All posts by ShadowOfOblivion7119

A reply to ZXSpidermanXZ

0

ShadowOfOblivion7119·9/5/2015

A.

(Edited by ShadowOfOblivion7119)

A reply to ZXSpidermanXZ

0

ShadowOfOblivion7119·8/30/2015

Slicer Vorzakh wrote:
I think legitimate reason needs to be defined, but B

This...or C, most likely B.

(Edited by ShadowOfOblivion7119)

A reply to I'mDivergent

0

ShadowOfOblivion7119·8/30/2015

B.

(Edited by ShadowOfOblivion7119)

A reply to Nightfall395

0

ShadowOfOblivion7119·8/14/2015

RepComCustoms. wrote:

Harold89 wrote:
C, per rep.

Yeh. Dis guy knows what's up. :P

Indeeeeed, wait. I SAID PER REP :P

(Edited by ShadowOfOblivion7119)

A reply to Nightfall395

0

ShadowOfOblivion7119·8/13/2015

C for what Rep

(Edited by ShadowOfOblivion7119)

A reply to Avalair

0

ShadowOfOblivion7119·8/5/2015

Slicer Vorzakh wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

LilCaSh15 wrote:
A. Please.

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

Keplers wrote:
I don't care about chat that much but these "experiments" have only proven that when something of low value is taken away...

The subjects simply find something of equal or greater value to replace it.

OMG YER AN ALCHEMIST YOU MENTIONED EQIVALANT EXCHANGE OMG :P

in any case, I vote B, it's somewhat ridiculous.

Sorry Shadow, but this is a chat-related vote, and you currently have a 2-month chatban, so this vote won't be counted.

Thanks for your input, though!

First off, leave me alone, let someone I respect, preferably with a star, do it, because if you do it, I won't acknowledge it.

Sorry Shadow, but this is a chat-related vote, and you currently have a 2-month chatban, so this vote won't be counted. Thanks for your input, though!

hey im a guy with a star

Yeah yeah, you copy/pasted, bravo. I'm still giving my imput, so deal with it.

(Edited by ShadowOfOblivion7119)

A reply to Avalair

0

ShadowOfOblivion7119·8/5/2015

LilCaSh15 wrote:
A. Please.

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

Keplers wrote:
I don't care about chat that much but these "experiments" have only proven that when something of low value is taken away...

The subjects simply find something of equal or greater value to replace it.

OMG YER AN ALCHEMIST YOU MENTIONED EQIVALANT EXCHANGE OMG :P

in any case, I vote B, it's somewhat ridiculous.

Sorry Shadow, but this is a chat-related vote, and you currently have a 2-month chatban, so this vote won't be counted.

Thanks for your input, though!

First off, leave me alone, let someone I respect, preferably with a star, do it, because if you do it, I won't acknowledge it.

(Edited by ShadowOfOblivion7119)

A reply to Avalair

0

ShadowOfOblivion7119·8/5/2015

Why don't we turn off Message Walls, then?

(Edited by ShadowOfOblivion7119)

A reply to Avalair

0

ShadowOfOblivion7119·8/5/2015

Keplers wrote:
I don't care about chat that much but these "experiments" have only proven that when something of low value is taken away...

The subjects simply find something of equal or greater value to replace it.

OMG YER AN ALCHEMIST YOU MENTIONED EQIVALANT EXCHANGE OMG :P

in any case, I vote B, it's somewhat ridiculous.

(Edited by ShadowOfOblivion7119)

A reply to Alemas2005

0

ShadowOfOblivion7119·8/4/2015

Alemas2005 wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:
C) iii, ii

is this getting counted?

Yeah.

kool

(Edited by ShadowOfOblivion7119)

A reply to Alemas2005

0

ShadowOfOblivion7119·8/4/2015

Alemas2005 wrote:

Riolu777 wrote:
Edit meaning mainspace?

If so, A ii, B i

...I meant in general, really.

Not restricted to mainspace.

It should be mainspace too.

(Edited by ShadowOfOblivion7119)

A reply to Alemas2005

0

ShadowOfOblivion7119·8/3/2015

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:
C) iii, ii

is this getting counted?

