Moderator: Community Team
Yes, the first sentence was sarcasticNameless.One wrote:I think that first sentence is sarcastic? Hell, I know plenty of people who only play at work! I'm still young so I have time to learn.White Moose wrote:Nameless.One wrote:Army of GOD wrote:Nameless.One wrote:
Must be tough.. not being able to play games when you work. Real tough.
Haha. We'll play some games when you're allowed back.
That would be bloody fantastic, if it happened. You taught me a lot back in the day!
.
That's going to be very soon eddie.eddie2 wrote:lol lets see how many posts you can make before it gets locked and you get guested
'Sup babez??#1_stunna wrote:sighs
why would some one vote NO!?!Nameless.One wrote:'Sup babez??#1_stunna wrote:sighs
They have their reasons, it's just a shame that they don't have the guts to show themselves.#1_stunna wrote:why would some one vote NO!?!Nameless.One wrote:'Sup babez??#1_stunna wrote:sighs
I remember playing you in a four or five player freestyle escalating on Vancouver. There was you, me and some noobs, though I was a 'noob' too. I was going to win that game, until I mis-calculated my attack route, thereby giving you the kill.LFAW wrote:$400!!! cmon Lack, show some heart!
LFAW wrote:
Oh yes, the day when clickies wouldn't workNameless.One wrote:I remember playing you in a four or five player freestyle escalating on Vancouver. There was you, me and some noobs, though I was a 'noob' too. I was going to win that game, until I mis-calculated my attack route, thereby giving you the kill.LFAW wrote:
Oh well! Hai! *waves
good game though very close... didn't you leave 1 blue or something next to my 12? lol
Nameless.One wrote:eddie2 wrote:so he finally shut that other one down i think cawmanew would of complained about it being abuseive
... and no such revelation there is.Nameless.One wrote:They have their reasons, it's just a shame that they don't have the guts to show themselves.#1_stunna wrote:why would some one vote NO!?!Nameless.One wrote:'Sup babez??#1_stunna wrote:sighs
I wonder if I'll be banned when I come online tomorrow morning? Would be a revelation if I wasn't..
The fatness of one's wallet determines whether or not they can evade the rules concerning multiple accounts. But, apparently not, in this situation.Premier2k wrote:I voted no but would change my mind if someone can explain to me the following......
This is not a flame nor meant to cause offence but is merely a question.....(as I dont know the background)
Why should CC give nameless.one a second chance when he was convicted for being a multi?
Do we give other multi's a second chance?
Why should we give nameless.one a second chance, what makes him special/different?
Just curious...
Premier2k
Yeah I figured that would be the case. My vote stays at no then for now.obliterationX wrote:The fatness of one's wallet determines whether or not they can evade the rules concerning multiple accounts. But, apparently not, in this situation.Premier2k wrote:I voted no but would change my mind if someone can explain to me the following......
This is not a flame nor meant to cause offence but is merely a question.....(as I dont know the background)
Why should CC give nameless.one a second chance when he was convicted for being a multi?
Do we give other multi's a second chance?
Why should we give nameless.one a second chance, what makes him special/different?
Just curious...
Premier2k
I was actually trying to establish an unjustification. People shouldn't be able to buy their way around the rules. Just because one cheater has $25 more than another cheater doesn't mean he should be allowed to play.Premier2k wrote:Yeah I figured that would be the case. My vote stays at no then for now.obliterationX wrote:The fatness of one's wallet determines whether or not they can evade the rules concerning multiple accounts. But, apparently not, in this situation.Premier2k wrote:I voted no but would change my mind if someone can explain to me the following......
This is not a flame nor meant to cause offence but is merely a question.....(as I dont know the background)
Why should CC give nameless.one a second chance when he was convicted for being a multi?
Do we give other multi's a second chance?
Why should we give nameless.one a second chance, what makes him special/different?
Just curious...
