| Author |
Topic: Bye Bye :( |
2930 replies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have our tentacles in every pie; probably why we are all so fat.
|
|
|
|
|
just say "bye-bye:(" and make us :)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Michael Winkley @ September 1st 2014,10:53:52 ) We have our tentacles in every pie; probably why we are all so fat.
Speak for yourself. :P
|
|
|
|
|
Agree with Kevin about the credits, they should be transferable at minimum.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Stuart Foster @ September 1st 2014,15:54:15 ) Agree with Kevin about the credits, they should be transferable at minimum.
Indeed. it's not as if providing the supporter features costs the crew any extra money. And it also means that our team will lose 2 supporters when they are deleted from the team with no way for them to donate them to others to keep our forums going :/
|
|
|
|
To me, whether credits are a donation or the purchase of a service is irrelevant. While some people may be wonderfully warm hearted individuals, more often than not people buy supporter credits for the supporter benefits (this may just be the cynic in me but I think most would agree). Since I believe this is the case, the admins must treat the credits as a purchase rather than a donation.
In the case of retirement, there should be no refunds (although I do believe a credit transfer system should be in place as a "thanks for the good times" gift) because retirement is a conscious choice by the person.
However, in the case of a ban it is unfair for the person who does the banning to profit off of the banned. While I'm sure the people who run GPRO are wonderful people, you can't always count on ethical people being in charge. There should be some form of checks and balances so a ban will only happen in an absolutely necessary situation.
I am fine with the transferable credits in a ban situation but I propose another idea where half of the credits are given to both parties. The banned player will lose half of his money as punishment for cheating and the game would keep half so cheaters don't get away for free and would actually support the game they tried to cheat. But, since the game would also lose half of the money, it makes bad financial sense to ban players who aren't absolutely in the wrong and would prevent petty bans and ban profiteering.
To sum up, it is not fair for the judge and jury to profit from the defendants loss. The current system reminds me a bit of some dictatorial states or a revolution of French origin...
|
|
|
|
|
so you're saying it's fair that the team they leave behind loses 2 supporters and has no more team forum access unless the remaining players fund a loss from a punishment that they had no involvement in?
|
|
|
|
In response to numerous community requests for more clarity surrounding such cases, Mr Shadow will make the following statement:
Josh and Jake Clark were banned due to violating rule 8.4, which involved the control of 7 accounts in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who were the other accounts???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
course, as she is the girl :P
7!?!?!
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe Jake and Josh were her DA's.
|
|
|
|
And? What about that Brazilian guy who had 4 accounts and had to admit it, keep one and keep his credits? If he had a brother I assume by those maths they would have 8.
Would they have been banned with credits stripped then or is 4 fine?
If four is the limit, I'll just create another three. (I'll be sure not to make them supporters though, you know, no refunds)
It's the double standards that gets me. Joan Cantellas (sp) still playing. Still holds all his records. They should be stripped. Daneks had a vagina for years and got free credits off people because of it. He's still here. The list goes on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Marcelo Santos @ November 12th 2011,18:43:05 ) Sorry but I have to disagree with that, All my 4 accounts were supporter and he banned all of them!
Just after 6 ban races and too much mercy he gave me a final chance at this game. So, he probably don't saw that yet, also, lots of girfriends, wives, and other ladies are been added to this game without any kind of further attention, so, don't worry be happy! :)
One particular couple is going back to elite these days and most likelly being played by the same ONLY person so... :D :X XXXX and XXXXX ... He just care that you don't mix the computers. after all, it's ONE PLAYER PER COMPUTER! :)
I quit this kind of jeopardy game, too dangerous and too risky to keep more than 1 account safe so, enough thrill for me.
Good luck to the ones that still do that.
Because someday, You'll make a mistake and, don't hope Mr. Shadow's mercy.
/gb/ManagerProfile.asp?IDM=31236
|
|
|
|
|
7 accounts...almost choked on my dinner. There's nearly no way that the evidence could be coincidental. Gotta be solid proof. Good on shadow to come out with the revelation. Nice to have that, rather than mindless bickering.
|
|
|
|
|
Webster eat your heart out :p. 7 accounts only? Yhhhes... Josh got banned without any reason.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Mr Shadow @ September 1st 2014,17:44:43 ) In response to numerous community requests for more clarity surrounding such cases, Mr Shadow will make the following statement:
Josh and Jake Clark were banned due to violating rule 8.4, which involved the control of 7 accounts in total.
Never believe the guy with only 1 star against his name. ;p
On a serious note, I think that any sympathy that there may have been must most definitely end here.
Systemic cheating is systemic cheating. Makes those others with blemishes against their name actually look a fair bit whiter.
Just for clarity; have all accounts been closed?
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Shoaib Mohamed @ September 1st 2014,18:16:28 ) 7 accounts...almost choked on my dinner
imagine how many drivers salaries you could reduce with them
|
|
|
|
|
Jake says it was only 5 ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finn, put a lid on it or that final warning will result in your forum permaban being triggered.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Kirsty Ridley @ September 1st 2014,18:26:43 ) Jake says it was only 5 ;)
You asked him?
Team forum, now. ;)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Michael Winkley @ September 1st 2014,18:24:26 ) On a serious note, I think that any sympathy that there may have been must most definitely end here.
Systemic cheating is systemic cheating. Makes those others with blemishes against their name actually look a fair bit whiter.
I think its fair to say its ok if everyone has one at least now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I just saw it, seems like many people instantly knew what was up.
|
|
|
|
|
Why? Even with 7 they were remarkably shit at the game; almost as bad as that Brazilian guy that you linked. I suppose that the Clarks were at least making a worthwhile contribution on the forums.
|
|
|
|
Ah I see, if you're not successful, one is fine.
Got ya.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Kirsty Ridley @ September 1st 2014,18:26:43 ) Jake says it was only 5 ;)
Jake - 5
Josh - 1
Sheila - 1
Total 7
Simple maths ;)
|
|
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
