Fined Zach $260k (in Public Record)

bartjan December 29 2006 2:54 AM EST

For being non-PG while impersonating someone else.

MissingNo December 29 2006 3:09 AM EST

...He wasn't pretending to be Ranger. He wanted the name and it was fair game because Ranger changed his name.

AdminNightStrike December 29 2006 3:10 AM EST

bart, how did you come up with the number $260k?

MissingNo December 29 2006 3:11 AM EST

I didn't even know you could get fined for being unPG in chat. It's most usually a boot for that isn't it? And I was there the whole time. He never impersonated anyone or tried to pretend he was the real Ranger. And I'd like to mention "Money: $-4,316".....

Flamey December 29 2006 3:53 AM EST

negative money doesn't matter.

I got fined into -$126k, fight with another character, or sell some junk, I had quite a lot of it, so I sold some and fought with another character for a while. Get a interest-free loan, if you're that scared.

He wasn't impersonating as far as I could tell, I wasn't there, but when I asked ranger, It didn't seem ranger was offended.

MissingNo December 29 2006 3:56 AM EST

I'm pretty sure he wasn't offended either. Ranger voluntarily gave up the name because he said he wanted something new. I don't see why Zach be fined with impersonating Ranger when he wasn't.

AdminNightStrike December 29 2006 5:24 AM EST

bart, how did you arrive at the value of $260,000 for this fine?

Adminedyit [Superheros] December 29 2006 5:35 AM EST

why do people question decisions like this? especially coming from someone like bartjan.

TH3 C0113CT0R December 29 2006 7:15 AM EST

I disagress, also, he wasn't impersonating, and this is the FIRST time i have heard of a fine for being unPG, usually it is a boot right?

QBsutekh137 December 29 2006 7:44 AM EST

Why do people ask questions? I get answers? What does the fact that it was bartjan have to do with it? NS's question is entirely legitimate.

My assumption would be that bart used that figure to essentially take "all" of Zach's money, since someone mentioned he is a bit in the hole now...

winner winner December 29 2006 7:46 AM EST

how'd he get negative

AdminShade December 29 2006 7:48 AM EST

because of the fine... (it can bring you into the negative)

A Lesser AR of 15 [Red Permanent Assurance] December 29 2006 7:50 AM EST

Zack has been here long enough and kicked enough to know/pretend right from wrong in chat. Impersonating or not the boy needed more than a wrist slap this time.

AdminNightStrike December 29 2006 8:04 AM EST

"why do people question decisions like this? especially coming from someone like bartjan."

Because the decision is questionable. bartjan is not special.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] December 29 2006 10:22 AM EST

fines for long term users who swear after being warned are standard, just because you folks haven't been around long enough to have seen it means nothing...

Admin bashers...go play in the street...

QBRanger December 29 2006 10:48 AM EST

For those who say I was not offended, I have no idea what the new Ranger said in chat.

For those upset he was fined for non PG in chat, please look at the following threads:

So, folks, it is not like this has not been done before.

So let the admins do their job.

MissingNo December 29 2006 11:46 AM EST

Novice, I don't know what your problem is, but really, grow up. Between the two of us, you're supposed to be an adult, but on every single thread I see you trying to talk down to others and trying to make them feel inferior. "Go play in the street"? Sure, I'll go play in the street as soon as you can learn a little maturity. And to clarify, no one was bashing any admins. I was concerned because I didn't think the consequences fit the crime, which I guess I'm apparently wrong, but that's fine. But honestly, learn that people can describe their opinions without the need to put others down. And if you're going to put others down, you can be a little more original than belittling people because they're younger than you (which you happen to do oh-so very much).

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] December 29 2006 12:00 PM EST

I'll belittle you short, ignorant, mouthy turds when ever and where ever I want...

I was talking to NS in particular, who consistantly takes every chance he gets to claim admin abuse...

AdminShade December 29 2006 12:02 PM EST

Come on children behave!

bartjan is a full admin, Zach did something wrong and received a fine for this.

