All bulllshit aside (dug)

[IronE.GLE]

I just checked the rules, and there are currently no rules for the following:

1.) Planting a trojan in your opponents computer allowing you to remotely control their moves in an effort to sabotage their games.

2.) Using your opponents IP address to track them down and murder your opponent so that he/she is booted from the game for missing turns.

3.) Using XXXXX program to hack opponents email address, find online bills and account numbers in an effort steal your opponents identity and run up $50,000 in debt so that your opponent can no longer afford the premium membership.

All three things are clearly illegal in the court of law, but since there is no rule on CC prohibiting these things they should be allowed?

[Molacole]

I just checked the rules, and there are currently no rules for the following:

1.) Planting a trojan in your opponents computer allowing you to remotely control their moves in an effort to sabotage their games.

2.) Using your opponents IP address to track them down and murder your opponent so that he/she is booted from the game for missing turns.

3.) Using XXXXX program to hack opponents email address, find online bills and account numbers in an effort steal your opponents identity and run up $50,000 in debt so that your opponent can no longer afford the premium membership.

All three things are clearly illegal in the court of law, but since there is no rule on CC prohibiting these things they should be allowed?

I bet you felt really clever when you thought that up. Too bad all 3 of your examples are against the law and you would actually go to jail if caught. This is the point were common sense has to come in and if you don't have enough to understand then you will continue to miss the point on many of many situations in your life outside of the internet also including, but not limited to...

[IronE.GLE]

I just checked the rules, and there are currently no rules for the following:

1.) Planting a trojan in your opponents computer allowing you to remotely control their moves in an effort to sabotage their games.

2.) Using your opponents IP address to track them down and murder your opponent so that he/she is booted from the game for missing turns.

3.) Using XXXXX program to hack opponents email address, find online bills and account numbers in an effort steal your opponents identity and run up $50,000 in debt so that your opponent can no longer afford the premium membership.

All three things are clearly illegal in the court of law, but since there is no rule on CC prohibiting these things they should be allowed?

I bet you felt really clever when you thought that up. Too bad all 3 of your examples are against the law and you would actually go to jail if caught. This is the point were common sense has to come in and if you don't have enough to understand then you will continue to miss the point on many of many situations in your life outside of the internet also including, but not limited to...

So bribery and terroristic threat aren't against the law now? You continually contradict yourself in this argument for Dugcar, and it's quite apparent that you have no clue what you are talking about.

The point is that what Dugcar did would be considered a crime punishable by jail time had it happened in a business setting. Once again, your point is not applicable.

[Sammy gags]

What does a courtroom & morals have to do with this? This is a game website based on the boardgame of RISK which is taught many different ways. There are no legal limits...just interpretations. Sure if he bribed a jury it would be illegal & uncalled for but this is a board game

[Sammy gags]

I just checked the rules, and there are currently no rules for the following:

1.) Planting a trojan in your opponents computer allowing you to remotely control their moves in an effort to sabotage their games.

2.) Using your opponents IP address to track them down and murder your opponent so that he/she is booted from the game for missing turns.

3.) Using XXXXX program to hack opponents email address, find online bills and account numbers in an effort steal your opponents identity and run up $50,000 in debt so that your opponent can no longer afford the premium membership.

All three things are clearly illegal in the court of law, but since there is no rule on CC prohibiting these things they should be allowed?

They are all against the law

[tahitiwahini]

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.

If you think those two sentences mean "exactly the same thing" that would go a long way in explaining why you have so much trouble understanding that what Dug did was wrong. I think you have a basic comprehension deficit.

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

Dug's punishment was fair I back the mods 100% on their decision 82% [ 102 ]

Dug's punishment was too harsh I can NOT back the mods 100% on their decision 17% [ 22 ]

Considering the biased wording for the poll it is indeed amazing that under these most favorable circumstances you can only get 17% of the people who think the mods did anything less than 100% the right thing.

