Moderators: Multi Hunters, Cheating/Abuse Team
Woodruff wrote:Timminz wrote:Hahaha! Some of those are priceless!neoteny's response to an all 5's rating wrote:HEY FUCK YOU BUDDY!!! How fucking dare you! My gameplay sucked balls!!1!!
More to the point though, I see this as similar to wall "abuse". You can easily remove the comment, by removing the rating. This is all, quite obviously, tongue-in-cheek, and is an issue that could have been resolved privately. I don't see any need for this thread.
So then you suggest that if someone wants the 1-star ratings against them removed, they should simply flame them in the response to get it removed? Because that appears to be what you're suggesting.
Timminz wrote:Woodruff wrote:Timminz wrote:Hahaha! Some of those are priceless!neoteny's response to an all 5's rating wrote:HEY FUCK YOU BUDDY!!! How fucking dare you! My gameplay sucked balls!!1!!
More to the point though, I see this as similar to wall "abuse". You can easily remove the comment, by removing the rating. This is all, quite obviously, tongue-in-cheek, and is an issue that could have been resolved privately. I don't see any need for this thread.
So then you suggest that if someone wants the 1-star ratings against them removed, they should simply flame them in the response to get it removed? Because that appears to be what you're suggesting.
Not your best deduction ever. Besides, a flaming response to an all 1's rating is fairly expected. If it bothers you, you shouldn't leave all 1's. I stand by the ridiculousness of this thread. Hell, neoteny has even changed the response already. Someone should mark this "Settled".
jpcloet wrote:I find it sad that only 2 people in this whole thread noticed the bigotry.
Woodruff wrote:Timminz wrote:Woodruff wrote:Timminz wrote:Hahaha! Some of those are priceless!neoteny's response to an all 5's rating wrote:HEY FUCK YOU BUDDY!!! How fucking dare you! My gameplay sucked balls!!1!!
More to the point though, I see this as similar to wall "abuse". You can easily remove the comment, by removing the rating. This is all, quite obviously, tongue-in-cheek, and is an issue that could have been resolved privately. I don't see any need for this thread.
So then you suggest that if someone wants the 1-star ratings against them removed, they should simply flame them in the response to get it removed? Because that appears to be what you're suggesting.
Not your best deduction ever. Besides, a flaming response to an all 1's rating is fairly expected. If it bothers you, you shouldn't leave all 1's. I stand by the ridiculousness of this thread. Hell, neoteny has even changed the response already. Someone should mark this "Settled".
I don't think a flaming response to anything "should be expected", quite honestly.
Snorri1234 wrote:Woodruff wrote:Timminz wrote:Woodruff wrote:Timminz wrote:More to the point though, I see this as similar to wall "abuse". You can easily remove the comment, by removing the rating. This is all, quite obviously, tongue-in-cheek, and is an issue that could have been resolved privately. I don't see any need for this thread.
So then you suggest that if someone wants the 1-star ratings against them removed, they should simply flame them in the response to get it removed? Because that appears to be what you're suggesting.
Not your best deduction ever. Besides, a flaming response to an all 1's rating is fairly expected. If it bothers you, you shouldn't leave all 1's. I stand by the ridiculousness of this thread. Hell, neoteny has even changed the response already. Someone should mark this "Settled".
I don't think a flaming response to anything "should be expected", quite honestly.
What? Why not?
Woodruff wrote:Snorri1234 wrote:Woodruff wrote:Timminz wrote:Woodruff wrote:So then you suggest that if someone wants the 1-star ratings against them removed, they should simply flame them in the response to get it removed? Because that appears to be what you're suggesting.
Not your best deduction ever. Besides, a flaming response to an all 1's rating is fairly expected. If it bothers you, you shouldn't leave all 1's. I stand by the ridiculousness of this thread. Hell, neoteny has even changed the response already. Someone should mark this "Settled".
I don't think a flaming response to anything "should be expected", quite honestly.
What? Why not?
Because it's an extremely immature way to handle...pretty much anything, in my opinion.
