is a shame. jeff was a fun player to banter with and to play with and against, and he was helpful if you wanted to know something about a type of game he played that you didn't. oh well... i guess none of this debate truly matters. why? all he has to do is pony up 25 bucks and he can start all over again... that precedent has been well established...-0

p.s.-banning someone for their first offense using a CUMULATIVE formula is ridiculous. this is Fred's first warning for language. what about someone like codeblue? you all set the precedent with him, and have not broken what your past rulings have been. can we get an explanation of how codeblue is permitted to do what he does without receiving a perma-ban? afterall, his cumulative bans are all for LANGUAGE, fred has never received a warning for language. this is a poor decision and should be reversed.

[a.sub]

@ owen

[nagerous]

Renagades you have way too much spare time, find one for me! I'm sure you will find more in my earlier games, I've got more docile in my old age.

[lanyards]

What about the team games he was in? Will I get my points refunded? We were in 20 triples games together, and the truth is in most of them we don't even have a chance now.

[owenshooter]

What about the team games he was in? Will I get my points refunded? We were in 20 triples games together, and the truth is in most of them we don't even have a chance now.

i lost the 2 i am in with him... we aren't getting anything back, and we aren't going to get a real response. biz as usual around here... and let me put my last post on this page so it doesn't get glossed over, because i think it is very relevant...

Previous punishments cannot morph a legal action into a crime.

.44

that is where you are wrong. team CC routinely sites past instances of bans, etc, as grounds for a new punishment. once you serve your time, your record is not cleared, and you are no longer given the benefit of the doubt. you would think they would treat each infraction of and in itself, but they don't. they should treat each infraction as a new infraction, and only after deciding if it is a violation, should they be able to open the big book of your offenses to help in the punishment phase.

i was warned in live chat by a mod that i would be banned if i said anything, due to my past bans in other areas. i had never been warned in live chat before and had never been in trouble in live chat before, so why the threat of a ban for no history of disruption in the live chat forum? "my reputation", despite live chat and the forums being wholly different... jeff hardy didn't do anything wrong. his offense is far less than that of codeblue. so, i guess codeblue is next? this new regime is bending the rules to toss people as they see fit. it is a shame. jeff was a fun player to banter with and to play with and against, and he was helpful if you wanted to know something about a type of game he played that you didn't. oh well... i guess none of this debate truly matters. why? all he has to do is pony up 25 bucks and he can start all over again... that precedent has been well established...-0

p.s.-banning someone for their first offense using a CUMULATIVE formula is ridiculous. this is Fred's first warning for language. what about someone like codeblue? you all set the precedent with him, and have not broken what your past rulings have been. can we get an explanation of how codeblue is permitted to do what he does without receiving a perma-ban? afterall, his cumulative bans are all for LANGUAGE, fred has never received a warning for language. this is a poor decision and should be reversed.

[lanyards]

What about the team games he was in? Will I get my points refunded? We were in 20 triples games together, and the truth is in most of them we don't even have a chance now.

i lost the 2 i am in with him... we aren't getting anything back, and we aren't going to get a real response. biz as usual around here... and let me put my last post on this page so it doesn't get glossed over, because i think it is very relevant...

Previous punishments cannot morph a legal action into a crime.

.44

that is where you are wrong. team CC routinely sites past instances of bans, etc, as grounds for a new punishment. once you serve your time, your record is not cleared, and you are no longer given the benefit of the doubt. you would think they would treat each infraction of and in itself, but they don't. they should treat each infraction as a new infraction, and only after deciding if it is a violation, should they be able to open the big book of your offenses to help in the punishment phase.

i was warned in live chat by a mod that i would be banned if i said anything, due to my past bans in other areas. i had never been warned in live chat before and had never been in trouble in live chat before, so why the threat of a ban for no history of disruption in the live chat forum? "my reputation", despite live chat and the forums being wholly different... jeff hardy didn't do anything wrong. his offense is far less than that of codeblue. so, i guess codeblue is next? this new regime is bending the rules to toss people as they see fit. it is a shame. jeff was a fun player to banter with and to play with and against, and he was helpful if you wanted to know something about a type of game he played that you didn't. oh well... i guess none of this debate truly matters. why? all he has to do is pony up 25 bucks and he can start all over again... that precedent has been well established...-0

p.s.-banning someone for their first offense using a CUMULATIVE formula is ridiculous. this is Fred's first warning for language. what about someone like codeblue? you all set the precedent with him, and have not broken what your past rulings have been. can we get an explanation of how codeblue is permitted to do what he does without receiving a perma-ban? afterall, his cumulative bans are all for LANGUAGE, fred has never received a warning for language. this is a poor decision and should be reversed.