Or looked at another way, 87% of the people back 100% of everything the mods did in dealing with Dug.

Now if you polled just the people who benefited from Dug's point giveaway I'd guess you would get different results.

How about that for a poll?

Did you benefit from Dug's point giveaway scam?

Yes or No.

That's right, I forgot you don't like unbiased language in polls, so how about this:

Did you benefit from Dug's point giveaway scam?

Yes, I benefited 100%.

No, I didn't benefit 100%.

[Sammy gags]

No I did not benefit from his points...
& how many people that voted actually have talked to dug while he was not complaining about something? I'm guessing a little below 13%

[Molacole]

I just checked the rules, and there are currently no rules for the following:

1.) Planting a trojan in your opponents computer allowing you to remotely control their moves in an effort to sabotage their games.

2.) Using your opponents IP address to track them down and murder your opponent so that he/she is booted from the game for missing turns.

3.) Using XXXXX program to hack opponents email address, find online bills and account numbers in an effort steal your opponents identity and run up $50,000 in debt so that your opponent can no longer afford the premium membership.

All three things are clearly illegal in the court of law, but since there is no rule on CC prohibiting these things they should be allowed?

I bet you felt really clever when you thought that up. Too bad all 3 of your examples are against the law and you would actually go to jail if caught. This is the point were common sense has to come in and if you don't have enough to understand then you will continue to miss the point on many of many situations in your life outside of the internet also including, but not limited to...

So bribery and terroristic threat aren't against the law now? You continually contradict yourself in this argument for Dugcar, and it's quite apparent that you have no clue what you are talking about.

The point is that what Dugcar did would be considered a crime punishable by jail time had it happened in a business setting. Once again, your point is not applicable.

seriously buddy wtf are you talking about? Where did you get that whole terrorist crap from.

This is a quote from myself "all 3 of your examples are against the law and you would actually go to jail if caught" Since when has bribing somebody been against the law? Parents bribe their children all the time to get the kids to listen to them. I think what you might be confusing blackmail with bribery because if you bribe somebody to seal the deal in a business setting it is more than legal.

Here is the definition of bribe: Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct.

That is not illegal. I could bribe you by offering you 20 bucs to go get my shoes. the act of bribery is NOT illegal. It becomes illegal when you try to bribe somebody like a judge or a law official.

[Molacole]

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.

If you think those two sentences mean "exactly the same thing" that would go a long way in explaining why you have so much trouble understanding that what Dug did was wrong. I think you have a basic comprehension deficit.

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

Dug's punishment was fair I back the mods 100% on their decision 82% [ 102 ]

Dug's punishment was too harsh I can NOT back the mods 100% on their decision 17% [ 22 ]

Considering the biased wording for the poll it is indeed amazing that under these most favorable circumstances you can only get 17% of the people who think the mods did anything less than 100% the right thing.

Or looked at another way, 87% of the people back 100% of everything the mods did in dealing with Dug.

Now if you polled just the people who benefited from Dug's point giveaway I'd guess you would get different results.

How about that for a poll?

Did you benefit from Dug's point giveaway scam?

Yes or No.

That's right, I forgot you don't like unbiased language in polls, so how about this:

Did you benefit from Dug's point giveaway scam?

Yes, I benefited 100%.

No, I didn't benefit 100%.

OK how about you tell me how the two sentences differ from each other so I can laugh at you... Oh that's right you can't because you're completely talking out of your ass.

"basic comprehension deficit"? You're trying to use my insults to you against me...

How about you try to comprehend the fact that I never said dug shouldn't be punished.

you're trying to compare your example of poll options with mine, but the thing you're failing to understand is that it would be possible for somebody to benifit and not benifit from dugs point givaway scam. See the thing you over looked with your poll analogy is that a person could've easily joined multiple games where as dug only got banned once...

I could dig deeper, but I doubt you'd be able to follow me so I wont bother.

