[Phil^]

Originally Posted by Membrivio

Phil, "if"-comments don't add to the discussion.

On the contrary, they inform you of a chain of events that would happen under a different set of circumstances, and serve as a pointer for others as a suggested course of action.
Your collective inability to argue rationally in the written medium does not discount their validity.

Originally Posted by Membrivio

Suppose that someone in an alliance has a clean record of over 11 rounds, added value to the alliance for many many rounds and has shown a good heart for the alliance round after round. One day he is so stupid to commit a cynical foul for which he is punished by a closed and deleted account.

Then i would gladly wash my hands of them.
There is no room for any tolerance of cheats in this game imho.

Originally Posted by Membrivio

Here I wish to make a comparison: the Denial HC used a bug to gain advantage. They got reset and were able to play on. Without approving the multiiing, I think Masta_Mark has been punished excessively if we compare it with the Denial cheating case.

Hold on a minute, are you questioning the decision of the multihunters here?
Would you have preferred they turn a blind eye to his actions? I sincerely hope not.
He has been punished entirely appropriately by the multihunters, neither excessively nor inadequately.

Originally Posted by Membrivio

Now you could say: you can't compare the cases! Well, you can: type of cheating and following punishment are comparable. And my conclusion is that or Masta_Mark was punished too fiercely or the Denial HC too lenient.

'do as i say not as i do' ?
Perhaps you consider the punishment too harsh because it was done to your alliance as opposed to another.
A closure is the only response to someone with multiple accounts.

Originally Posted by Membrivio

For the record: I do not condone any cheating.
Taken the past into consideration the Orbit HC may decide to give Mark a second chance which is fair if we see his spotless record of 11 or more rounds. If they take him in again he will have to prove that this is an incident and that he can start a new streak of cheatingless rounds.
I contend that if you think about it objectively, you could come to the same conclusion.

Who can tell if his record is spotless? Absence of public closure does not mean absence of cheating.
Are you simply taking his word for it that he hasn't done it before, and wont do it again?
Would you take killmarks word that he isnt using bots?
Personally, I wouldnt even take the risk and would reject him. But then again, its your own alliances reputation that you're responsible for as a HC. If they want to let in a convicted cheat then on their own heads be it.