I completely agree with that post. ^^ And why can people get points refunded for 1 game from a lag in speed games, and now I am going to lose 15 games (300 points) and I can't be refunded?

[a.sub]

this is total bull shit

[Snorri1234]

It's good to see the change in mods hasn't affected the old tradition of enforcing rules haphazardly to get rid of people they don't like.

[Night Strike]

It's good to see the change in mods hasn't affected the old tradition of enforcing rules haphazardly to get rid of people they don't like.

The decision was made BEFORE the mod changes. And the admins made the final decision anyway.

[a.sub]

It's good to see the change in mods hasn't affected the old tradition of enforcing rules haphazardly to get rid of people they don't like.

The decision was made BEFORE the mod changes. And the admins made the final decision anyway.

way to miss the point of his post NS

[Night Strike]

It's good to see the change in mods hasn't affected the old tradition of enforcing rules haphazardly to get rid of people they don't like.

The decision was made BEFORE the mod changes. And the admins made the final decision anyway.

way to miss the point of his post NS

No, I just disagree with the actual point of the post, and since nothing I'm allowed to say would change his mind, there was no reason to post in response.

[the.killing.44]

Now he could not stop harassing other members of the community in the last vestige of interaction he still had accessible to him. Therefore, he was sent on his way.

But that is the thing: "harassing other members," as you put it, is NOT a bannable offense in this "last vestige." I agree with what you said, how the previous bans and warnings should indeed place an effect on how something is taken. And if something had happened over PM, or in the forum (I know he was banned), then the warning should definitely affect the decision of the mods/admins. But in this case, I think that you cannot let previous warnings effect occurrences out of context. You said, "the action must also be taken in context of the previous actions." But you most definitely took it OUT of context here, by stating that one form of crime that infringes the rules can impact how a LEGAL action is viewed. You've let the context shape, and even CREATE the crime — his action was NOT against the rules, whether he was "angelic" or not.

Which leads me to my next point: The Community Guidelines are wrong. Or rather, posters — users and admins alike — do not use the Guidelines as they should. The Guidelines state:

• Banter and some trash talking IS allowed in the Game Chats, so don't waste time complaining about that.
• You may not be used to hearing or reading those "four-letter words", but some people do and will use them. This isn't a reason to open a complaint about the player; just kindly ask them to stop or ignore them.

Now while in making your decision to ban Fred you totally disregarded the very guidelines that were quoted and have been used in the EXACT same situation, each of which to a DIFFERENT conclusion, that isn't my point. You can see they expressly state:

This isn't a reason to open a complaint about the player; just kindly ask them to stop or ignore them.

Well guess what: people do complain about it. And, exactly against the Guidelines, they are both ENCOURAGED to open a complaint, and are even REWARDED for it. In fact, I linked those threads also as examples of how everyone goes AGAINST the Guidelines and posts complaints about game chat. And now, someone gets banned over that! Something outlined as a non-bannable offense in the Community Guidelines.

So I also suggest that we change the Community Guidelines to state that either is in indeed okay to report people and how something is going to come of it! It is so ironic that people violate the rules and yet are rewarded for it, especially in this case.

I would like to see a mod or admin step up and tell me how Fred's ban because of (MILD) game chat abuse was warranted. And you cannot give me that B.S. how his "previous actions were taken into account," because just because someone was banned from other "vestiges of communication" does NOT mean that their past infractions can CHANGE the rules! And if the previous sentence is indeed true, I can't care to see how a society where doing something against the law means a perfectly legal action with no reason for punishment turns into one leading to the harshest and FINAL punishment.

.44

Previous punishments cannot morph a legal action into a crime.