[IronE.GLE]

seriously buddy wtf are you talking about? Where did you get that whole terrorist crap from.

This is a quote from myself "all 3 of your examples are against the law and you would actually go to jail if caught" Since when has bribing somebody been against the law? Parents bribe their children all the time to get the kids to listen to them. I think what you might be confusing blackmail with bribery because if you bribe somebody to seal the deal in a business setting it is more than legal.

Not only is bribery in a business setting against ethics, it is in fact a crime. I'm not sure where you are getting your asinine thoughts from, but I would suggest doing a little research before you start talking out of your ass.

Here is the definition of bribe: Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct.

That is not illegal. I could bribe you by offering you 20 bucs to go get my shoes. the act of bribery is NOT illegal. It becomes illegal when you try to bribe somebody like a judge or a law official.

Giving me $20 to fetch your shoes is called payment for services rendered. In no way would your payment for my services influence me in any capacity. So not only are you completely unable to propose a valid argument for Dugcar's defense, you share your utter lack of reading comprehension to the entire forum. Well done!

The Legal Definition of Extortion

According to the California Penal Code, Sections 518-527, "Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right." (§ 518).

"Fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat, either:
1. To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of a third person; or,
2. To accuse the individual threatened, or any relative of his, or member of his family, of any crime; or,
3. To expose, or to impute to him or them any deformity, disgrace or crime; or,
4. To expose any secret affecting him or them." (§ 519).

Extortion Using Bribery

Bribery is another type of extortion. Bribery is the crime of giving money or something of value to influence the conduct of a person in a position of trust (such as a public official). Accepting a bribe also constitutes a crime.

Extortion Using Blackmail

Blackmail is extortion by threatening another person's reputation or organization with the disclosure of harmful or secret information that would be damaging to that person if released. The information to be released may be true or false. The disclosure of the information does not have to be criminal nor does the offender actually have to receive money or property for the act to be considered extortion.


The Difference Between Lobbying and Bribery

It is not against the law to lobby lawmakers. Lobbyists regularly approach legislators and, with convincing arguments, try to get laws changed or influence the thinking of political figures. But, when money is introduced and favors are done in exchange, the crime of bribery may be considered.

Extortion Penalties

California extortion, including bribery and blackmail are serious criminal offenses usually charged as a felony. These crimes are punishable by up to 4 years in state prison and / or fines of up to ($10,000) ten thousand dollars or more.

Thanks for playing.

[Nikolai]

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...

Molacole, they're right. The two sentences do not mean the same thing, and your poll is using deliberately slanted language. And by the way, I don't know where you're from, but where I'm from, grown ups don't dismiss valid concerns from other people, and they show others respect when trying to make a point.

[Captain Crash]

So the minority are nearly 25%...So FUCKING WHAT!!!!

They have been given their voice...the majority have heard and will take from that what they want to.

Bottom line...80%+ think the outcome of the 'dug' affair was good and sound. Carrying on about it will not change anything!
And really 1 person and his 15 multis really doesn't carry much weight on a site/community with 15091 active members!

So can we drop this shit and move on!
or
At least move it to flame wars!

[qeee1]

So the minority are nearly 25%...So FUCKING WHAT!!!!

They have been given their voice...the majority have heard and will take from that what they want to.

Bottom line...80%+ think the outcome of the 'dug' affair was good and sound. Carrying on about it will not change anything!
And really 1 person and his 15 multis really doesn't carry much weight on a site/community with 15091 active members!

So can we drop this shit and move on!
or
At least move it to flame wars!

oh my we miss the point...

[tahitiwahini]

oh my we miss the point...

The point must be somewhat obscure because I seem to have missed it too.

Forget 25%, they can't even get 16% (current result of their poll) to agree with them despite the poll having the most biased language I can imagine.

Maybe the point is not one that can logically and rationally discussed?

[Molacole]

seriously buddy wtf are you talking about? Where did you get that whole terrorist crap from.

