Conquer Club

why do you care about ratings....the whole fucking rating thing is a big joke............i say bring back feedback

Woodruff wrote:

Timminz wrote:Hahaha! Some of those are priceless!

neoteny's response to an all 5's rating wrote:HEY FUCK YOU BUDDY!!! How fucking dare you! My gameplay sucked balls!!1!!

More to the point though, I see this as similar to wall "abuse". You can easily remove the comment, by removing the rating. This is all, quite obviously, tongue-in-cheek, and is an issue that could have been resolved privately. I don't see any need for this thread.

So then you suggest that if someone wants the 1-star ratings against them removed, they should simply flame them in the response to get it removed? Because that appears to be what you're suggesting.

Not your best deduction ever. Besides, a flaming response to an all 1's rating is fairly expected. If it bothers you, you shouldn't leave all 1's. I stand by the ridiculousness of this thread. Hell, neoteny has even changed the response already. Someone should mark this "Settled".

I found his feedback entertaining, I would personally quote or sig it if I played him.

Timminz wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Timminz wrote:Hahaha! Some of those are priceless!

neoteny's response to an all 5's rating wrote:HEY FUCK YOU BUDDY!!! How fucking dare you! My gameplay sucked balls!!1!!

More to the point though, I see this as similar to wall "abuse". You can easily remove the comment, by removing the rating. This is all, quite obviously, tongue-in-cheek, and is an issue that could have been resolved privately. I don't see any need for this thread.

So then you suggest that if someone wants the 1-star ratings against them removed, they should simply flame them in the response to get it removed? Because that appears to be what you're suggesting.

Not your best deduction ever. Besides, a flaming response to an all 1's rating is fairly expected. If it bothers you, you shouldn't leave all 1's. I stand by the ridiculousness of this thread. Hell, neoteny has even changed the response already. Someone should mark this "Settled".

I don't think a flaming response to anything "should be expected", quite honestly.

I say hold the suspected warlock under water. If he drowns he was innocent, but if he lives ban him.

Which way to the inquisition?

Seriously, I recommend you foe him and leave it at that.

As I mod I don't foe anyone. I will eventually remove the rating if need be, just waiting to see what happens.

I find it sad that only 2 people in this whole thread noticed the bigotry.

jpcloet wrote:I find it sad that only 2 people in this whole thread noticed the bigotry.

I noticed a reference to a group that tend to be more exposed to bigotry than most. I didn't notice anything actually bigoted though. Maybe I missed something.

I didn't see the bigotry complaint either, perhaps it was removed?

Woodruff wrote:

Timminz wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Timminz wrote:Hahaha! Some of those are priceless!

neoteny's response to an all 5's rating wrote:HEY FUCK YOU BUDDY!!! How fucking dare you! My gameplay sucked balls!!1!!

More to the point though, I see this as similar to wall "abuse". You can easily remove the comment, by removing the rating. This is all, quite obviously, tongue-in-cheek, and is an issue that could have been resolved privately. I don't see any need for this thread.

So then you suggest that if someone wants the 1-star ratings against them removed, they should simply flame them in the response to get it removed? Because that appears to be what you're suggesting.

Not your best deduction ever. Besides, a flaming response to an all 1's rating is fairly expected. If it bothers you, you shouldn't leave all 1's. I stand by the ridiculousness of this thread. Hell, neoteny has even changed the response already. Someone should mark this "Settled".

I don't think a flaming response to anything "should be expected", quite honestly.

What? Why not?

Also, these responses to ratings don't actually mean anything...right?

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Timminz wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Timminz wrote:More to the point though, I see this as similar to wall "abuse". You can easily remove the comment, by removing the rating. This is all, quite obviously, tongue-in-cheek, and is an issue that could have been resolved privately. I don't see any need for this thread.

So then you suggest that if someone wants the 1-star ratings against them removed, they should simply flame them in the response to get it removed? Because that appears to be what you're suggesting.

Not your best deduction ever. Besides, a flaming response to an all 1's rating is fairly expected. If it bothers you, you shouldn't leave all 1's. I stand by the ridiculousness of this thread. Hell, neoteny has even changed the response already. Someone should mark this "Settled".

I don't think a flaming response to anything "should be expected", quite honestly.

What? Why not?

Because it's an extremely immature way to handle...pretty much anything, in my opinion.

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Timminz wrote:

Woodruff wrote:So then you suggest that if someone wants the 1-star ratings against them removed, they should simply flame them in the response to get it removed? Because that appears to be what you're suggesting.