(Edited by ShadowOfOblivion7119)

A reply to ShadowOfOblivion7119

0

ShadowOfOblivion7119·8/3/2015

Slicer Vorzakh wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

Slicer Vorzakh wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

Avalair wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

LilCaSh15 wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

LilCaSh15 wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

Nightfall395 wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

Goggles99 wrote:
B.

If we don't use solid proof to determine if someone is a dupe and should be banned....then... what do we use?? A hunch? A slight suspicion? I can't see how this could be fair or feasible at all...

We don't need the dupes to say "Oh hey guys, I'm" and something. We can determine based on their behavior, username and more. We don't need them to just shout "HEY WORLD, I AM" or something. Something like this happened in chat, so I wanted a vote.

once again can you acknowledge the existence of cu for once

They are so little, and we don't always have enough time for a CU because they leave before they can be checked!

Well then, if they're not causing trouble, you can wait for a CU to come back on. If they are causing trouble, they'll likely be banned anyways.

They can cause trouble without directly violating the rules.

Then the mods can use the common sense policy to ban them

Apparently not, otherwise the problem that sparked this vote wouldn't have happened

What problem? :P

You weren't on chat. There were a couple dupes that the CM team online couldn't ban because they didn't technically violate any rules officially, and we couldn't 150% prove they were dupes.

If you're talking about the incident with me and another mod a few nights ago, we could not have banned them because of the common sense policy. The common sense policy isn't used for excuses to ban people but for excuses not to ban people (or so I'm told). Because we were only 99% sure who he was we couldn't ban him.

He was clearly trolling, that should've been enough. Btw, you suggested we made a vote outta this :P

One could say his behavior was the result of people accusing him of being a dupe.

...he didn't know what a country was, and he said he lived on Panawan Manilla, or something. Which, are two different islands.

The first reason alone should've been clear warrant of a kick, at the least

(Edited by ShadowOfOblivion7119)

A reply to ShadowOfOblivion7119

0

ShadowOfOblivion7119·8/3/2015

Slicer Vorzakh wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

Avalair wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

LilCaSh15 wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

LilCaSh15 wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

Nightfall395 wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

Goggles99 wrote:
B.

If we don't use solid proof to determine if someone is a dupe and should be banned....then... what do we use?? A hunch? A slight suspicion? I can't see how this could be fair or feasible at all...

We don't need the dupes to say "Oh hey guys, I'm" and something. We can determine based on their behavior, username and more. We don't need them to just shout "HEY WORLD, I AM" or something. Something like this happened in chat, so I wanted a vote.

once again can you acknowledge the existence of cu for once

They are so little, and we don't always have enough time for a CU because they leave before they can be checked!

Well then, if they're not causing trouble, you can wait for a CU to come back on. If they are causing trouble, they'll likely be banned anyways.

They can cause trouble without directly violating the rules.

Then the mods can use the common sense policy to ban them

Apparently not, otherwise the problem that sparked this vote wouldn't have happened

What problem? :P

You weren't on chat. There were a couple dupes that the CM team online couldn't ban because they didn't technically violate any rules officially, and we couldn't 150% prove they were dupes.

If you're talking about the incident with me and another mod a few nights ago, we could not have banned them because of the common sense policy. The common sense policy isn't used for excuses to ban people but for excuses not to ban people (or so I'm told). Because we were only 99% sure who he was we couldn't ban him.

He was clearly trolling, that should've been enough. Btw, you suggested we made a vote outta this :P

(Edited by ShadowOfOblivion7119)

A reply to Alemas2005

0

ShadowOfOblivion7119·8/3/2015

C) iii, ii

(Edited by ShadowOfOblivion7119)

A reply to ShadowOfOblivion7119

0

ShadowOfOblivion7119·8/3/2015

Avalair wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

LilCaSh15 wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

LilCaSh15 wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

Nightfall395 wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

Goggles99 wrote:
B.

If we don't use solid proof to determine if someone is a dupe and should be banned....then... what do we use?? A hunch? A slight suspicion? I can't see how this could be fair or feasible at all...

We don't need the dupes to say "Oh hey guys, I'm" and something. We can determine based on their behavior, username and more. We don't need them to just shout "HEY WORLD, I AM" or something. Something like this happened in chat, so I wanted a vote.

once again can you acknowledge the existence of cu for once

They are so little, and we don't always have enough time for a CU because they leave before they can be checked!