This is a quote from myself "all 3 of your examples are against the law and you would actually go to jail if caught" Since when has bribing somebody been against the law? Parents bribe their children all the time to get the kids to listen to them. I think what you might be confusing blackmail with bribery because if you bribe somebody to seal the deal in a business setting it is more than legal.

Not only is bribery in a business setting against ethics, it is in fact a crime. I'm not sure where you are getting your asinine thoughts from, but I would suggest doing a little research before you start talking out of your ass.

Here is the definition of bribe: Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct.

That is not illegal. I could bribe you by offering you 20 bucs to go get my shoes. the act of bribery is NOT illegal. It becomes illegal when you try to bribe somebody like a judge or a law official.

Giving me $20 to fetch your shoes is called payment for services rendered. In no way would your payment for my services influence me in any capacity. So not only are you completely unable to propose a valid argument for Dugcar's defense, you share your utter lack of reading comprehension to the entire forum. Well done!

The Legal Definition of Extortion

According to the California Penal Code, Sections 518-527, "Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right." (§ 518).

"Fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat, either:
1. To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of a third person; or,
2. To accuse the individual threatened, or any relative of his, or member of his family, of any crime; or,
3. To expose, or to impute to him or them any deformity, disgrace or crime; or,
4. To expose any secret affecting him or them." (§ 519).

Extortion Using Bribery

Bribery is another type of extortion. Bribery is the crime of giving money or something of value to influence the conduct of a person in a position of trust (such as a public official). Accepting a bribe also constitutes a crime.

Extortion Using Blackmail

Blackmail is extortion by threatening another person's reputation or organization with the disclosure of harmful or secret information that would be damaging to that person if released. The information to be released may be true or false. The disclosure of the information does not have to be criminal nor does the offender actually have to receive money or property for the act to be considered extortion.


The Difference Between Lobbying and Bribery

It is not against the law to lobby lawmakers. Lobbyists regularly approach legislators and, with convincing arguments, try to get laws changed or influence the thinking of political figures. But, when money is introduced and favors are done in exchange, the crime of bribery may be considered.

Extortion Penalties

California extortion, including bribery and blackmail are serious criminal offenses usually charged as a felony. These crimes are punishable by up to 4 years in state prison and / or fines of up to ($10,000) ten thousand dollars or more.

Thanks for playing.

here let me make this very simple for you. A 21 yr old kid from french lick indiana is the #1 rated basketball player in the nation. 2 NBA teams want to sign a contract with him. Both of the contracts are virtually identical, but one of the NBA teams decides to throw in a new house, car and whatever else you want to throw in. The other just offers the contract. The house and new car would be considered a bribe. This happens all the time in professiona sports and it only becomes and issue if the player is in college because they're not allowed to accept "gifts"...

This same scenario would be against the law if he was actually in college because of the rules that have been established to prevent this type of unethical business negotiations...

Giving me $20 to fetch your shoes is called payment for services rendered. In no way would your payment for my services influence me in any capacity. So not only are you completely unable to propose a valid argument for Dugcar's defense, you share your utter lack of reading comprehension to the entire forum. Well done!

If you did not want to go fetch my shoes and I offered you 20 bucs then yes it would be considered a bribe. I figured you would be able to follow my example considering nobody in their right mind would fetch a strangers shoes for them.

The definition is simple... anything given or serving to persuade or induce. So if you say no and somebody offers something to spice up the deal then yes it could be considered as a bribe. Your whole arguement is assuming that somebody used a bribe in an official setting where laws govern the actions of the personal in the position to receive a bribe.

The Legal Definition of Extortion

key word extortion, which is NOT what we are debating about. We're simply discussing the word bribe. Extortion is not bribery. Bribery can play a role in extortion, but that doesn't make the word bribery the same as extortion. That is why they're 2 different words.

[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...

