06-03-2012, 20:26,
|
|
geckosquid
Bookshelf Miner
geckosquid
|
|
Posts: 2,973
Threads: 126
Joined: Jan 2011
|
geckomaster576
Christian.Bolles
|
N/A
geckosquid
|
|
RE: Ban Request: Nlewis, Pwolbart, Connor and Co
(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.
Love,
Gecko
|
|
06-03-2012, 20:28,
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2012, 20:30 by Riskae.)
|
|
Riskae
Diamond Miner
Riskae
|
|
Posts: 530
Threads: 23
Joined: Jun 2011
|
Riskae
Risky995
|
|
|
RE: Ban Request: Nlewis, Pwolbart, Connor and Co
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.
|
|
06-03-2012, 20:30,
|
|
geckosquid
Bookshelf Miner
geckosquid
|
|
Posts: 2,973
Threads: 126
Joined: Jan 2011
|
geckomaster576
Christian.Bolles
|
N/A
geckosquid
|
|
RE: Ban Request: Nlewis, Pwolbart, Connor and Co
(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.
Love,
Gecko
|
|
06-03-2012, 20:32,
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2012, 20:33 by Riskae.)
|
|
Riskae
Diamond Miner
Riskae
|
|
Posts: 530
Threads: 23
Joined: Jun 2011
|
Riskae
Risky995
|
|
|
RE: Ban Request: Nlewis, Pwolbart, Connor and Co
(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.
|
|
06-03-2012, 20:38,
|
|
asdfasdflkjty911
Bedrock Miner
asdfasdflkjty911
|
|
Posts: 1,472
Threads: 98
Joined: Jan 2011
|
DirtyR0jo
Alec.Harward
|
DirtyR0jo
Frank_the_zumbi
|
|
RE: Ban Request: Nlewis, Pwolbart, Connor and Co
I was never aware that this server had "Ban Requests"... Isnt it the Mods duty to ban who they think needs banning?
|
|
06-03-2012, 21:33,
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2012, 21:33 by Riskae.)
|
|
Riskae
Diamond Miner
Riskae
|
|
Posts: 530
Threads: 23
Joined: Jun 2011
|
Riskae
Risky995
|
|
|
RE: Ban Request: Nlewis, Pwolbart, Connor and Co
(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.
|
|
06-03-2012, 21:39,
|
|
bvcxzmn
Obsidian Miner
bvcxzmn
|
|
Posts: 824
Threads: 33
Joined: May 2012
|
bvcxzmn
bvcxzm11
|
meltedsolid
joethebiden-_
|
|
RE: Ban Request: Nlewis, Pwolbart, Connor and Co
Wow, 29 pages! I think at least a temporary lock is a good idea.
1% OF THE POPULATION CONTROL 99% OF THE FORCE
OCCUPY DAGOBAH
|
|
06-03-2012, 21:48,
|
|
Riskae
Diamond Miner
Riskae
|
|
Posts: 530
Threads: 23
Joined: Jun 2011
|
Riskae
Risky995
|
|
|
RE: Ban Request: Nlewis, Pwolbart, Connor and Co
The fact that there are 29 pages shows how important this is and only shows that it should stay live
|
|
06-03-2012, 21:57,
|
|
NLewis
Banned Miner
NLewis
|
|
Posts: 292
Threads: 39
Joined: Dec 2010
|
ginginman
californiaairboy
|
|
|
RE: Ban Request: Nlewis, Pwolbart, Connor and Co
(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.
|
|
06-03-2012, 22:31,
|
|
Android
Bookshelf Miner
Android24557
|
|
Posts: 3,344
Threads: 112
Joined: Dec 2010
|
|
|
|
RE: Ban Request: Nlewis, Pwolbart, Connor and Co
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.
|
|
|