Conquer Club

It rarely happens to me that someone pisses me off enough for me to do something about it, but all the whining about poor, cheating Dug being kick from CC finally done it. So screw the petitions etc. Let's have a poll:
Do you think that Dug should have been kicked out or do you follow the alien logic that was best expressed by Sammy Gags when he said: "Since when is bribing someone cheating!"

I am just intersted in the level of sanity on this site.

It's nice to see a good and honest poll where the result isn't predetermined by the very first post

chewyman wrote:It's nice to see a good and honest poll where the result isn't predetermined by the very first post

you voted the last one. Interesting...

You know if you did something wrong and you are in prison, they won't let you drive it. Even if you are still paying on it! Its true.

You break the rules for the society and you pay the piper. Doesn't matter that you think you are above the moral standards of the masses because you pay to play.

I don't deadbeat games because I am premium and I can. It is unsportsmanlike. I think to defend Dug, is to defend the moral decay of our system today, and I for one will not.

chewyman wrote:It's nice to see a good and honest poll where the result isn't predetermined by the very first post

My first post was an explanation of why I made the poll.
But, I consider that the answers in the poll represent 4 positions represented by most players. (Yes, even the last one. If you Dug-fans want to rephrase the last option, post your suggestion and I'll consider it.)
I just wanted a poll, to see where the CC comunity really stands.

I will even replace "Dung" with "Dugg" to make it more objective.

did he actually refuse his original punishment? beyond the fact that he created those games in retaliation. i guess you mean so that he would accept what the mods gave him without fighting back?

kclborat wrote:did he actually refuse his original punishment? beyond the fact that he created those games in retaliation. i guess you mean so that he would accept what the mods gave him without fighting back?

Yes. He didn't want to admit that he made a mistake nor to accept the decision of Mods.

Since when is the act of murder a violation of rule 1 or 2?

As I see it, murder is not covered textually by the two rules. But that's just my two cents...

kclborat wrote:did he actually refuse his original punishment? beyond the fact that he created those games in retaliation. i guess you mean so that he would accept what the mods gave him without fighting back?

Let me get this straight. Dug was found to have engaged in cheating, he was punished and in retaliation he cheated some more but in a different way.

Was it like:

I understand you don't want me to bribe anyone to get control of multiple accounts, but you didn't say I couldn't cheat by entering into a conspiracy to defraud players of their points and give them to my cronies. No sir, you didn't say anything at all about that. If you didn't want me to do that you should have said something. This is so confusing it's causing my head to hurt. I mean this is a very Kafkaesque experience: I find a new way to cheat and suddenly you're telling me I can't do that anymore. So basically, you're telling me if I want to cheat I have to stay like one step ahead of you guys. I ask you, is that fair? Do you make the other cheaters constantly invent new strategies to cheat or are you singling me out for special treatment? This is so bogus, what's a cheater to do?

I watch a lot of "Law and Order" and I don't think I've ever seen a convicted criminal tell the court that he refuses his punishment. I mean: "thank you very much judge, but I think I'll just refuse my punishment if it's all the same to you." Those idiots, think of all the jail time they could have avoided if they'd just thought to say that.

If refusing your punishment doesn't work, I guess you can always fall back on the tried and true strategy of simply committing another crime in retaliation for the punishment of your first crime. Oh, be sure to make it clear to everyone that it's a "protest" otherwise they might think you're just a habitual criminal.

alstergren wrote:Since when is the act of murder a violation of rule 1 or 2?

As I see it, murder is not covered textually by the two rules. But that's just my two cents...

Damn, you're right. Doesn't say a thing about murder.

Now I've just got to figure out a way to make some points with that "advanced strategy"...

free Hat

Yes, because it's Lacks site and he can do as he pleases with it

I've only glanced over the issue, but from what I've seen, I don't even see why this is being debated. He tried to bribe someone into being his multi, which is cheap, pathetic, and totally banworthy. It would sadden me to see someone get away with it. Secret alliances are expressly forbidden and the homepage warns that you will get banned, so I don't see why CC should have any legal obligation to refund his lousy $20.

tahitiwahini wrote:Damn, you're right. Doesn't say a thing about murder.

Now I've just got to figure out a way to make some points with that "advanced strategy"...

You could join a game and then kill your opponents so they deadbeat... I feel ashamed just typing that

i vote for both yes options

he cheated, end of story....if he hadnt of done he wouldnt be in the mess hes in..the whole personnal responsibilty arguement

He offered a bribe to someone so they could ruin the site for someone who in the briber's opinion, was ruining the site for him.

Kind of hypocritical, isn't it?

