All bulllshit aside (dug)

[Molacole]

My problem is how they can catch a multi account twice and not even ban them, but yet dug tries to bend the rules to get a game going against blitz and he gets instantly banned... The problem I see is how somebody who is an avid player and has never once cheated before gets banned while others who cheat on multiple occassions get a slap on the wrist and continue to play.

you consider taking away the community from this website a slap on the wrist? An actualy slap on the wrist is when you create a multiple account, boost your score up a few hundred or even more points then finally get caught, keep your points and receive a warning. That is what is known as a slap on the wrist in the Conquer Club community.

I'm trying to remember the guy's name... JTKALLTHEWAY, right? Colonel with a multi who was banned. Stop whining.
oh, and for the record... dug didn't try to bend the rules to get a game going against Blitz, he broke the rules attempting to get an opportunity to sabotage Blitz's games by having one of Blitz's teammates suicide against Blitz, for the sole purpose of making Blitz lose points because Blitz had a higher score than he did.

it's more like compare and contrast... JTKALLTHEWAY was banned the first time he was caught with a multi? I didn't know that. According to lack if he would've went premium he could've avoided being banned and that is the point you missed. for the record dug openly admitted he was sabotaging the scoring system...

[wicked]

We will be clarifying the multi punishment system for all shortly. Then it will be clear there are indeed repurcussions to all who cheat, be it "freemie" or "premie". And no, this wasn't b/c of the recent events with dug.

[Nikolai]

JTKALLTHEWAY was banned the first time he was caught with a multi? I didn't know that. According to lack if he would've went premium he could've avoided being banned and that is the point you missed. for the record dug openly admitted he was sabotaging the scoring system...

No, not the first time. He was busted, went premium, was busted again and was banned. Which, I may add, is perfectly fair and reasonable.
And yeah, dug admitted he was sabotaging the scoring system. Hence griefer, hence ban. If you don't like the system, don't play the game. Do NOT try to blackmail the rest of the site into accepting your point of view by sabotaging the system. But dug is a sore loser, which is what got him into the mess originally, so when he got banned for 4 months from PM and forum, he had to try to screw the site up as much as he could manage for everyone else.

[hwhrhett]

if they hadnt done it, he would have kept pushing the rules to see how much bullshit he can get away with....

[JimRocky]

*edited out useless shit to keep it more on topic...


2007-04-03 21:14:12 - dugcarr1: just so the people in forums know,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
2007-04-03 21:15:22 - dugcarr1: I pm ed captin killroy and OFFERED him a 20 membership to give me his password as so i could play blitz,

That about sums it up definitively. A free admission of 'conspiracy to commit' and that was evidence posted by a supposed supporter of the defendant. If he typed that there's really no more argument.

If you need a comparison to understand: You will still go to prison for many years if a law officer learns (with evidence to support) of your offer to pay a few thousand to have someone murdered. Even if no money changes hands, if there is evidence, you'll go down. You should too, I might add. It's justice.

Oh yeah, and I truly edited out the useless manure to cut through the manure and get to the actual heart of the manure. It's all about what's in the heart anyway...

[Sammy gags]

How about you go check to see what everybody is arguing about, everybody knows he did it

[Sammy gags]

Let me just add that, believe it or not, I will also miss dugg. He may hve been notorious but the added character to our community. Too bad it had to end this way.

p.s. Could this have been avoided via a few PM's between the two of you (specifically you not the other mods considering it's a unique situation)? Everything said leaves me personally and I'm sure much of the community under the impression that you never once contacted dug. If that is true, which I'm not saying it is, then your above statement looks like complete bullshit...

It's exactly what I was saying. Since there is no rules that say you cannot do what dug did, a simple pm telling dug to cut the shit probably would have solved the whole thing

[tahitiwahini]

Since there is no rules that say you cannot do what dug did, a simple pm telling dug to cut the shit probably would have solved the whole thing

The first part of your statement is just flat out wrong, so the second part doesn't make any sense at all.

Maybe you should stop and think about why it is that everyone (except for you, Molacole and hendy) can see that what Dug did is against the rules. Or are you one of those who thinks that Dug can do no wrong, so the rules don't apply to him?

Why do you insist on making this into a misunderstanding when it's nothing of the sort?

No one could possibly look at the rules of this site and do what Dug did without knowing he was cheating. The fact that Dug threatened the recipient of his bribe offer not to disclose to anyone what he was doing indicates he knew it was illegal.

