Glenn will just email me anytime he wants to contribute. He has several times in the past.

I think posting on behalf of banned players should be a dock able offense, it is on other game and forum sites I've been a part of, they don't have forum posting rights for a reason.

Again? Isn't this getting a bit silly? I'm sure out in the real world Glenn is a great chap beloved by friends, family and orphans across the globe, but when he dons his Sandgoose hat and comes here the man has proven time and time again he can't help himself being a twat. Enough already.

So where are these important things that Sandgoose wishes to say? I see none.

Everything we want to hear from him is posted above.

But since this thread exists, that 1969 Dodge Charger raises an interesting issue for debate:

"I think posting on behalf of banned players should be a dockable offense, it is on other game and forum sites I've been a part of, they don't have forum posting rights for a reason."

I think there is merit to this proposal. Sandgoose is banned from this site. For his crimes against the community, he has been excluded from participating in the community. He is not allowed to post on the forum. Should others be allowed to post on the forum on his behalf? Or should this be a punishable offence, for allowing the banned player to circumvent a part of their exclusion?

What if King Atom told Sandgoose his password, and allowed Sandgoose to directly log in using the King Atom account, in order to post on the forum? That would seem wrong, wouldn't it? So should we also say it is wrong for King Atom to directly post on Sandgoose's behalf?

I'm not trolling - I think this is a point worthy of discussion.

Well, Gen. Lee, we don't have the ability to just ban from games, and nothing SandGoose did was against thebforum rules. But of the mods ever made a rule saying posting on behalf was a dockable offense, I would abide by it. Thankfully they haven't and your relative noob-ass opinion doesn't mean shit.

Now that it has been mentioned, perhaps I shall let SandGoose sit my account when I am out of town Memorial Weekend. Nothing in the rules prohibits it.

@Draug - IMO, that would break the "Use common sense rule." You can test it, but I think it would end badly if the mods found out. Very badly. And they would be within their right.

Yeah, come on, Draugnar. There may not be a specific rule saying you cannot have a banned player act as your sitter, but I think it's pretty obvious that would break the "common sense" rule.

Well, Gen. Lee, we don't have the ability to just ban from games.

Take away all his points. Sandgoose can then play no games.

"Thankfully they haven't and your relative noob-ass opinion doesn't mean shit"

Geez Draugnar. A bit harsh, aren't you?

Oh, I wouldn't actually do it without talking to abge or fortknox first.

And just because Sandgoose is your pal, that's no reason to call General Lee a "noob". As far as I'm concerned the question he raises is perfectly valid.

@ Draug - Whew! I knew you weren't totally batshit crazy.

He didn't "raise a question". He passed judgement and said it should be a dockable offense. He has been her less than a year and is deciding what the site mods should and shouldn't do. So yes, his noob-ass opinion smells like the asshole it exploded from.

Jimgov - I am a better player than Glenn so I'd rather not have him trash my games with shitty moves anyhow, especially not the A* league games assuming.ora gets everything worled out with the fucktards who ruined his spreadsheet by replacing nes and screwing with email addresses.

I think posting on behalf of banned players should be a dock able offense, it is on other game and forum sites I've been a part of, they don't have forum posting rights for a reason.

This is someone offering a suggestion. And what is wrong with his opinion?

@ Draugnar: "He didn't "raise a question". He passed judgement."

No. He said "I think" and then gave his opinion. He's entitled to do that, you know.

Where was the question? I see no questionmark or typo'd period where one should have been. Oh and finny you shoild mention he has a right to post his opinion. I too have a right to post mine and my opinion is he deserved some.ridicule and is a noob.

Draugnar: Saying "I think <something>" is hardly "passing judgement and deciding what the mods should and shouldn't do". Calm yourself.

Anyway, rather than having an argument about whether you need to have been a site member for 10 years before you're entitled to an opinion, I'd like to have a discussion about the opinion that was raised. Since I've been a site member for a few years and I'm a donator, perhaps I'm entitled to raise this if for some reason Gen. Lee isn't?

Draugnar, you seem to feel that if someone cheats in games, and is banned, they should still have some form of access to the forum because their cheating was game-related not forum-related. Before I proceed to say anything else, can you confirm whether that is that a fair summary of your position?

Hey Jamie. I'm here to have fun. If Glenn asks me.to post something and the mods haven't said it is a rule violation, I am.happy to post it. He normally just asks ke.to tell.someone happy birthday or some.such for him. Bit this guy is clearly of the opinion I am.committing some.offense and should be punished for it.

I'm here to have fun too. Serial cheaters like Sandgoose spoil my fun.

So, anyway, your view is clear - people should be allowed to act as mouthpieces for banned ex-members. But I think it could be argued that if you're banned, you're banned - you've violated the rules of the site and insulted the community by doing so. In that case, I'd argue that the ban should apply to all aspects of the site including the forum, and that players should be discouraged from passing on messages on behalf of people who are banned. I certainly think that banned members should not be allowed to act as sitters - that just seems daft.