.44

that is where you are wrong. team CC routinely sites past instances of bans, etc, as grounds for a new punishment. once you serve your time, your record is not cleared, and you are no longer given the benefit of the doubt. you would think they would treat each infraction of and in itself, but they don't. they should treat each infraction as a new infraction, and only after deciding if it is a violation, should they be able to open the big book of your offenses to help in the punishment phase.

i was warned in live chat by a mod that i would be banned if i said anything, due to my past bans in other areas. i had never been warned in live chat before and had never been in trouble in live chat before, so why the threat of a ban for no history of disruption in the live chat forum? "my reputation", despite live chat and the forums being wholly different... jeff hardy didn't do anything wrong. his offense is far less than that of codeblue. so, i guess codeblue is next? this new regime is bending the rules to toss people as they see fit. it is a shame. jeff was a fun player to banter with and to play with and against, and he was helpful if you wanted to know something about a type of game he played that you didn't. oh well... i guess none of this debate truly matters. why? all he has to do is pony up 25 bucks and he can start all over again... that precedent has been well established...-0

p.s.-banning someone for their first offense using a CUMULATIVE formula is ridiculous. this is Fred's first warning for language. what about someone like codeblue? you all set the precedent with him, and have not broken what your past rulings have been. can we get an explanation of how codeblue is permitted to do what he does without receiving a perma-ban? afterall, his cumulative bans are all for LANGUAGE, fred has never received a warning for language. this is a poor decision and should be reversed.

[jammyjames]

well i think fred being banned for language is fucking outrageous compared to some on this site!!!

[a.sub]

It's good to see the change in mods hasn't affected the old tradition of enforcing rules haphazardly to get rid of people they don't like.

The decision was made BEFORE the mod changes. And the admins made the final decision anyway.

way to miss the point of his post NS

No, I just disagree with the actual point of the post, and since nothing I'm allowed to say would change his mind, there was no reason to post in response.

are you telling me you are not allowed to say anything that would show that the mods arent haphazard in enforcing rules?

[reckedracing]

Bumping back to the top
I want to see fred re-instated.

[a.sub]

i second the motion!

[Renegades]

yes

[lozzini]

4thed

[owenshooter]

very valid posts with great points that will simply be ignored. the method here is, when confronted and shown to be wrong, ignore the thread and it will go away... people are very concerned with this issue, and not just because of FREDVIII. this truly horrendous and baseless decision is setting a very dangerous precedent...-0

Now he could not stop harassing other members of the community in the last vestige of interaction he still had accessible to him. Therefore, he was sent on his way.

But that is the thing: "harassing other members," as you put it, is NOT a bannable offense in this "last vestige." I agree with what you said, how the previous bans and warnings should indeed place an effect on how something is taken. And if something had happened over PM, or in the forum (I know he was banned), then the warning should definitely affect the decision of the mods/admins. But in this case, I think that you cannot let previous warnings effect occurrences out of context. You said, "the action must also be taken in context of the previous actions." But you most definitely took it OUT of context here, by stating that one form of crime that infringes the rules can impact how a LEGAL action is viewed. You've let the context shape, and even CREATE the crime — his action was NOT against the rules, whether he was "angelic" or not.

Which leads me to my next point: The Community Guidelines are wrong. Or rather, posters — users and admins alike — do not use the Guidelines as they should. The Guidelines state:

• Banter and some trash talking IS allowed in the Game Chats, so don't waste time complaining about that.
• You may not be used to hearing or reading those "four-letter words", but some people do and will use them. This isn't a reason to open a complaint about the player; just kindly ask them to stop or ignore them.

Now while in making your decision to ban Fred you totally disregarded the very guidelines that were quoted and have been used in the EXACT same situation, each of which to a DIFFERENT conclusion, that isn't my point. You can see they expressly state:

This isn't a reason to open a complaint about the player; just kindly ask them to stop or ignore them.

Well guess what: people do complain about it. And, exactly against the Guidelines, they are both ENCOURAGED to open a complaint, and are even REWARDED for it. In fact, I linked those threads also as examples of how everyone goes AGAINST the Guidelines and posts complaints about game chat. And now, someone gets banned over that! Something outlined as a non-bannable offense in the Community Guidelines.

So I also suggest that we change the Community Guidelines to state that either is in indeed okay to report people and how something is going to come of it! It is so ironic that people violate the rules and yet are rewarded for it, especially in this case.

I would like to see a mod or admin step up and tell me how Fred's ban because of (MILD) game chat abuse was warranted. And you cannot give me that B.S. how his "previous actions were taken into account," because just because someone was banned from other "vestiges of communication" does NOT mean that their past infractions can CHANGE the rules! And if the previous sentence is indeed true, I can't care to see how a society where doing something against the law means a perfectly legal action with no reason for punishment turns into one leading to the harshest and FINAL punishment.