Dug has never stated that he did anything wrong, and therefore is beyond sympathy and rehabilitation. To hear him tell it in the game chat he is completely innocent and the only reason he's been banned is because he had the courage to stand up to the oppressive point system.

If you really believe what Dug did was not against the rules, why don't you do it yourself?

Why not? It's not against the rules according to you.

A personal communication from lack would have been a waste of lack's time.

Why exactly did Dug deserve a personal communication from the owner of this site?

I get the impression that in your mind Dug is some sort of exalted presence at CC, deserving of special treatment somehow. Well, he's not. Judging from all his negative feedback he was something of the opposite.

Dug reminds me of a spoiled athlete who whenever he did something wrong there was always some adoring fans around ready and willing to pull his chestnuts out of the fire. Well guess what? It didn't work this time.

That scent in the air is the smell of burning chestnuts.

And you know what? It's the best gift Dug is ever going to get. It's never too late in life to learn to take a little responsibility for your actions.

And Dug for future reference, if you should ever be unfortunate enough to be convicted of a crime. When you appear before the judge and he gives you the chance to speak before he passes sentence on you, it's probably not a real smart move to say you're going to hunt down and maim all the members of the judge's immediate family. I mean even if that's what you're really thinking, it still might not be a really good idea to say it at that time and in that place. The judge might take it the wrong way.

Apparently Dug you totally lack the ability to see yourself as others see you.

You couldn't have possibly did what you did if you had even the most limited ability to do that.

You really need to grow up. I hope you learn something from this experience and I hope it serves you well the rest of your life. Good luck to you.

[JimRocky]

It's possible that Molacole really wants to see Dungarrs demise...after all he posts evidence that completely incriminates his supposed hero...

[tahitiwahini]

It's possible that Molacole really wants to see Dungarrs demise...after all he posts evidence that completely incriminates his supposed hero...

LOL

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.

If they really wanted to help Dug out they should have urged him to exercise his right to remain silent. I've rarely seen someone do his own cause worse damage by speaking than Dug. His mouth was his own worst enemy.

Strip his rantings of the irrelevant attacks against the point system and you're left with an admission of guilt that only became more compelling the longer he spoke.

This is what makes his defenders look all the more ridiculous. It's almost impossible to conceive of circumstances in which a cheater could have better documented his intention to violate the rules.

[Sammy gags]

Since there is no rules that say you cannot do what dug did, a simple pm telling dug to cut the shit probably would have solved the whole thing

The first part of your statement is just flat out wrong, so the second part doesn't make any sense at all.

Maybe you should stop and think about why it is that everyone (except for you, Molacole and hendy) can see that what Dug did is against the rules. Or are you one of those who thinks that Dug can do no wrong, so the rules don't apply to him?

Why do you insist on making this into a misunderstanding when it's nothing of the sort?

If you really believe what Dug did was not against the rules, why don't you do it yourself?

Why not? It's not against the rules according to you.

A personal communication from lack would have been a waste of lack's time.

Why exactly did Dug deserve a personal communication from the owner of this site?

I get the impression that in your mind Dug is some sort of exalted presence at CC, deserving of special treatment somehow. Well, he's not. Judging from all his negative feedback he was something of the opposite.

And you know what? It's the best gift Dug is ever going to get. It's never too late in life to learn to take a little responsibility for your actions.

You really need to grow up. I hope you learn something from this experience and I hope it serves you well the rest of your life. Good luck to you.

The first part of my statement is flat out right, there are no rules against bribing

The rules don't apply to dug because there aren't any. You don't think I've wondered why i am defending dug alone? I am a man of strict moral & when I see something has been dealt out unfairly I will argue it until I am kicked off the site or leave.

If this isn't a misunderstanding what is it? Dug certainly knew he didn't break any rules or else he would have admitted it. After he got banned he told me that he should have known not to do it

I would have done it myself but 1st of all I don't have a credit card to buy someone the membership, & second of all I never had any people I have really hated to get at up until now

Waste of Lack's time? How are those chestnuts tasting? He is the head of this site, he has a responsibility to warn people. You are so good at seeing these hidden opinions/rules, how come you didn't see that one?

Dug deserved a warning so he knew what he was doing was wrong

I will stand up for my beliefs, like I said. Dug was an asshole but he never broke any rule which could have gotten him banned, he only exceeded the limit of a normal RISK player

Dug has taken responsibility for his actions...I don't know how you have become dug's lifelong nemesis all of the sudden

How would I learn something from this experience? I can get arrested for doing something not against the law?