As you say, there is currently nothing explicity stated in the rules about either scenario. Would a moderator like to comment?

If their cheating was strictly in game and tye mods deem their forum participation in tye past was a net positive, then yes. I do believe that. But I believe ot should be a mod judgement call. But I also believe in free speech including the freedom.to repeat the speech of others, relaying their message if I or someone else so chooses. Heck, the mods just posted an apology from Agent K. So it can't be wrong.to.post from.Glenn as it is the exact same.thing (one of my.posts from.him was an apology, albeit a weak and half hearted one blaming his brother).

My sitting thing was a knee jerk reaction. But the fact is the mods just posted a letter from Agent K begging to be allowed back on. How is that different?

I take your point, but it is *somewhat* different because they are the mods. I would be comfortable with a rule that says that a banned member wishing to communicate with the community should email the mods, and if the mods, in their judgement, feel there is a reason for relaying their comments to the community (as they have clearly done in the Agent K case), they can facilitate that.

And I want to apologize to Gen. Lee. My comment was a lnee jerk (or just plain jerk) reaction. Sorry. It shouldn't have happened and I will endeavor to not repeat that mistake again.

+1 Draug

(Oh the +1's are working again, I see...)

I didn't know Sandgoose and don't give two shits about him. I do know this: the assmunch cheated badly and often enough that he was banned from the site. That he manages to find a way back on to the forums is offensive to me. He has tried it with multi-accounts and been banned *again*.

It was slightly amusing the first time he showed up again via a puppet-mouth of an unbanned player...now it's just like he's rubbing it in the face of the community. "Ha ha...you wanted me out...but I keep getting back in!!"

If you want to maintain a relationship with a cheater, do so on your own time, outside. If he wants to pass birthday wishes on to a friend...well, not much of a fucking friend if he doesn't even have an email address, is it?

I also find it rather ironic that Draug wishes to see Sandgooses continued access to the forums - despite having the mods *directly* address not allowing him any continued access to the forums (no...we won't make a 0-point account - we don't want him here). And yet draug does not support the return of another repentant cheater, who has *NOT* pulled all the bullshit on an on-going basis like Sanddick has.

Therefore, hell yes - dock point for people that wish to be the mouthpiece of the cheating fuck. I'm all for it. If you want to openly declare that you are aiding the ongoing site rule violations of a cheat, then do so at cost, and we'll see how valuable you really think passing his messages on are.

who the fuck is sandgeese

Sandgoose we will never forget you.

I think this is a silly suggestion, for the same reason I think virtually every suggested limitation of free speech on the forum is a silly suggestion. Whom is it hurting? Nobody. If you don't like it, mute it.

Also, it is false to say that because Sandgoose gets somebody to post for him on the forum, he is being illegitimately given the right to continue posting on the forum even though he's banned. He's not at all. What that would look like is an ability to post whatever he liked, whenever he liked, on whatever thread he liked.

Rather, what he has in an ability sometimes to convince another human being who does have posting rights to freely choose to pass on a message using their own autonomous right to post. If Draug posts a message from SG, it's because he chose to, and SG can't make him do it. It's no different from if Draug chooses to pass on an article from the London Telegraph or a dream he had last night: Draug can post whatever the heck he wants to.

Ask yourself where this would go. What if SG sent Draug something to post that didn't refer to his identity, and Draug posted it without saying it was from Sandgoose. Would that be a violation too? Would we have to start combing style to see if someone had illegitimately taken content from a banned user?

If so, then not only would it be impractical and ridiculous (and lead to a very easy ability to make false accusations), it would be an incoherent and _per se_ absurd attitude: why should Draug be punished for thinking that some content has value and is worth sharing just because the source of the content is a banned player?

And if not, then you're being inconsistent. If the only thing you want to ban is Draug's ability to post things that are self-attested Sandgoose posts, where's the rationale for that? What if they make a point that Draug wants made, but the (claimed) identity of the writer as Sandgoose is crucial to the point being made? (It's not that hard to imagine such a scenario). What is the benefit of banning such things?

In any case, be clear that it's not Sandgoose's freedom you'd be restricting, it's Draug's (and all the rest of ours too). There is absolutely no need for such censorship.

wait... who is sandgeese tho?

is he knew

Alright then, from now on, I'll specify in each of my posts if I'm being serious.

Taking krellin's post one step further, how is KA's posting for a banned player any different from Sandgoose posting with a multi account?

Honestly, SG can ask people as often as he wants to post for him. Every time I see one of these threads, I'm more sure banning him was the right decision. So, keep it up, SG.

@2WL - The difference is simple. If KA or I don't like the message, we can tell Gleen to go.pound sand. A multi account has no such freedom.

hey draugnar go.pound.sand.

Now what did I do to you #fuckthucy ? I said I could tell *Glenn* to go pound sand. Gleen is Sandgoose.

Am I the only one wondering when Sandgoose became a vicar?

who is gleen is he knew

Sandgeese - clever reference to the fact that sandgoose was a multi

hey draugnar hows the abuse complaint coming

whose gleen