Recommended Posts

Aaaand the audio ads are back.

 

You win, Chris. You win. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2018 at 7:13 PM, BringBackTheVet said:

Since there was never an appeals process, I'd personally let the dups thing slide for past bans, as long as it was only one dup, but I get it.  I'd love to see the back-and-forth of an appeal - bet a lot of them would be pretty fun.

I agree with this.  Maybe it starts the clock over.  But, for example, Tank came in the day after and did one.  To my knowledge he has not been back.  I don't know why dupe accounts are double-secret worse than being combative or vulgar.

 

EDIT: Actually now that I read that:

  • Appeals of a CCSLC account banning are not eligible for accounts banned due to circumventing other CCSLC bans/suspensions or for accounts flagged as spam accounts.

I'd say that, for example, Tank could appeal as NJTank, but he could not appeal his dupe account (and why would he?).  NJTank was not banned due to circumventing.  It was banned for his argumentative behavior. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I agree with this.  Maybe it starts the clock over.  But, for example, Tank came in the day after and did one.  To my knowledge he has not been back.  I don't know why dupe accounts are double-secret worse than being combative or vulgar.

 

EDIT: Actually now that I read that:

  • Appeals of a CCSLC account banning are not eligible for accounts banned due to circumventing other CCSLC bans/suspensions or for accounts flagged as spam accounts.

I'd say that, for example, Tank could appeal as NJTank, but he could not appeal his dupe account (and why would he?).  NJTank was not banned due to circumventing.  It was banned for his argumentative behavior. 

But he created a dup account to circumvent the rules. He can't be allowed back based on how this is stated.

 

ETA - It's not the account, it's the person, that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sec19Row53 said:

But he created a dup account to circumvent the rules. He can't be allowed back based on how this is stated.

 

ETA - It's not the account, it's the person, that matters.

"for accounts banned due to circumventing"

 

I read this as being connected to the account and I also read it as applying to the dupe account.  My guess is that it was meant the way you are interpreting it (and I am sure a mod will get to this soon enough).  But I read it as NJTank being eligible but not Tank's "Sunglasses Bobby V" because the latter was banned due to circumventing another ban.  I don't read it as "people that ever created a dupe account."  And I don't quit understand why we'd consider bringing someone back for being a jerk, but not if they happened to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

"for accounts banned due to circumventing"

 

I read this as being connected to the account and I also read it as applying to the dupe account.  My guess is that it was meant the way you are interpreting it (and I am sure a mod will get to this soon enough).  But I read it as NJTank being eligible but not Tank's "Sunglasses Bobby V" because the latter was banned due to circumventing another ban.  I don't read it as "people that ever created a dupe account."  And I don't quit understand why we'd consider bringing someone back for being a jerk, but not if they happened to do that.

I'm guessing because dup accounts have been a no-no since the Nick voting scandal, so it becomes a clear line that can't be crossed. It is as clear a rule as can be, which makes enforcement easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

I'm guessing because dup accounts have been a no-no since the Nick voting scandal, so it becomes a clear line that can't be crossed. It is as clear a rule as can be, which makes enforcement easy.

Pretty much. It's an instant ban. Even if the original suspension was just for a week over something minor. If you attempt to circumnavigate it with a dupe account? Instant ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2018 at 8:28 PM, Ice_Cap said:

Pretty much. It's an instant ban. Even if the original suspension was just for a week over something minor. If you attempt to circumnavigate it with a dupe account? Instant ban.

 

So Tank would thus not be eligible for CCSLC parole?

 

 

EDIT: I just checked to see when Tank would be eligible -- only to realize he's been banned for two-and-a-half years. Time really does fly on these boards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigBubba said:

So Tank would thus not be eligible for CCSLC parole?

Nope. He had a dupe account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Nope. He had a dupe account.

Two, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2018 at 7:28 PM, Ice_Cap said:

Pretty much. It's an instant ban. Even if the original suspension was just for a week over something minor. If you attempt to circumnavigate it with a dupe account? Instant ban.

I'm unfamiliar with the Nick saga, so maybe that plays a part in why I don't quite understand what makes dupe accounts some unforgivable sin that automatically renders a user permabanned while (at least, I'd think) more harmful bannable offenses such as flaming and disruptive behavior aren't.

 

It doesn't quite follow that someone that got banned for circumnavigating a 2-week suspension over some dumb stuff is automatically disqualified but someone who got a banhammer over being belligerent (and frankly, IMO you'd have to be a special kind of :censored: to get banned over belligerence here) isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you create a dupe account solely to circumvent a suspension/ban you are showing blatant disregard for the policies of this community.  That's why it's a bannable offense.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LMU said:

If you create a dupe account solely to circumvent a suspension/ban you are showing blatant disregard for the policies of this community.  That's why it's a bannable offense.

 

True, but could you not say the same thing about, say, insisting on discussing politics or Native American imagery? There are many bannable offences that involve showing that same sort of disregard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making a dup acct is like gambling on baseball. Lots of players have done far worse, but that’s the one rule that’s posted everywhere and is clearly defined and non-arbitrary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BigBubba said:

 

True, but could you not say the same thing about, say, insisting on discussing politics or Native American imagery? There are many bannable offences that involve showing that same sort of disregard.

If you are circumventing a suspension/ban you have already committed a community offense such as, say, insisting on discussing politics or Native American imagery.  It’s not so much that it’s worse so much as it’s a a trigger when someone has already done enough to warrant a punishment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BigBubba said:

 

So Tank would thus not be eligible for CCSLC parole?

 

 

EDIT: I just checked to see when Tank would be eligible -- only to realize he's been banned for two-and-a-half years. Time really does fly on these boards.

That's not "these boards."  That's called getting old!

 

And I'm stunned that it's been 2.5 years...(getting old)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Kaz said:

I'm unfamiliar with the Nick saga, so maybe that plays a part in why I don't quite understand what makes dupe accounts some unforgivable sin that automatically renders a user permabanned while (at least, I'd think) more harmful bannable offenses such as flaming and disruptive behavior aren't.

You don’t have to be familiar with Nick, because dupe accounts have consistently been treated as a banable offence since then.

It doesn’t matter if you’re just a bit of a prick and get told to take a week off or do something that warrants a six month ban. If you create a dupe account? You’re proving that you have no respect for the rules of the community. 

 

Combine that with the potential for cheating in contests and fantasy manipulation that dupes have? It being an instant ban makes a lot of sense. 

 

Anyway I’m not just talking to you here, but everyone who questions the “dupe accounts equals a ban” rule; 

We are open to changing the way we do things in many ways. Hell, the current standards and methods we use as moderators is largely influenced by a deluge of userbase suggestions and complaints over the last five-eight years. 

 

That said? The “dupe account equals instant ban” rule is not going anywhere and is not up for negotiation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long eight years have gone by since I joined this forum. I was wondering. Can we request deletion of our oldest posts and topics? I feel so ashamed of some of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JohnnyRfl said:

Long eight years have gone by since I joined this forum. I was wondering. Can we request deletion of our oldest posts and topics? I feel so ashamed of some of them.

 

Just do what I did and edit them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's with the influx of spam accounts creating calendar events? Think we got a dozen or so last night alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites