Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Phil^
aaaaaaaaaaaand there goes my patience with you. If i was still in charge of support team i would be pulling you aside and asking you to improve your public behaviour.
So why did you ( allegedly ) let a known cheat back into your alliance, all sins forgiven?
Cheats prosper where they fear no punishment. A closed planet isnt much inducement for people to stop cheating entirely, being exiled and shunned from alliances is.
Does orbit have a standing policy of "your past is of no concern" in their recruitment?
Hardly, you posted again after saying this, so i tend to think you'll post again given enough time.
|
Phil, "if"-comments don't add to the discussion. It seems you only try to show off your former status and really that has nothing to do with it.
I am not HC anymore nor active, so the next statements I make are on my account only.
May I offer you the following to contemplate:
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.
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. 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. 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.
Cheers.