Perhaps I am mistaken but I think bribery might be the wrong word. As I understand it, Dugcarr offered someone a money (or a membership?) in exchange for using that person's account for the sole purpose of entering a game with Blitzaholic. Using someone else's account as well as your own does not necessarily mean that you have multiple accounts. If this were true then there could be no account sitting allowed. To say that Dugcarr bribed anyone is, in my opinion, false. For instance, if I offer money to a politician to vote a certain way, that's a bribe. However, if I offer money to a politician to come over and mow my lawn, that's an honest payment for services rendered. In Dugcarr's case, all he wanted was the use of the account. He had nothing tangible to gain since he would not have realized any points for a win.
I wonder why he just didn't post an open offer to account sit for anyone going away on vacation or something? He was a good player - I'm sure someone would have taken him up on it eventually.

How to kill for points... the spark notes version!


First you start 100 games with 200 different people (three man battles). Find out which city they live in around the world. Then start a secret cult that will follow your words to the T. (still with me?)

Inform them that the only way to reach true enlightenment is to destroy towns that god has told you need destroying. (Mind you, to tell them that only you can hear gods voice because he installed a secret chip in side your ear that allowed him to communicate with you and only you. This chip could be one possible motivation for loyal members of the cult.)

Ok, now you have your boys go out and commit acts of Terrorism on all the cities and towns of the 200 people. (note: not all the people you targeted for the attacks will be killed, but enough should be engaged in family emergencies that they should deadbeat, or have terrible position.)


Most terrorist organizations are just bright CC players trying to get your points. Know terrorists and their names on CC:

Osama--- Hendy
Sadam--- Dugcarr1, you may be wondering how he has been playing over the last month or two. C'mon, you know hell has the internet!

and finally

Howie Mandel: Dealornodeal? My friend has proof that deal or no deal is a terrorist training camp!

tahitiwahini wrote:I watch a lot of "Law and Order" and I don't think I've ever seen a convicted criminal tell the court that he refuses his punishment. I mean: "thank you very much judge, but I think I'll just refuse my punishment if it's all the same to you." Those idiots, think of all the jail time they could have avoided if they'd just thought to say that.

lol

Sammy gags wrote:Yes, because it's Lacks site and he can do as he pleases with it

I thought that you were totally for Dugg, Sammy. In fact, your post made me start this poll.

bleu_falcon wrote:I've only glanced over the issue, but from what I've seen, I don't even see why this is being debated. He tried to bribe someone into being his multi, which is cheap, pathetic, and totally banworthy. It would sadden me to see someone get away with it. Secret alliances are expressly forbidden and the homepage warns that you will get banned, so I don't see why CC should have any legal obligation to refund his lousy $20.

I totally agree with you that this shouldn't even be debated, but there were lot of people defending Dug, so I decided to make this Poll, just to see how many people support each oppinion. I don't usualy pay attention to the "serious" discussions like this, but I guess I am a bit sensitive about cheating, especially when one of the players with the highest rank goes after the player with THE highest rank using bribery (yes it is bribery, I don't even feel that I should argument that with something other then a dictionary ) a modus operandi. Personally, I don't care much about ranking (save the fact that I love the warm, fuzzy feeling of taking a lot of points from the better ranked players ), but some people really care about it and they have a right to colect their precius points in an atmosphere of fair play (or as close as Risk playing can come to that ).

I didn't realize he was banned, once the initial punishment came down, I kind of stopped paying attention to the whole saga. But I was in favor of ban in the first place, and I agree with it now.

Up next in the story, "The Return of Dugcarr1 Under a New Name", coming soon, I'll wager.

Yes, because he cheated and then refused to accept his original punishment (4 months PM and Forum ban)

Damn, my position isn't represented in your poll, nor do I believe it to be unbiased, but I suppose it's not so unbiased that it can't provide us with some guage of support.

qeee1 wrote:Damn, my position isn't represented in your poll, nor do I believe it to be unbiased, but I suppose it's not so unbiased that it can't provide us with some guage of support.

State your position, maybe it can be added to the poll.

No because I don't think he acted in a manner to deserve a permanent ban, ie. he didn't break any of the stated rules, however I do think he should be punished in some manner, due to the proactive measures to enforce fair play thing.

Essentially I guess I lie within

"no I don't think he should be banned because he didn't break any of the rules. Thus there was no reason to punish him" but without the no reason to punish him part.

===

I think if you had a less polarising poll (lol)... you might see more people gravitate towards a middle ground. Even one stated simply such as.

Should Dug have been:

Banned permanently
Given some sanctions but not an outright ban
No been punished at all
Undecided

or maybe an, ''hes banned boo hoo to all the people that wanted to keep him get over it'' option?

im not rlly being serious, i just think he acted in a manner which is clearly not how lack wants people to act on his site, therefore lack bans him. game over.