Not your best deduction ever. Besides, a flaming response to an all 1's rating is fairly expected. If it bothers you, you shouldn't leave all 1's. I stand by the ridiculousness of this thread. Hell, neoteny has even changed the response already. Someone should mark this "Settled".

I don't think a flaming response to anything "should be expected", quite honestly.

What? Why not?

Because it's an extremely immature way to handle...pretty much anything, in my opinion.

Agreed. And immature ways of handling things should be expected on the internet. Not encouraged, but expected.

Timminz wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Timminz wrote:Not your best deduction ever. Besides, a flaming response to an all 1's rating is fairly expected. If it bothers you, you shouldn't leave all 1's. I stand by the ridiculousness of this thread. Hell, neoteny has even changed the response already. Someone should mark this "Settled".

I don't think a flaming response to anything "should be expected", quite honestly.

What? Why not?

Because it's an extremely immature way to handle...pretty much anything, in my opinion.

Agreed. And immature ways of handling things should be expected on the internet. Not encouraged, but expected.

<laughing out loud> Ok, you got me there.

The Neoteny account has been freezed indefinitely pending an investigation and to prevent further misuse of this account. Choose those who should babysit your account, as you will also be held liable if your account sitter/s abuses the situation while you are away. This case is a prime example. Remember that your account is your responsibility. Do not share your account information freely as you might be guessing who did what when you were gone.

king achilles wrote:The Neoteny account has been freezed indefinitely pending an investigation. Choose those who should babysit your account, as you will also be held liable if your account sitter/s abuse the situation while you are away. This case is a prime example. Remember that your account is your responsibility. Do not share your account information freely as you might be guessing who did what when you were away.

Huh? Didn't Neoteny admit he wrote the comments?

Apparently he didn't.

Or, we have the amusing situation of someone flaming jpcloet, in a pointless area of the game no less (ratings), ending in a perma ban!

Hah hah hah!!!

And then a cover up from the hunters!

Hah hah hah!!!

Recent CC history would point to the latter option as being more likely. Remember kids, a flame in the CC morning is all fine and dandy...but pick your targets with care! Those with coloured names are flameproof, they'll drop fookin' napalm on your account in response!!!

Oh my lawd.

Mr Changsha wrote:

king achilles wrote:The Neoteny account has been freezed indefinitely pending an investigation. Choose those who should babysit your account, as you will also be held liable if your account sitter/s abuse the situation while you are away. This case is a prime example. Remember that your account is your responsibility. Do not share your account information freely as you might be guessing who did what when you were away.

Huh? Didn't Neoteny admit he wrote the comments?

Apparently he didn't.

Or, we have the amusing situation of someone flaming jpcloet, in a pointless area of the game no less (ratings), ending in a perma ban!

Hah hah hah!!!

And then a cover up from the hunters!

Hah hah hah!!!

Recent CC history would point to the latter option as being more likely. Remember kids, a flame in the CC morning is all fine and dandy...but pick your targets with care! Those with coloured names are flameproof, they'll drop fookin' napalm on your account in response!!!

Well, I recall Neo posting in one (possibly more) of the usergroups that he would be away for a while and gave his pw for babysitting purposes.

afaik, that is nothing unusual, I remember others saying they have done exactly the same thing.

Beats me why that should get a person banned, since it's only one account per person. But if this is only until the investigation is over... well, I guess that's ok.

I could do some digging and look for the thread(s) if the investigators would like to have them as evidence for whatever.

Interesting how the ETROPAL & MIMITARD complaint is still pending but when a mod hollers foul in re of rating comments posted by someone in there own personal space of CC it is acted upon immediately. I would start throwing around the "assclowns" but that is not allowed as per Andy so I will refrain myself from saying it. With that said NEO whoever was way over the line on some of that.

My account was recently very expertly babysat. My babysitter said something mean once in one game's chat. Will I be banned?

Kinda looks like some people have pretty thin skin and they can't take a joke.

If this was between 2 players I expect the admin/mod response would have been "Foe them".

While I'm 100% in favor of Neo in the case, I think you're all missing the purpose of the block.

Though I won't normally post in any way, shape, or form to defend something out of the mouth of the likes of the moderation, Neo wasn't blocked specifically for the severity (or lack thereof) of the actions. Rather, the account was blocked to prevent future issues arising from whoever it is that happens to be in Neo's account. I'm assuming as soon as Neo returns to state his case it will be reopened and will get the typical 'slap-on-the-wrist'/'foe and move on, whiney bitch' response that is usually merited from this type of complaint.