Timminz wrote:Woodruff wrote:Snorri1234 wrote:Woodruff wrote:Timminz wrote:Not your best deduction ever. Besides, a flaming response to an all 1's rating is fairly expected. If it bothers you, you shouldn't leave all 1's. I stand by the ridiculousness of this thread. Hell, neoteny has even changed the response already. Someone should mark this "Settled".
I don't think a flaming response to anything "should be expected", quite honestly.
What? Why not?
Because it's an extremely immature way to handle...pretty much anything, in my opinion.
Agreed. And immature ways of handling things should be expected on the internet. Not encouraged, but expected.
king achilles wrote:The Neoteny account has been freezed indefinitely pending an investigation. Choose those who should babysit your account, as you will also be held liable if your account sitter/s abuse the situation while you are away. This case is a prime example. Remember that your account is your responsibility. Do not share your account information freely as you might be guessing who did what when you were away.
Mr Changsha wrote:king achilles wrote:The Neoteny account has been freezed indefinitely pending an investigation. Choose those who should babysit your account, as you will also be held liable if your account sitter/s abuse the situation while you are away. This case is a prime example. Remember that your account is your responsibility. Do not share your account information freely as you might be guessing who did what when you were away.
Huh? Didn't Neoteny admit he wrote the comments?
Apparently he didn't.
Or, we have the amusing situation of someone flaming jpcloet, in a pointless area of the game no less (ratings), ending in a perma ban!
Hah hah hah!!!
And then a cover up from the hunters!
Hah hah hah!!!
Recent CC history would point to the latter option as being more likely. Remember kids, a flame in the CC morning is all fine and dandy...but pick your targets with care! Those with coloured names are flameproof, they'll drop fookin' napalm on your account in response!!!
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
lgoasklucyl wrote:While I'm 100% in favor of Neo in the case, I think you're all missing the purpose of the block.
Though I won't normally post in any way, shape, or form to defend something out of the mouth of the likes of the moderation, Neo wasn't blocked specifically for the severity (or lack thereof) of the actions. Rather, the account was blocked to prevent future issues arising from whoever it is that happens to be in Neo's account. I'm assuming as soon as Neo returns to state his case it will be reopened and will get the typical 'slap-on-the-wrist'/'foe and move on, whiney bitch' response that is usually merited from this type of complaint.
If I happen to be incorrent and he was banned based on the actions, then I'm fully behind Changsha's statment and the moderation needs to take its head out of its ass.
Neoteny wrote:Clearly a flame. I suppose I do have a history of flaming, but I am willing to withdraw any comments that might be found to be offensive. I'd rather get banned for flaming in the forums than for misusing this travesty of a rating system.
Mr Changsha wrote:lgoasklucyl wrote:While I'm 100% in favor of Neo in the case, I think you're all missing the purpose of the block.
Though I won't normally post in any way, shape, or form to defend something out of the mouth of the likes of the moderation, Neo wasn't blocked specifically for the severity (or lack thereof) of the actions. Rather, the account was blocked to prevent future issues arising from whoever it is that happens to be in Neo's account. I'm assuming as soon as Neo returns to state his case it will be reopened and will get the typical 'slap-on-the-wrist'/'foe and move on, whiney bitch' response that is usually merited from this type of complaint.
If I happen to be incorrent and he was banned based on the actions, then I'm fully behind Changsha's statment and the moderation needs to take its head out of its ass.Neoteny wrote:Clearly a flame. I suppose I do have a history of flaming, but I am willing to withdraw any comments that might be found to be offensive. I'd rather get banned for flaming in the forums than for misusing this travesty of a rating system.
Neoteny quite clearly writes here that he wrote the comments. So what was the babysitter doing? You'd think the hunters would have illustrated the other banworthy actions of the babysitter. What were they?
So we are left with the impression that Neoteny was banned (not account frozen...BANNED) because of something his babysitter did, that we haven't been informed about. However, the only 'bannable' action we have are the comments he left on his own ratings board. Which he quite clearly says HE DID.
So either Neoteny is lying for the babysitter (possible I suppose) or Team CC is up to its old tricks again.
However I would genuinely like to be proved wrong! The idea that a player can be banned for this is absurd, that the hunters would cover up the banning in this way seems equally absurd to me. Yet with the facts we have, that's the only conclusion I can draw.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users