[tahitiwahini]

If this isn't a misunderstanding what is it? Dug certainly knew he didn't break any rules or else he would have admitted it. After he got banned he told me that he should have known not to do it

This is an illustration of what is wrong with the pro-Dug argument. Read the quote again. It's not even consistent with itself across the space of two sentences.

How could he have known not to do it after he got banned, when he knew he didn't break any rules before he got banned?

The. Mind. Simply. Reels.

There's a saying that goes:

If you've got the facts on your side, argue the facts; if you got the law on your side, argue the law; if you have neither on your side, yell a lot and pound the table.

It seems we've heard a lot of yelling and table-pounding, but not much else.

[JimRocky]

Do we need to make rules against bribing to know that it's wrong?

Such a sad world.

It's not the letter of the law, it's the intent.

Bribing is wrong.

sigh

[Beastly]

Inbox :: Message
From: dugcarr1
To: Capt Killroy
Posted: 18 Mar 2007 20:27
Subject: Re: $$$ Quote message
u start 8 or more 3 player or doubles games with him , and then give me your password, ( when u go on vacation) I will not say anything to make u look stupid , i will only play for apox 7 days. just enough to teach him a lesson.
u will recieve 1 year membership from me.

are these pm,s between me and u? if there not i will not be impressed.
and if your not awear i am capable of payback


This bold statement shows that even dug knew what he was doing was against the rules!!!!!

why don't you get that..

are you so stupid to believe that trying to use someone else's account is not playing multi accounts? It is explained in the rules that you can only do this for a Vacation, that is why he said this...






Inbox :: Message
From: dugcarr1
To: Capt Killroy
Posted: 18 Mar 2007 20:27

Subject: Re: $$$ Quote message
u start 8 or more 3 player or doubles games with him , and then give me your password, ( when u go on vacation) I will not say anything to make u look stupid , i will only play for apox 7 days. just enough to teach him a lesson.
u will recieve 1 year membership from me.

are these pm,s between me and u? if there not i will not be impressed.
and if your not awear i am capable of payback


Inbox :: Message
From: dugcarr1
To: Capt Killroy
Posted: 22 Mar 2007 21:45
Subject: Re: $$$ Quote message
so u going to take that vacation or what


Dug tried to make what he was doing legit. he knew it was wrong to use someones else's account unless they are on vacation.

[Sammy gags]

If this isn't a misunderstanding what is it? Dug certainly knew he didn't break any rules or else he would have admitted it. After he got banned he told me that he should have known not to do it

This is an illustration of what is wrong with the pro-Dug argument. Read the quote again. It's not even consistent with itself across the space of two sentences.

How could he have known not to do it after he got banned, when he knew he didn't break any rules before he got banned?

The. Mind. Simply. Reels.

There's a saying that goes:

If you've got the facts on your side, argue the facts; if you got the law on your side, argue the law; if you have neither on your side, yell a lot and pound the table.

It seems we've heard a lot of yelling and table-pounding, but not much else.

I've read it again & I don't see where your logic is leading. He didn't know what he was doing was wrong since there are no rules saying it is...but after he says he should have known he would have gotten in trouble. That is why a simple warning would have straightened all this out.

Since I have the fine print on my side, I will argue it

[Sammy gags]

Dug tried to make what he was doing legit. he knew it was wrong to use someones else's account unless they are on vacation.

Is it if you are given consent by that person who owns the account?

[Jimari]

They own this site, they can do what ever they want. This could also include changing / modifying their rules.

What I find funny is when I first started playing here I lost a game (30 points) because of a glitch that was not awarding be any bonus armies for at least 7 rounds. They would not delete this game which was clearly unfair. Yet they deleted games in progres started by this Dug guy.

[tahitiwahini]

They own this site, they can do what ever they want. This could also include changing / modifying their rules.

What I find funny is when I first started playing here I lost a game (30 points) because of a glitch that was not awarding be any bonus armies for at least 7 rounds. They would not delete this game which was clearly unfair. Yet they deleted games in progres started by this Dug guy.

I'm interested in the glitch you experienced. Can you point me to the game please?

[Jimari]

[quote="tahitiwahini
I'm interested in the glitch you experienced. Can you point me to the game please?[/quote]

Sure but it was around december I think, I will look for it now.