If I happen to be incorrent and he was banned based on the actions, then I'm fully behind Changsha's statment and the moderation needs to take its head out of its ass.

All this over a few silly comments our broken ratings system? Most of his comments (i.e. all of the ones on 5-star ratings) were quite clearly in jest. There was around 2-3 more questionable comments, but instead of dealing with the situation using words, the mods choose to throw the book at him for breaking an obscure rule that I'm not sure exists. I find it no coincidence that so soon after a mod brings issue to the comments the account is "freezed indefinitely."

But mods would never play favorites though; they always treat each infraction the same, no matter who is accused and who makes the complaint. I'm sure scouring the account for negligent babysitters is common practice for all ratings abusers. It's just coincidence that a mod had a problem with Neo and his ass is now grass, right?

lgoasklucyl wrote:While I'm 100% in favor of Neo in the case, I think you're all missing the purpose of the block.

Though I won't normally post in any way, shape, or form to defend something out of the mouth of the likes of the moderation, Neo wasn't blocked specifically for the severity (or lack thereof) of the actions. Rather, the account was blocked to prevent future issues arising from whoever it is that happens to be in Neo's account. I'm assuming as soon as Neo returns to state his case it will be reopened and will get the typical 'slap-on-the-wrist'/'foe and move on, whiney bitch' response that is usually merited from this type of complaint.

If I happen to be incorrent and he was banned based on the actions, then I'm fully behind Changsha's statment and the moderation needs to take its head out of its ass.

Neoteny wrote:Clearly a flame. I suppose I do have a history of flaming, but I am willing to withdraw any comments that might be found to be offensive. I'd rather get banned for flaming in the forums than for misusing this travesty of a rating system.

Neoteny quite clearly writes here that he wrote the comments. So what was the babysitter doing? You'd think the hunters would have illustrated the other banworthy actions of the babysitter. What were they?

So we are left with the impression that Neoteny was banned (not account frozen...BANNED) because of something his babysitter did, that we haven't been informed about. However, the only 'bannable' action we have are the comments he left on his own ratings board. Which he quite clearly says HE DID.

So either Neoteny is lying for the babysitter (possible I suppose) or Team CC is up to its old tricks again.

However I would genuinely like to be proved wrong! The idea that a player can be banned for this is absurd, that the hunters would cover up the banning in this way seems equally absurd to me. Yet with the facts we have, that's the only conclusion I can draw.

My understanding is that the account is frozen.

Mr Changsha wrote:

lgoasklucyl wrote:While I'm 100% in favor of Neo in the case, I think you're all missing the purpose of the block.

Though I won't normally post in any way, shape, or form to defend something out of the mouth of the likes of the moderation, Neo wasn't blocked specifically for the severity (or lack thereof) of the actions. Rather, the account was blocked to prevent future issues arising from whoever it is that happens to be in Neo's account. I'm assuming as soon as Neo returns to state his case it will be reopened and will get the typical 'slap-on-the-wrist'/'foe and move on, whiney bitch' response that is usually merited from this type of complaint.

If I happen to be incorrent and he was banned based on the actions, then I'm fully behind Changsha's statment and the moderation needs to take its head out of its ass.

Neoteny wrote:Clearly a flame. I suppose I do have a history of flaming, but I am willing to withdraw any comments that might be found to be offensive. I'd rather get banned for flaming in the forums than for misusing this travesty of a rating system.

Neoteny quite clearly writes here that he wrote the comments. So what was the babysitter doing? You'd think the hunters would have illustrated the other banworthy actions of the babysitter. What were they?

So we are left with the impression that Neoteny was banned (not account frozen...BANNED) because of something his babysitter did, that we haven't been informed about. However, the only 'bannable' action we have are the comments he left on his own ratings board. Which he quite clearly says HE DID.

So either Neoteny is lying for the babysitter (possible I suppose) or Team CC is up to its old tricks again.

However I would genuinely like to be proved wrong! The idea that a player can be banned for this is absurd, that the hunters would cover up the banning in this way seems equally absurd to me. Yet with the facts we have, that's the only conclusion I can draw.

I'm not sure he ever changed his password. I did see a post by him a while ago where he said he was back, but if he left his password unchanged anyone who knows it could have logged in.