Molacole, they're right. The two sentences do not mean the same thing, and your poll is using deliberately slanted language. And by the way, I don't know where you're from, but where I'm from, grown ups don't dismiss valid concerns from other people, and they show others respect when trying to make a point.

ok if you feel that I'm wrong and you're right why don't you enlighten me? (explain how they differ)

p.s. yeah we show respect to valid points around here also. The problem here is that the points aren't valid. Such as in how you say they differ, but yet show no evidence. With that kind of logic I could argue the sky is green and water is orange.

[Molacole]

oh my we miss the point...

The point must be somewhat obscure because I seem to have missed it too.

Forget 25%, they can't even get 16% (current result of their poll) to agree with them despite the poll having the most biased language I can imagine.

Maybe the point is not one that can logically and rationally discussed?

well if you can explain to me why it's a biased poll and how these two sentences differ I will stop posting here.

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

All you can argue is that somebody may think the way it was handled was fair, but they don't back the mods on their decision. That is not a logical argument because it would be a contradiction. If you think the punishment was fair then why would you not side with the mods? If you backed the mods 100% why would you think the decision was unfair?

both parts of that sentence represent the same thing. You can't have one without the other. If you don't agree with this then please do explain how I am wrong because you're making an ass out of yourself to everyone who understands how the english language works.

[IronE.GLE]

here let me make this very simple for you. A 21 yr old kid from french lick indiana is the #1 rated basketball player in the nation. 2 NBA teams want to sign a contract with him. Both of the contracts are virtually identical, but one of the NBA teams decides to throw in a new house, car and whatever else you want to throw in. The other just offers the contract. The house and new car would be considered a bribe. This happens all the time in professiona sports and it only becomes and issue if the player is in college because they're not allowed to accept "gifts"...

This same scenario would be against the law if he was actually in college because of the rules that have been established to prevent this type of unethical business negotiations...

Oh you mean like when Joe Smith accepted extra benefits from the Minnesota Timberwolves, was caught and suspended? How about when the Timberwolves lost a draft pick because of this? I suppose that was a reward for doing something that wasn't illegal?

Again, your attempt at an example falls short. Keep trying though, as you might actually do enough research to find the truth. What truth? That BRIBERY IS A CRIME and can be a FELONY.

[Sammy gags]

Too bad we are playing a board game which can be taught so bribery & secret alliances are encouraged

[tahitiwahini]

well if you can explain to me why it's a biased poll and how these two sentences differ I will stop posting here.

First I ignore up to 30% of what you write because depending on the post that's the part taken up in ad hominem attacks that do nothing but distract from your argument.

Second, you apparently understand little about constructing poll questions and answers. Simplicity is preferred over complexity. If you're really interested in sampling opinion you remove anything extraneous from the question or answers that distract from the subject about which you wish to obtain the opinion. You do not conflate two issues within a single question.

On the other hand, if what you want to do is more in the nature of a push-poll you prefer complexity over simplicity, because the purpose of the poll is decidedly not to sample opinion but instead to influence opinion. You conflate as many subjects in the question or answer because again you are not interested in the opinion, you are simply attempting to drive people to adopt your point of view. That's not an honest or valid poll and no reputable polling firm would have anything to do with a question and answer constructed in the way you did.

If you were the least interested in what other people think you would have used an unbiased, simple question about a single issue, and would have had unbiased, simple answers. For example,

Was Dug's punishment fair?

Yes or No.

But you knew what the answer to that simple unbiased question would be so you threw in extraneous verbiage in an attempt to discourage people from choosing one answer and encourage them to chose the other answer.

Either you were not intelligent enough to realize that's what you were doing or you were being deliberately dishonest and manipulative. Which if you think about it is especially ironic given the title of this topic is "All bullshit aside (Dug)." What's really comic is despite the chicanery of the poll language being biased toward your desired answer you were only able to attract a measly 16% of the people responding.

In the words of Abraham Lincoln:

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

[Smurf75]

Second that!