[Jimari]

The game is way too old to still be listed in my games, but I still have the emails I sent them and the replies.

Quoting jimari13@xxxxx:

> Callsign: Jimari
> Profile: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/profil ... le&u=27049
> Email Address: jimari13xxxxxx
> Comment:
> Game #126022. we were not getting continent bonuses during the whole
> game. Then all of a sudden my oppinet starts getting them. This is
> not fair seeing I missed out on several rounds of getting them.
> Please void this game and return any lost points.
> Thanks JIM (jimari)
>

( the reply is:)

While uploading a new map the continent bonus got disrupted in all
games. This problem has since been fixed. We apologize for any
inconvenience this cause.

Moz

(I write back:)

Thanks for the reply to my inqurey. I have still lost over 30 point because of this glitch. What can be done for this?
Thanks.
JIM (jimari)

(They espond with:)

Suck it up, cupcake!

I'm sorry, JiMari, but we generally do not alter games even when the
outcome was influenced by a bug or cheater. It is too much work and can
lead to further disagreements.

Regards,
lackattack

support@conquerclub.com wrote:
> What should I tell this guy?
>

(I write back)

Thanks once again for your reply. I must tell you that I was highly offended buy your
"suck it up cupcake!" comment. I find this kind of comment unprofetional and disrespectfull.
I understand 33 measly points mean nothing to you, in fact the points were only one of the reasons why I requested a correction of this matter. I thought that by reporting the glitch you would be aware of it. I see now that you are aware of it, and I also thought you could correct it. I am sorry that I trobuled you about this matter. I do not want to create any more work for you, even though the other 2 players were aware of the glitch and I am sure they would like it corrected.
Thanks once again,
JIM (jimari)


[u]and finaly[u]

I will probaly get suspended now for this post now. So from what I gather is if break thier rules your games get deleted, if the software glitched you have to suck it up.

[Neutrino]

[u]and finaly[u]

I will probaly get suspended now for this post now. So from what I gather is if break thier rules your games get deleted, if the software glitched you have to suck it up.

For what? You complint might have been irittating but you have done nothing wrong.

Just say Lack did deleate your game. Are you absolutly, positively sure you would have won the game if there wasnt that bug? If not, then you would be stealing point from the real winner.

The rules don't apply to dug because there aren't any. You don't think I've wondered why i am defending dug alone? I am a man of strict moral & when I see something has been dealt out unfairly I will argue it until I am kicked off the site or leave.

So you are saying that bribery is all well and good? If I were to bribe a judge to let a convicted murderer off, then there would have been absolutly nothing morally wrong with what I'd done.

Hell no.

If this isn't a misunderstanding what is it? Dug certainly knew he didn't break any rules or else he would have admitted it. After he got banned he told me that he should have known not to do it

To the best of my knowledge, dugcarr is older than 10 years old. Therefore, he should have a basic knowledge of right and wrong. What he did most definatly falls in the 'wrong' category.

If he should have known not to do it, why did he do it? Why are you defending him? If he has admited of his own free will that he was wrong to try to bribe someone, then who are we to doubt him?

I will stand up for my beliefs, like I said. Dug was an asshole but he never broke any rule which could have gotten him banned, he only exceeded the limit of a normal RISK player

As JimRocky said, it is a sad, sad world where a friendly internet risk site needs a concrete rule against bribery

That is all.

[Molacole]

[u]and finaly[u]

I will probaly get suspended now for this post now. So from what I gather is if break thier rules your games get deleted, if the software glitched you have to suck it up.

For what? You complint might have been irittating but you have done nothing wrong.

Just say Lack did deleate your game. Are you absolutly, positively sure you would have won the game if there wasnt that bug? If not, then you would be stealing point from the real winner.

If the game is comprimised in any way due to server error (unless warned) the fairest solution would be to nullify the point transfer of that game.

The rules don't apply to dug because there aren't any. You don't think I've wondered why i am defending dug alone? I am a man of strict moral & when I see something has been dealt out unfairly I will argue it until I am kicked off the site or leave.

So you are saying that bribery is all well and good? If I were to bribe a judge to let a convicted murderer off, then there would have been absolutly nothing morally wrong with what I'd done.

Hell no.

If you try to bribe a judge it is against the law so your explination is not a direct comparrsison of what sammy said. To use your ?analogy? was it? well you would have to say if it was legal to bribe a judge and you did it to get off of a murder charge would that classify as breaking the law. The act of murder yes, but the act of bribery no... you pretty much made his point without knowing it.

