Okay, heres the deal. We have to count to 100 before a Moderator posts. If a moderator posts, we start over from one. Pretty self explanatory!
RULES 1.)You can't have back to back post. 2.)You can't continue if a mod stops you. 3.)You can have a normal discussion while counting Example P1= 1! So guys to you see the Cav's game last night. He made a SWEET buzzer beater! P2= 2! Yea, I have to admit, that buzzer beater was pretty cool even though I don't like the Cav's. P3= 3! I don't watch basketball but I have tried to make some buzzer beaters. They are really hard.
Lull. your two statements contradict eachother. People = always stereotype.
in terms of the internet, especially AG, users are treated the same, until they break the rules.
So long as you don't disrupt another.
disrupting another, in any way, shape, or form, is breaking the T&C, unless the plaintiff is complaining over nothing about the T&C, in which case a mod or admin will just mediate the situation.
Alright, I think we've gone in half-circles and triangles long enough... Graham, why shouldn't a mod ban you? You performed an action that was against the fundamental rules of the T&C, breaking 2 and maybe even three if you were really taunting Gantic. We also have evidence against you and your alts that you used to spam this thread. Given the assumption that a mod is right here and is deciding judgment, why shouldn't he/she ban you right this moment and await further judgment from an admin?
You performed an action that was against the fundamental rules of the T&C, breaking 2 and maybe even three if you were really taunting Gantic.
Because you can say i broke millions of things in the T&C, even I can say Gantic was:
* be libelous, defamatory, indecent, vulgar or obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit or sexually suggestive, racially, culturally, or ethnically offensive, harmful, harassing, intimidating, threatening, hateful, objectionable,discriminatory, or abusive, or which may or may appear to impersonate anyone else;
the object of my argument against the opinionated claim of 'spamming' was that it was for spamming with multiple accounts. I claim that you don't know if there's millions of these happenings. There could be one person 'spamming' (fitting the definition of his) with 20 accounts. Using your 'unique posting style' claim, you can ban hundreds of forum regulars for allegedly 'spamming' with multiple accounts, even if you are not sure it is the same person.
Gantic was this to you? He retaliated with a possible action because you were supposedly "taunting" him. And it only takes that one person to decide if you were actually taunting him. If it was wrong, then you could have taken it up with an admin or another mod with a different perspective to see if the action was just.
the object of my argument against the opinionated claim of 'spamming' was that it was for spamming with multiple accounts. I claim that you don't know if there's millions of these happenings. There could be one person 'spamming' (fitting the definition of his) with 20 accounts. Using your 'unique posting style' claim, you can ban hundreds of forum regulars for allegedly 'spamming' with multiple accounts, even if you are not sure it is the same person.
We never know if there are these millions of alts scattered around. The mods just need reason to believe that they are alts. For the moment, you did spam with alts and there is proof you did, so right now, I'm predicting some sort of "action" from a mod. So as long as there's irrefutable evidence that you owned the alts and you used them to spam a thread, I don't see why an action shouldn't present itself. Using this event as an "example" does not excuse such actions. The T&C is absolute law around here, you broke it, absolutely certain this is the end of it.
Multiple posts from within a short period of time. There is almost an entire page dedicated to you and your alts' spam of multiple posts. Maybe there isn't a rule in the T&C that defines spam as "multiple posts in a short amount of time using alts", because it is assumed that you are not, and if you are, you would be breaking multiple areas of the T&C.
He retaliated with a possible action because you were supposedly "taunting" him.
& he argued to set an example for others. I even justified my own 'taunt' by the next post of 'I am impatient'.
by using alts, you are encouraging others to do the same, which is not what AG was set out to accomplish. You knew darn well that using alts for such ways was against the rules, yet you did it anyway. Why? For teh lolz?
Alright last post, it's 4:00 and I gotta go to bed.
If you check the timing of the posts, it's not circumventing the 30 second rule. You're posting alot here in a short time too..
No one can circumvent the 30 second rule without hacks or using alts *cough*. At least you and your alts were posting in 1 minute intervals, save one pair that were in the same minute. The site doesn't save messages in seconds, only minutes. Using this, you posted well under a minute per post.
You speak for AG as if you ARE AG. you aren't.
'Course I'm not. But I know AG doesn't want to encourage the use of alt accounts.
So, all actions you do encourage others to do the same? if you crash your car, are you encouraging others to crash their car?
Unless you intentionally wanted to die, crashing your car would be an accident, whereas using alts to "ost multiple messages in short amounts of time" are intentional.
I may have just been going through a loop-hole in the rules of this thread for teh lulz.
Despite using alts, which are loopholed as not being in the T&C, alts still represent one person: you. Using alts, you have posted in almost an entire page in 3-4 minutes.