I hate them polls where you want to answer, but the person making the poll just hasnt got the skills to make an accurate questioning.... here it still was simple though... 100% right

[Molacole]

Little timmy do you like to listen to yourself talk? All you've done is avoid my question for the last 2 pages of this post. You keep claiming biased in my poll, but yet you can't explain to me how the 2 sentences differ. Maybe you get side tracked while trying to think up the next "impressive" word to use to make yourself look more educated than what you are.

The two sentences coincide with each other and you keep saying they don't so explain your point to me. All you're doing is throwing smoke around trying to redirect the conversation in an attempt to avoid the question. How about you conjur up some more big words and answer my question already? Oh maybe it's because you can't....

But you knew what the answer to that simple unbiased question would be so you threw in extraneous verbiage in an attempt to discourage people from choosing one answer and encourage them to chose the other answer.

if you had an ounce of common sense you would see that agreeing with the mods in the decision means that you feel dug was treated fairly.

You do not conflate two issues within a single question.

You can't agree with the mods and think he was treated unfair.
You can't think he was treated unfair and agree with the mods.

do you see my point yet? You're still claiming bias over a word free from bias...

There is no catch 22, double edged sword or whatever the hell you want to use to say the first poll option is a manipulation of words or even misleading. Therefor it is NOT bias...

How about you take this sentence: "Dug's punishment was fair I back the mods 100% on their decision" and tell me exactly what it means and or how it's misleading. You can NOT do it and that's why you keep avoiding the question while spewing out useless unrelated content to this thread. It doesn't matter how you feel a poll should be constructed. This isn't about that. It's about how you keep saying poll option #1 is bias...

[Molacole]

here let me make this very simple for you. A 21 yr old kid from french lick indiana is the #1 rated basketball player in the nation. 2 NBA teams want to sign a contract with him. Both of the contracts are virtually identical, but one of the NBA teams decides to throw in a new house, car and whatever else you want to throw in. The other just offers the contract. The house and new car would be considered a bribe. This happens all the time in professiona sports and it only becomes and issue if the player is in college because they're not allowed to accept "gifts"...

This same scenario would be against the law if he was actually in college because of the rules that have been established to prevent this type of unethical business negotiations...

Oh you mean like when Joe Smith accepted extra benefits from the Minnesota Timberwolves, was caught and suspended? How about when the Timberwolves lost a draft pick because of this? I suppose that was a reward for doing something that wasn't illegal?

Again, your attempt at an example falls short. Keep trying though, as you might actually do enough research to find the truth. What truth? That BRIBERY IS A CRIME and can be a FELONY.

I didn't follow the story, but I'm sure it was a breech of contract that caused this mess. OK I'll keep trying. The lady at the grocery store told her son to stop running around. He wouldn't listen so she told him stop running around and I'll buy you a candy bar. He stopped and the mother went on with her life. She bribed her son and nobody gave two shits about it...

Go look the word up in the dictionary!!!

[tahitiwahini]

Little timmy do you like to listen to yourself talk? All you've done is avoid my question for the last 2 pages of this post. You keep claiming biased in my poll, but yet you can't explain to me how the 2 sentences differ. Maybe you get side tracked while trying to think up the next "impressive" word to use to make yourself look more educated than what you are.

OK, the above is my evidence that 30% of your posts are ad hominem attacks and therefore worthy of being ignored. Except the part about little timmy which is just creepy. Where in the world does that come from? Did you meet little timmy while you were staying at Neverland as Michael Jackson's special overnight guest?

The reason I've avoided your question for the last 2 pages of this thread is that I answered your question before you asked it on the first page of this thread. I simply did you the courtesy in believing that since this was your thread (and your poll) you had bothered to read the entire thread. As I see now that's not the case I repost my earlier answer here in full (emphasis added):

Gee Molacole, somehow you seem to have missed including this in your evidence:

Last evening I went online and noticed that dugcarr1 is going on some jihad, starting a whole bunch of games with the expressed intention of throwing them. I was particularly concerned about 9 consecutive doubles games of dugcarr1 & innocent vicitim vs subjekt & tomtorresson. As I thought about the situation I refreshed the screen and suddenly dugcarr1 has 10 new open games started! He had become what is known as a griefer account, out to hurt CC as much as possible.