If this isn't a misunderstanding what is it? Dug certainly knew he didn't break any rules or else he would have admitted it. After he got banned he told me that he should have known not to do it

To the best of my knowledge, dugcarr is older than 10 years old. Therefore, he should have a basic knowledge of right and wrong. What he did most definatly falls in the 'wrong' category.

If he should have known not to do it, why did he do it? Why are you defending him? If he has admited of his own free will that he was wrong to try to bribe someone, then who are we to doubt him?

What is right to you may be considered wrong to others. Assuming you are older than 10 years old I would expect you to understand the grey area of right and wrong. When somebody says "I should've known" it means they're using an expression. The expression used would be like saying: My best friend and his girlfriend were argueing and both complaining to me. I tried to help the situation and it made them both mad at me. I should've known not to get involved. It doesn't mean that the persons actions were wrong. It simply means they knew the outcome could be bad, but that doesn't mean they thought the outcome would be bad or else they probably wouldn't have done it...

I will stand up for my beliefs, like I said. Dug was an asshole but he never broke any rule which could have gotten him banned, he only exceeded the limit of a normal RISK player

As JimRocky said, it is a sad, sad world where a friendly internet risk site needs a concrete rule against bribery

That is all.

Just because it's a game doesn't mean people who play it aren't competitive. For all we know there could be some guy out there that punches his computer screen when he loses an important tournament game or some shit like that. Judgiing by your status

Rank: Sergeant
Score: 1012
Games Completed: 347

You don't seem too competitive so I wont say anything more about this. If you are a competitive person than I feel sorry for you because this website must be driving you crazy

The simple fact of the matter is that almost 1/4 of the votes feel that dug was treated unfairly. That was the whole point of this post, which most of you have missed, while you're too busy trying to argue with me or anyone else who questions dugs' ban. I hope for your sake your head doesn't get stuck up your asses. All I wanted to see with all personal differences (bullshit) aside was what people really thought of how the situation was handled. I've played 0 games with dug, never PM'd him and don't think I ever discussed anything in a thread with him. I have only seen him on the scoreboard and in the forums so I'm by no means associated with him other than the fact we once played on the same website. I am not biased and up until this happened I was thrilled with how the mods handled situations that I was aware of all except the multi rule, but it promoted a lax playing enviroment, which I appreciated.

[tahitiwahini]

The simple fact of the matter is that almost 1/4 of the votes feel that dug was treated unfairly.

Things must have taken a downturn after you posted.

Now it's 82% in favor of the mods and 17% against. So less than 1/5 th of the voters feel that Dug was treated unfairly.

And as I've pointed out previously the way the poll was worded if you thought the modes behaved in anything less than an absolutely 100% perfect manner you had to vote No.

So given the biased wording of the poll the results are all the more remarkable.

To end on a note of agreement: I agree with you that busted multis are dealt with way too leniently.

[Molacole]

The simple fact of the matter is that almost 1/4 of the votes feel that dug was treated unfairly.

Things must have taken a downturn after you posted.

Now it's 82% in favor of the mods and 17% against. So less than 1/5 th of the voters feel that Dug was treated unfairly.

And as I've pointed out previously the way the poll was worded if you thought the modes behaved in anything less than an absolutely 100% perfect manner you had to vote No.

So given the biased wording of the poll the results are all the more remarkable.

To end on a note of agreement: I agree with you that busted multis are dealt with way too leniently.

You are a complete nightmare when it comes to debating anything. You're very stubborn and ignorant...

It's a simple question of wether or not you feel his punishment was fair. What are you so confused about?

Maybe this will help you understand the actual word FAIR: 1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.

so how is asking if something was free from biased a biased question? Do you not understand english or something because you look like a complete dip shit claiming biased in an unbiased poll over a word that is free from bias...

GO TO SCHOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Molacole]

I'm in no way going to assume you understood the above post so let me clarify it even more little timmy...

Dug's punishment was fair I back the mods 100% on their decision
Dug's punishment was fair.

those two sentences mean exactly the same thing.

The "I back the mods 100% on their decision was completely irrelevant and that's the part you're focused on. WOW big surprise there right little timmy... So like I've said before you don't even know what you're argueing about...

When grown ups discuss important matters it's usually best that the kids shut the f*ck up and stay out of it.

p.s. as of now it's 3 votes away from having a 1/4 of the votes...