+- Kiwike forums (http://kiwike.yottabyte.nu/forum)
+-- Forum: Community (http://kiwike.yottabyte.nu/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Bin (http://kiwike.yottabyte.nu/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=27)
+---- Forum: Kiwike: Revamped (http://kiwike.yottabyte.nu/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=51)
+----- Forum: Support (http://kiwike.yottabyte.nu/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=55)
+------ Forum: Ban Appeals/Requests (http://kiwike.yottabyte.nu/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=60)
+------ Thread: Ban Request: Nlewis, Pwolbart, Connor and Co (/showthread.php?tid=3388)
RE: Ban Request: Nlewis, Pwolbart, Connor and Co - geckosquid - 06-03-2012
(06-03-2012, 20:12)Riskae Wrote:(06-03-2012, 20:09)NLewis Wrote: I do not understand the logic in this thread.
The point of this thread was to get us ban because we were raiding you guys too much. We have agreed to a comprimise which stops us from raiding and stops you from raiding us so it is not unfair. But now, you want us ban because this is farfetched and it is unfair to You?
Please explain what you want to happen Cell? What do you want?
Did you even read the first post in this thread! The point of this thread is to have you banned because of all the rules you have broken and for being an absolute asshole since 2.0 and even before that.
(06-03-2012, 20:11)geckosquid Wrote: Cell, suggest another compromise if you have one.
Ban them.
That's not a compromise. Read up.
Anyways, a ban on raiding is no longer necessary. Let's just lock this thread.
RE: Ban Request: Nlewis, Pwolbart, Connor and Co - Riskae - 06-03-2012
Yeah that's why it's called a ban request and it should not be locked until we come to a conclusion. Threads aren't locked because you don't like the content crash.
(06-03-2012, 20:26)geckosquid Wrote:(06-03-2012, 20:12)Riskae Wrote:(06-03-2012, 20:09)NLewis Wrote: I do not understand the logic in this thread.
The point of this thread was to get us ban because we were raiding you guys too much. We have agreed to a comprimise which stops us from raiding and stops you from raiding us so it is not unfair. But now, you want us ban because this is farfetched and it is unfair to You?
Please explain what you want to happen Cell? What do you want?
Did you even read the first post in this thread! The point of this thread is to have you banned because of all the rules you have broken and for being an absolute asshole since 2.0 and even before that.
(06-03-2012, 20:11)geckosquid Wrote: Cell, suggest another compromise if you have one.
Ban them.
That's not a compromise. Read up.
Anyways, a ban on raiding is no longer necessary. Let's just lock this thread.
That's not what this thread is about
You should not lock a thread because it is on topic that is stupid. Just because you think the it was made to "ban raiding" doesn't mean it was.
RE: Ban Request: Nlewis, Pwolbart, Connor and Co - geckosquid - 06-03-2012
(06-03-2012, 20:28)Riskae Wrote: Yeah that's why it's called a ban request and it should not be locked until we come to a conclusion. Threads aren't locked because you don't like the content crash.
(06-03-2012, 20:26)geckosquid Wrote:(06-03-2012, 20:12)Riskae Wrote:(06-03-2012, 20:09)NLewis Wrote: I do not understand the logic in this thread.
The point of this thread was to get us ban because we were raiding you guys too much. We have agreed to a comprimise which stops us from raiding and stops you from raiding us so it is not unfair. But now, you want us ban because this is farfetched and it is unfair to You?
Please explain what you want to happen Cell? What do you want?
Did you even read the first post in this thread! The point of this thread is to have you banned because of all the rules you have broken and for being an absolute asshole since 2.0 and even before that.
(06-03-2012, 20:11)geckosquid Wrote: Cell, suggest another compromise if you have one.
Ban them.
That's not a compromise. Read up.
Anyways, a ban on raiding is no longer necessary. Let's just lock this thread.
That's not what this thread is about
Pfft, whatever. If yotta wanted them banned for these things, he would have stepped in. We can lock this thread now.
RE: Ban Request: Nlewis, Pwolbart, Connor and Co - Riskae - 06-03-2012
(06-03-2012, 20:30)geckosquid Wrote:(06-03-2012, 20:28)Riskae Wrote: Yeah that's why it's called a ban request and it should not be locked until we come to a conclusion. Threads aren't locked because you don't like the content crash.
(06-03-2012, 20:26)geckosquid Wrote:(06-03-2012, 20:12)Riskae Wrote:(06-03-2012, 20:09)NLewis Wrote: I do not understand the logic in this thread.
The point of this thread was to get us ban because we were raiding you guys too much. We have agreed to a comprimise which stops us from raiding and stops you from raiding us so it is not unfair. But now, you want us ban because this is farfetched and it is unfair to You?
Please explain what you want to happen Cell? What do you want?
Did you even read the first post in this thread! The point of this thread is to have you banned because of all the rules you have broken and for being an absolute asshole since 2.0 and even before that.
(06-03-2012, 20:11)geckosquid Wrote: Cell, suggest another compromise if you have one.
Ban them.
That's not a compromise. Read up.
Anyways, a ban on raiding is no longer necessary. Let's just lock this thread.
That's not what this thread is about
Pfft, whatever. If yotta wanted them banned for these things, he would have stepped in. We can lock this thread now.
Yotta should make a statement then.
Three strikes and your out. They far exceeded that a long time ago.
RE: Ban Request: Nlewis, Pwolbart, Connor and Co - asdfasdflkjty911 - 06-03-2012
I was never aware that this server had "Ban Requests"... Isnt it the Mods duty to ban who they think needs banning?
RE: Ban Request: Nlewis, Pwolbart, Connor and Co - Riskae - 06-03-2012
(06-03-2012, 20:38)asdfasdflkjty911 Wrote: I was never aware that this server had "Ban Requests"... Isnt it the Mods duty to ban who they think needs banning?
If you had read the first post you could see that I said a mod requested that I make this.
RE: Ban Request: Nlewis, Pwolbart, Connor and Co - bvcxzmn - 06-03-2012
Wow, 29 pages! I think at least a temporary lock is a good idea.
RE: Ban Request: Nlewis, Pwolbart, Connor and Co - Riskae - 06-03-2012
The fact that there are 29 pages shows how important this is and only shows that it should stay live
RE: Ban Request: Nlewis, Pwolbart, Connor and Co - NLewis - 06-03-2012
(06-03-2012, 21:48)Riskae Wrote: The fact that there are 29 pages shows how important this is and only shows that it should stay live
This thread is just flaming. Not importance.
RE: Ban Request: Nlewis, Pwolbart, Connor and Co - Android - 06-03-2012
NLewis is correct. All it shows is how many people happen to be opposed to them for raiding, which is basically the entire nation of Prometheus, and then some.