nukesrus [cleared]es

by **nagerous** on Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:55 pm

Accused:

NukesRus
Dikembe Mutombo
Inedible Hulk

The accused are suspected of:

Being Multis
Live Chat troll
Other: Yeah I expect the usual shit then the bust, thank me later

Game number(s):

[game]xxxxxxx[/game]
[game]xxxxxxx[/game]
[game]xxxxxxx[/game]
[game]xxxxxxx[/game]

Comments:

by **parker4s** on Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:58 pm

Nag im sorry two of those are guests............. But yah i see the logic

by **nagerous** on Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:07 am

parker4s wrote:Nag im sorry two of those are guests............. But yah i see the logic

I know they are guests, I'm using them as examples of his previously busted multis, in the Dikembe thread there is a big list of them all I just put the first two that came to my head.

by **parker4s** on Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:29 am

Lol yah hence the... i see your logic

.... That guys been here allll week... He goes on and on and on. Ive used the ignore button like 5-6 times

by **nagerous** on Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:19 pm

add scheissypoo to this list

by **Evil Semp** on Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:57 pm

I can't help but to think there is something I am missing. I don't see the logic. Please enlighten me? Can you please give me some clues as to why they have been accused?

by **Evil Semp** on Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:52 pm

Unless someone can point me in the right direction, nukesrus is CLEARED.

by **rutherfoo** on Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:28 pm

Nagerous just has a hard-on for Tess Tickles. Who wouldn't?

In the future, if you want to accuse someone of being Tess Tickles/Inedible Hulk, at least ask yourself if the screenname is even funny or creative.

Or I could just save you some time and let you know he's not coming back, douchebags.

by **nagerous** on Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:09 am

rutherfoo wrote:Nagerous just has a hard-on for Tess Tickles. Who wouldn't?

In the future, if you want to accuse someone of being Tess Tickles/Inedible Hulk, at least ask yourself if the screenname is even funny or creative.

Or I could just save you some time and let you know he's not coming back, douchebags.

I don't care for your flaming and trolling, just trying to help CC catch multis, not all suspected cases end in a bust.

by **ronsizzle** on Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:27 pm

Evil Semp wrote:I can't help but to think there is something I am missing. I don't see the logic. Please enlighten me? Can you please give me some clues as to why they have been accused?

because of the name....did you even run an ip check?

just odd that we get nuclear cards, then this name comes out.

please run an ip check.

by **Evil Semp** on Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:41 pm

ronc8649 wrote:
Evil Semp wrote:I can't help but to think there is something I am missing. I don't see the logic. Please enlighten me? Can you please give me some clues as to why they have been accused?

because of the name....did you even run an ip check?

just odd that we get nuclear cards, then this name comes out.

please run an ip check.

Yes ron I did do a check. Reread my post and I said I think I was missing something. And to be honest I didn't get the name and nuclear cards tie in, and then two names that are already guest.

But I did state that I didn't get it you just assume I didn't do a check. If I didn't do a check I WOULD NOT have marked it cleared.

I would rather error on the side of caution rather than kick somebody that wasn't guilty. I can always come back and look at someone again, but I can't reactivate someone's account.

by **jefjef** on Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:46 pm

Evil Semp wrote:
ronc8649 wrote:
Evil Semp wrote:I can't help but to think there is something I am missing. I don't see the logic. Please enlighten me? Can you please give me some clues as to why they have been accused?

because of the name....did you even run an ip check?

just odd that we get nuclear cards, then this name comes out.

please run an ip check.

Yes ron I did do a check. Reread my post and I said I think I was missing something. And to be honest I didn't get the name and nuclear cards tie in, and then two names that are already guest.

But I did state that I didn't get it you just assume I didn't do a check. If I didn't do a check I WOULD NOT have marked it cleared.

I would rather error on the side of caution rather than kick somebody that wasn't guilty. I can always come back and look at someone again, but I can't reactivate someone's account.