Do you question him? then talk to bartjan or Jonathan about it instead of badmouthing to eachother in forum or chat.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 29 2006 12:13 PM EST


If only I'd known earlier, I'd have knicked 'Ranger' as a username. ;)

Miandrital December 29 2006 12:21 PM EST

QBsutekh137 December 29 2006 12:32 PM EST

NS is one of the most level-headed, logical thinkers in the game. His threads have helped good changes get made, he tends to ask for consistency, and while his tone isn't always warm, it is rarely rude or puerile. I find this charming and beneficial to the CB community.

I would have thought NS would be the LAST person who would be considered admin-bashing on this thread -- he was asking how fines are determined. Through such knowledge we can learn consistency and know what will happen when we do wrong. Are we not allowed to know potential punishment and how it will be determined/enforced?

I really don't understand when CB-land goes into one of its "Don't question anything!" phases. Highly annoying.

I am not a turd.

48Zach December 29 2006 12:59 PM EST

wow.. you gotta be joking.. EVERYONE knew i wasn't Ranger... EVERYONE.. and for being fined 260k, for saying something thats not even bad.. is just messed up..

Also, how am I impersonating? It takes 1 click of a button to go the the community page... and everyone knew i wasn't him.. im tired of this stuff man.. its not even cool anymore how STRICT this is becoming.. if its that big of deal, JUST CHANGE MY NAME!!!!

QBOddBird December 29 2006 1:09 PM EST

The impersonating thing will bring up problems no matter how you look at it and no matter how many people know who you really are - people fussed when BMW and I had similiar names, even though he actually asked me to change it to that and we agreed to do so for FUN...

But as far as you being non-PG in Chat, it isn't like you didn't know any better.

Zach: A member of Carnage Blender 2 since February 4, 2005.

AdminShade December 29 2006 1:09 PM EST

I didn't know you were Ranger, nor does it justify what you apparently did...

And to the remark of 'not being bad' perhaps not for you, but for others it can be. I don't know what you said so I can't judge that, though I know bartjan and he wouldn't fine just for nothing...

48Zach December 29 2006 1:14 PM EST

Well i guess i gotta quit playing then, because i cant fight since i don't have enough money to HEAL MY MINIONS. thanks guy.. i guess thats 1 more RoE gone from the game.

Also, a BIG BIG BIG thanks to Ulquiorra and Legolas for having some common sense in their head, and knowing that the only thing i did wrong was say 1 UN-PG word in three months.. ONE!! and for also standing by my side, for realising that chanign my name to Ranger ISN'T IMPERSONATING WHEN EVERY PERSON IN CHAT SAID I WAS HIM WHEN SOMEONE JOINED THE ROOM!!

QBPixel Sage December 29 2006 1:19 PM EST

Man, if a QB took Ranger's name, then everything would go haywire, haha.

Anyways, let's stop arguing and go buy some CB T-Shirts. I vote for a lock on this thread.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] December 29 2006 1:22 PM EST

Don't hard is that...

Sut...questioning what the admins do for no reason at all wastes everyones time and allows the admin bashers a platform from which to spout the balongy they are selling...

Logical and level headed people do not ALWAYS take the opportunity to have an opposing view from the defined power structure...night strike does just this...

QBPixel Sage December 29 2006 1:30 PM EST

QBsutekh137 December 29 2006 1:38 PM EST

How is asking a question taking an opposing view, novice? You are making zero sense.

As for "wasting everyone's time"... You don't _have_ to read the forums, do you? At least not every thread? The time you "waste" is your own, turd.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] December 29 2006 2:39 PM EST

What purpose does asking serve, other than to question barts judgement...

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 29 2006 2:43 PM EST

LOL! Great card Pix! ;) One for the game!

Well, if Zach/Ranger is impersonating Ranger, will and admin change the name back? If so, can I nick it if the original Ranger stays as TPM?

QBRanger! :D

Then maybe Sute could take Gentlemanloser... ;)

Anyway, haven't there been other impersonators? Isn't it only a problem when you're trying to impersonate Jon/an Adim. Or trying to scam people?