Premier2k
I did begin to wonder if anyone was able to justify it, I guess not...
and I completely agree with you!obliterationX wrote:I was actually trying to establish an unjustification. People shouldn't be able to buy their way around the rules. Just because one cheater has $25 more than another cheater doesn't mean he should be allowed to play.Premier2k wrote:Yeah I figured that would be the case. My vote stays at no then for now.obliterationX wrote:The fatness of one's wallet determines whether or not they can evade the rules concerning multiple accounts. But, apparently not, in this situation.Premier2k wrote:I voted no but would change my mind if someone can explain to me the following......
This is not a flame nor meant to cause offence but is merely a question.....(as I dont know the background)
Why should CC give nameless.one a second chance when he was convicted for being a multi?
Do we give other multi's a second chance?
Why should we give nameless.one a second chance, what makes him special/different?
Just curious...
Premier2k
I did begin to wonder if anyone was able to justify it, I guess not...
I dont really see where he has cheated though, creating multiple accounts is against the rules sure, but how can it be cheating if you never play against other multis.. he hasn't cheated, just broken the rules.Premier2k wrote:and I completely agree with you!obliterationX wrote:I was actually trying to establish an unjustification. People shouldn't be able to buy their way around the rules. Just because one cheater has $25 more than another cheater doesn't mean he should be allowed to play.Premier2k wrote:Yeah I figured that would be the case. My vote stays at no then for now.obliterationX wrote:The fatness of one's wallet determines whether or not they can evade the rules concerning multiple accounts. But, apparently not, in this situation.Premier2k wrote:I voted no but would change my mind if someone can explain to me the following......
This is not a flame nor meant to cause offence but is merely a question.....(as I dont know the background)
Why should CC give nameless.one a second chance when he was convicted for being a multi?
Do we give other multi's a second chance?
Why should we give nameless.one a second chance, what makes him special/different?
Just curious...
Premier2k
I did begin to wonder if anyone was able to justify it, I guess not...
But, although people want cheats removed from the site, it seems that if they are a well liked player that nameless.one seems to be then they are willing to say "oh give him another chance". I don't get that... a cheat is a cheat...
I always thought that breaking the rules is cheating?jammyjames wrote:I dont really see where he has cheated though, creating multiple accounts is against the rules sure, but how can it be cheating if you never play against other multis.. he hasn't cheated, just broken the rules.Premier2k wrote:and I completely agree with you!obliterationX wrote:I was actually trying to establish an unjustification. People shouldn't be able to buy their way around the rules. Just because one cheater has $25 more than another cheater doesn't mean he should be allowed to play.Premier2k wrote:Yeah I figured that would be the case. My vote stays at no then for now.obliterationX wrote:The fatness of one's wallet determines whether or not they can evade the rules concerning multiple accounts. But, apparently not, in this situation.
I did begin to wonder if anyone was able to justify it, I guess not...
But, although people want cheats removed from the site, it seems that if they are a well liked player that nameless.one seems to be then they are willing to say "oh give him another chance". I don't get that... a cheat is a cheat...
So, you're saying that creating multiple accounts but not playing other multi's isn't cheating?jammyjames wrote: I dont really see where he has cheated though, creating multiple accounts is against the rules sure, but how can it be cheating if you never play against other multis.. he hasn't cheated, just broken the rules.
Valid point, but as the point has already been made, this kid will just continue to make more and more accounts just wasting away server space etc. If he was allowed back in he would have just one account, and as he has clearly stated he would start off a fresh again, it's just saving time on the multi hunters behalf and space on the server.Premier2k wrote:So, you're saying that creating multiple accounts but not playing other multi's isn't cheating?jammyjames wrote: I dont really see where he has cheated though, creating multiple accounts is against the rules sure, but how can it be cheating if you never play against other multis.. he hasn't cheated, just broken the rules.
Did nameless.one have premium when he created the second account? Was it an attempt to get around the max 4 games rule? If he was already premium, then why create the second account?
Surely we have to draw the line somewhere.....