I stripped his premium, inactivated him, and deleted those games. That's what you have to do with griefers. I accidentally deleted a few good games because I punched in the wrong game numbers. Ooops Embarassed

Anyway, that's what happened. Totally killed the buzz from the massage.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 332#309332

But thanks for the no bs poll.

You do realize that if someone thinks what the site administrators did was 99.99999% correct that they would have to vote No in your poll, right?

If that meets the Molacole no bs standard, I'd really hate to see your bs... or can't you tell the difference either?

What we have here is a cheater, Dug, who got caught and for which he received a slap on the wrist. Instead of taking his slap on the wrist and being grateful he wasn't banned, he proceeded to do everything he could think of to continue cheating (albeit he did change the precise tactics of his cheating). He convinced his friends to join him in his cheating jihad. Finally, after demonstrating super-human tolerance toward Dug, lack had enough when he saw the negative impact Dug was having on other players on this site. He ultimately did the right thing and banned Dug. The only thing I can criticize about the whole thing was how long it took to ban Dug, the only thing I regret was that some players had to be damaged by Dug before he was finally let go.

I guess because I think he should have been banned for the first incident I should have voted No in the poll since I don't agree 100% with the actions of the site administrators. They were too restrained and lenient.

The two sentences coincide with each other and you keep saying they don't so explain your point to me. All you're doing is throwing smoke around trying to redirect the conversation in an attempt to avoid the question. How about you conjur up some more big words and answer my question already? Oh maybe it's because you can't....

How about you just read what I wrote back on page one?

But you knew what the answer to that simple unbiased question would be so you threw in extraneous verbiage in an attempt to discourage people from choosing one answer and encourage them to chose the other answer.

if you had an ounce of common sense you would see that agreeing with the mods in the decision means that you feel dug was treated fairly.

You do not conflate two issues within a single question.

You can't agree with the mods and think he was treated unfair.
You can't think he was treated unfair and agree with the mods.

If you've read my post included above you will have already received the answer to your question. The fact that you are having trouble reading that or understanding that is not my fault.

do you see my point yet? You're still claiming bias over a word free from bias...

There is no catch 22, double edged sword or whatever the hell you want to use to say the first poll option is a manipulation of words or even misleading. Therefor it is NOT bias...

How about you take this sentence: "Dug's punishment was fair I back the mods 100% on their decision" and tell me exactly what it means and or how it's misleading. You can NOT do it and that's why you keep avoiding the question while spewing out useless unrelated content to this thread. It doesn't matter how you feel a poll should be constructed. This isn't about that. It's about how you keep saying poll option #1 is bias...

You know what? In the time it took you to write that paragraph you could have gone back to page 1 and read my answer again. Maybe with a second or third reading you will comprehend it.

Finally, go back to my immediately preceding post and you will see all the reasons I give for your poll being biased and in an improper form. You have yet to address any of those points.

My conscience tells me that in all fairness I should tell you that you are not showing yourself in a very favorable light in your posts. Apparently you believe your powers of argumentation are very much more impressive than any evidence would suggest. I think you look sillier with every post you make on this subject. Sometimes it's better to admit a mistake and move on. However, if you wish to persist in defending your poll as accurate and unbiased I'll be more than happy to continue the discussion with you.

[alex_white101]

wow you really do write very impressively tahitwini, and i do agree with what you say .

this poll was biased and you WERE trying to swing votes in favour of what you wanted molacole you cant really deny that?

anyways as we can see from the poll most people thought dug got what he deserved no matter how much you tried to influence their votes, id just let it all die and forget all about dug now......