Well then, if they're not causing trouble, you can wait for a CU to come back on. If they are causing trouble, they'll likely be banned anyways.

They can cause trouble without directly violating the rules.

Then the mods can use the common sense policy to ban them

Apparently not, otherwise the problem that sparked this vote wouldn't have happened

What problem? :P

You weren't on chat. There were a couple dupes that the CM team online couldn't ban because they didn't technically violate any rules officially, and we couldn't 150% prove they were dupes.

(Edited by ShadowOfOblivion7119)

A reply to ShadowOfOblivion7119

0

ShadowOfOblivion7119·8/3/2015

LilCaSh15 wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

LilCaSh15 wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

Nightfall395 wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

Goggles99 wrote:
B.

If we don't use solid proof to determine if someone is a dupe and should be banned....then... what do we use?? A hunch? A slight suspicion? I can't see how this could be fair or feasible at all...

We don't need the dupes to say "Oh hey guys, I'm" and something. We can determine based on their behavior, username and more. We don't need them to just shout "HEY WORLD, I AM" or something. Something like this happened in chat, so I wanted a vote.

once again can you acknowledge the existence of cu for once

They are so little, and we don't always have enough time for a CU because they leave before they can be checked!

Well then, if they're not causing trouble, you can wait for a CU to come back on. If they are causing trouble, they'll likely be banned anyways.

They can cause trouble without directly violating the rules.

Then the mods can use the common sense policy to ban them

Apparently not, otherwise the problem that sparked this vote wouldn't have happened

(Edited by ShadowOfOblivion7119)

A reply to ShadowOfOblivion7119

0

ShadowOfOblivion7119·8/3/2015

Avalair wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

Nightfall395 wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

Goggles99 wrote:
B.

If we don't use solid proof to determine if someone is a dupe and should be banned....then... what do we use?? A hunch? A slight suspicion? I can't see how this could be fair or feasible at all...

We don't need the dupes to say "Oh hey guys, I'm" and something. We can determine based on their behavior, username and more. We don't need them to just shout "HEY WORLD, I AM" or something. Something like this happened in chat, so I wanted a vote.

once again can you acknowledge the existence of cu for once

They are so little, and we don't always have enough time for a CU because they leave before they can be checked!

Well if they are a troll then its usualy a good thing if they leave.

Also, they can still be checked after they leave.

But if we don't dish out bans and stuff, then they won't learn!

(Edited by ShadowOfOblivion7119)

A reply to ShadowOfOblivion7119

0

ShadowOfOblivion7119·8/3/2015

LilCaSh15 wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

Nightfall395 wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

Goggles99 wrote:
B.

If we don't use solid proof to determine if someone is a dupe and should be banned....then... what do we use?? A hunch? A slight suspicion? I can't see how this could be fair or feasible at all...

We don't need the dupes to say "Oh hey guys, I'm" and something. We can determine based on their behavior, username and more. We don't need them to just shout "HEY WORLD, I AM" or something. Something like this happened in chat, so I wanted a vote.

once again can you acknowledge the existence of cu for once

They are so little, and we don't always have enough time for a CU because they leave before they can be checked!

Well then, if they're not causing trouble, you can wait for a CU to come back on. If they are causing trouble, they'll likely be banned anyways.

They can cause trouble without directly violating the rules.

(Edited by ShadowOfOblivion7119)

A reply to ShadowOfOblivion7119

0

ShadowOfOblivion7119·8/3/2015

Nightfall395 wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

Goggles99 wrote:
B.

If we don't use solid proof to determine if someone is a dupe and should be banned....then... what do we use?? A hunch? A slight suspicion? I can't see how this could be fair or feasible at all...

We don't need the dupes to say "Oh hey guys, I'm" and something. We can determine based on their behavior, username and more. We don't need them to just shout "HEY WORLD, I AM" or something. Something like this happened in chat, so I wanted a vote.

once again can you acknowledge the existence of cu for once

They are so little, and we don't always have enough time for a CU because they leave before they can be checked!

(Edited by ShadowOfOblivion7119)