02 Sep 05
Originally posted by ExyMostly you seem to be championing ideas that I presented 8 months ago and you took no interest in. Anyone can see that your attitude has spun 180 degrees from what you were saying only a week ago but you absurdly claim you have been "consistent". Pleeeeeeeeeze.
Nah, he's just posting drivel to take the attention away from the actual posts that make points he can't deal with - he's a master of that also!
02 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by Moldy CrowWhat words have I eaten since the bans took place?
I have no love for No1 , so get it out of your head that I might be one of his cheerleaders . That said - looks like he's doing a pretty solid job of taking this arguement straight on , and making you eat your words while doing it .
* I still support the Game Mods and their actions.
* I still disapprove of public cheat accusations (including the slippery "private" kind).
* I still want the Game Mods to be even more officially recognised and apparent at the site, not tucked away behind the scenes. I thought a summation of evidence in layman's terms would help, Gatecrasher has civilly shown why it won't happen.
02 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm certainly not. Go back to you Game Mod post in General and you'll see how often I agree with you. It's you that thinks the only way to debate someone is to resort to pouncing on every post they make.
Mostly you seem to be championing ideas that I presented 8 months ago and you took no interest in. Anyone can see that your attitude has spun 180 degrees from what you were saying only a week ago but you absurdly claim you have been "consistent". Pleeeeeeeeeze.
Tell me No1, what is it we're currently disagreeing on - cos I've lost count?! 😕
02 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ExyReally?
What words have I eaten since the bans took place?
[b]* I still support the Game Mods and their actions.
* I still disapprove of public cheat accusations (including the slippery "private" kind).
* I still want the Game Mods to be even more officially recognised and apparent at the site, not tucked away behind the scenes. I thought ...[text shortened]... n of evidence in layman's terms would help, Gatecrasher has civilly shown why it won't happen.[/b]
What I don't understand is this - plain and simple - if you wouldn't stop No1marauder from presenting his Fritz analysis in public, accusing Ironman in the first instance, why is it now acceptable for the Admins to ban this user without presenting one shred of public evidence as to why?
What you've done has not persuaded anyone that the Game Mods and Admins know what they're doing, instead it just looks like their pray to anyone who shouts as much as No1marauder in public. Bad show.
Exy (this thread p.20)
EDIT: Of course, I didn't present my evidence in "public" and even if I had it would have no logical relevance to the "acceptibility" of the Game Mods and Site Admin's decision to ban certain users.But saying it's a "bad show" and saying the Game Mods and Admins just pray to me (I haven't heard these but I don't check my email that regularly) doesn't sound like "1000% support" to me.
02 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, that does smack to me of double standards, you'd have every man and his dog in your CC forum looking at your analysis if you could, and you seem to be allowed to do it by the Admins.
Really?
What I don't understand is this - plain and simple - if you wouldn't stop No1marauder from presenting his Fritz analysis in public, accusing Ironman in the first instance, why is it now acceptable for the Admins to ban this user without presenting one shred of public evidence as to why?
What you've done has not persuaded anyone that t ...[text shortened]... pray to anyone who shouts as much as No1marauder in public. Bad show.
Exy (this thread p.20)
But when it comes to the official Game Mods proving guilt then their hands are tied and they can't / won't summarise the evidence in layman's terms for all to see.
However, that was part of an evolving debate, reacting to the news, I've not undergone some sort 180 degree volt-face as you suggest.
02 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ExyYes, Exy, I am allowed to post what I please in the CC's UNMODERATED CLAN FORUM; that is what the word "unmoderated" means. How that is a "double standard" is a mystery to me since every other clan that wants has an UNMODERATED CLAN FORUM as well.
Well, that does smack to me of double standards, you'd have every man and his dog in your CC forum looking at your analysis if you could, and you seem to be allowed to do it by the Admins.
But when it comes to the official Game Mods proving guilt then their hands are tied and they can't / won't summarise the evidence in layman's terms for all to see.
H ...[text shortened]... debate, reacting to the news, I've not undergone some sort 180 degree volt-face as you suggest.
I choose to present my evidence up front accepting that my method is rather crude and catches only the most blatant cheaters. The Game Mods have other methods that are more sophisticated and don't want to reveal them, even indirectly, to cheats and potential cheats. That makes sense to me and don't remotely see any "double standard".
02 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderHere here Maurauder... u put him in his place in an intelligent manner...well....someone had to...who does he think he is ?!
Yes, Exy, I am allowed to post what I please in the CC's UNMODERATED CLAN FORUM; that is what the word "unmoderated" means. How that is a "double standard" is a mystery to me since every other clan that wants has an UNMODERATED CLAN FORUM as well.
I choose to present my evidence up front accepting that my method is rather crude and catches only the ...[text shortened]... ts and potential cheats. That makes sense to me and don't remotely see any "double standard".
02 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's one thing to write whatever you want in your UNMODERATED CLAN FORUM. It's another thing to ANNOUNCE PUBLICLY what you are writing about in your UNMODERATED CLAN FORUM and invite everybody to join that UNMODERATED CLAN FORUM. Sorry for repeating myself, but so are you. I agree on your other points, though.
Yes, Exy, I am allowed to post what I please in the CC's UNMODERATED CLAN FORUM; that is what the word "unmoderated" means. How that is a "double standard" is a mystery to me since every other clan that wants has an UNMODERATED CLAN FORUM as well.
I choose to present my evidence up front accepting that my method is rather crude and catches only the ...[text shortened]... ts and potential cheats. That makes sense to me and don't remotely see any "double standard".
02 Sep 05
Originally posted by orfeoIs that true, marauder ?
Sorry if I'm slow...
I see the problem now. You assume this has only happened because no1 said something.
Utter rubbish, as far as I'm concerned. The Game Mods made clear in the relevant thread that they were already working on matters before no1 publicly said anything.
Also, does the list of banned people match up with the ones no1 has presented e ...[text shortened]... ts have been made before. But I think they're worth repeating because they're so fundamental.
02 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysNot to me it ain't; no one had to join the clan if they weren't interested. I presume people who are interested in a very old and boring TV show could join Exy's clan and read what interests them in that clan's forum; why shouldn't people in the CC read about what interests us? And since we had some openings, I allowed people who were similarly interested to read it as well. What's the big deal? It's no different from PMing someone that they should PM somebody else if they want to know something. The rules here forbid public accusations in the PUBLIC forums and I followed the rules to the letter in these cases. Unlike our friends on the list.
It's one thing to write whatever you want in your UNMODERATED CLAN FORUM. It's another thing to ANNOUNCE PUBLICLY what you are writing about in your UNMODERATED CLAN FORUM and invite everybody to join that UNMODERATED CLAN FORUM. Sorry for repeating myself, but so are you. I agree on your other points, though.