.44

Previous punishments cannot morph a legal action into a crime.

.44

that is where you are wrong. team CC routinely sites past instances of bans, etc, as grounds for a new punishment. once you serve your time, your record is not cleared, and you are no longer given the benefit of the doubt. you would think they would treat each infraction of and in itself, but they don't. they should treat each infraction as a new infraction, and only after deciding if it is a violation, should they be able to open the big book of your offenses to help in the punishment phase.

i was warned in live chat by a mod that i would be banned if i said anything, due to my past bans in other areas. i had never been warned in live chat before and had never been in trouble in live chat before, so why the threat of a ban for no history of disruption in the live chat forum? "my reputation", despite live chat and the forums being wholly different... jeff hardy didn't do anything wrong. his offense is far less than that of codeblue. so, i guess codeblue is next? this new regime is bending the rules to toss people as they see fit. it is a shame. jeff was a fun player to banter with and to play with and against, and he was helpful if you wanted to know something about a type of game he played that you didn't. oh well... i guess none of this debate truly matters. why? all he has to do is pony up 25 bucks and he can start all over again... that precedent has been well established...-0

p.s.-banning someone for their first offense using a CUMULATIVE formula is ridiculous. this is Fred's first warning for language. what about someone like codeblue? you all set the precedent with him, and have not broken what your past rulings have been. can we get an explanation of how codeblue is permitted to do what he does without receiving a perma-ban? afterall, his cumulative bans are all for LANGUAGE, fred has never received a warning for language. this is a poor decision and should be reversed.

[thegreekdog]

Guys, clearly this ruling has stirred up a lot of emotion. There was a lot of discussion up and back on this and this was the final outcome as decided by the administrators of CC. Some of you have claimed that Fred has never been warned before. That could not be farther from the truth. Fred (only on the new account) has already had 2 PM warnings from moderators, 2 official warnings, a permanent forum vacation, a temporary chat vacation, and a permanent chat vacation. Under the Jeff account he received 9 PM warnings, 1 official warning, a temporary chat vacation, a temporary website vacation, and a permanent website vacation. Clearly this user was not angelic. The punishment for this action may seem over the top, but the action must also be taken in context of the previous actions. This user was not allowed access to the forums because he could not stay within the guidelines of the forums. He was not allowed into chat because he continued to not follow the guidelines of chat. Now he could not stop harassing other members of the community in the last vestige of interaction he still had accessible to him. Therefore, he was sent on his way. Arguing is not going to get him back.

If the user was warned/punished 13 times on a previous account and warned/punished 7 times on a current account, is it the fault of the moderators or the fault of the user? In other words, this user apparently did not learn his lesson. While I don't agree with many of the rules on this site, and have tried to get them changed, I will attempt to stay within the rules, especially if I receive 20 warnings/punishments for violating said rules.

[reckedracing]

This post is not completely true. On the Fred account he received 1 Live Chat warning and 1 24h Live Chat ban which wasn't lifted after 24h and turned into a permanent ban. He was not warned or given a temporary forum ban because he never did wrong in the forum. The closest thing he got to a warning was cicero PMing him, asking him to reword a suggestion about anti-farming. The forum ban was given as a punishment for his other account being hacked, nothing else. On the Jeff Hardy account he received 3 warnings. 1 was for account sitting a teammate (lanyards) who was about to miss a turn, 1 was for discussing mods decisions in Live Chat (which he did again and got 24 hours for) and 1 was for nearly getting a game thrown to him (however he lost the game in question). The other official PMs he got were from twill, giving him suggestions as to how not to get hacked. The Jeff Hardy account did not receive a temporary or a permanent site ban, it was merely made inactive because maxatstuy hacked it. To use his history against him like you did is far from fair, because he has been treated unfairly by the mods in the past, aswell.

Just want to bring this back to the top to set the record straight on the numbers of warnings
it should also be noted that he never committed the offense twice
if he was warned/corrected about something, then that was the end of it

[a.sub]

and if this is how team CC handles things maybe i wont be coming back after this premium, i dont want to risk 25 bucks on losing it all because lack was PMSing that day

[the.killing.44]

Pretty fucking awesome e-ticket response:

he appeals have been noted. Unfortunately FredVIII brought this on himself and the perma-vacation will remain in place.


--Andy

--Andy

So, despite all the evidence, all you can say is he brought it upon himself?