You know, we could always remove manual user name changes... >;)

MissingNo December 29 2006 2:54 PM EST

GL, that's just the point. Zack ISN'T impersonating anyone. He never implied or even tried to act like he was the real ranger. He took the name because Ranger no longer wanted it. Fining for cursing is one thing, but it's another thing to fine someone for impersonating if that person wasn't impersonating anyone.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] December 29 2006 3:13 PM EST

the novelty factor of having a QB seem to swear in chat is too tempting to completely rule out...I think I got a nasty fine for unpg once on cb1...

QBsutekh137 December 29 2006 3:26 PM EST

Yeah, gee, and it might be nice to know how that fine amount was assessed, yes? Since the fine amounts seem somewhat haphazard if you look back through various and sundry posts about fines for various and sundry malfeasances.

Oh dear, I went and asked a question. Why must I be so difficult!

I already answered what purpose questions serve: to get answers. Am I using words too big?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 29 2006 3:33 PM EST

Sute, fine amounts, like suspension times, don't have a fixed scale.

Do you want things like this to be quantified? (Waiting for Sefton to jump in here! :P)

But, I would feel miffed if I was fined a large amount for un PG ness (or another infringement) when a little later, the next man got a sizeably smaller fine for un PG...

AdminNightStrike December 29 2006 3:37 PM EST

"I'll belittle you short, ignorant, mouthy turds when ever and where ever I want..."

I think I'm going to have to request a forum ban for that one.

Tezmac December 29 2006 4:04 PM EST

It's interesting how Novice pretty much gets to act however the hell he wants (pretty sure "asinine forum jerk" wraps it up pretty well) just because it's in defense of the powers that be. I believe many before him have been forum banned and fined for the same behavior, I guess they just directed their ire toward the wrong individuals.

QBPixel Sage December 29 2006 4:04 PM EST

Guuuuyyyysssss sttoooooooop!!!!!!!111wun

AdminNightStrike December 29 2006 4:13 PM EST

Pixel, stopping is part of the problem. When things like this arise, the thread locks or people drift off-topic or something happens to totally sidestep the original point --

I asked bartjan how he arrived at 260,000.

That's not an unreasonable question, and I can't seem to find any correlation between any past fines that were levied. In a game that thrives on excel spreadsheets, I think it's important to know things like that. On the surface, it seems like ad hoc adjudication of values. Deeper still, it looks like just enough to put him into the negative. What does that mean for someone like me? If I slip up in chat, will I lose $180m? Things like this deserve clarification.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] December 29 2006 4:24 PM EST

great now I'm supposed to be nice too...

don't publicly question admins, it's bad form

Is that nice enough?

It was the accusation that I was belittling someone in the first place that had me fuming, all night had to do was not make this a public issue and nothing would have come of it...I'm glad I'm the troll...

QBPixel Sage December 29 2006 4:33 PM EST

Stopping is definitely not a problem (and can't be because it isn't happening). I think this thread should be locked, and agree with novice that this question of your's should be taken privately through CM. You'll hopefully get your answer, and all this yappering can cease.

novice, try not to respond when you're fuming with anger ;). It usually just fires up other dynamites.

MissingNo December 29 2006 4:43 PM EST

Night's argument is that things like this aren't addressed by the public, they're simply ignored and forgotten.<br><br>That's not belittling people? People were discussing their opinions and you come back with "Go play in the street". And it's obviously not the first time you've tried to insult someone because they have a different opinions than your's, insulting them because they happen to be younger.

Phrede December 29 2006 4:44 PM EST

I have been wondering over the last few months why I loved CB1 so much. I am now satisfied that at least some level of maturity within the game playing forum existed over there which, sadly has diusappeared from cb2.
STOP - and lets just get on with trying to have the biggest Elbow - oh sorry excretia

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] December 29 2006 4:46 PM EST

I fail to see where playing in the street implies age, I think all idiots, regardless should play in traffic, from infant to pre-corpse I'm completely inclusive. Publicly questioning admins about trivial fines is the ultimate in trolling...I'm just ashamed I didn't let this thread die on the vine

MissingNo December 29 2006 4:48 PM EST

Do you really want me to go through and find posts where you've insulted people because there was an age difference? And that particular statement wasn't meant as an insult about age, rather as an insult for people have different opinions than your's.

BootyGod December 29 2006 4:54 PM EST

You know what's cool?


You know what else?

Private Messaging.

Oh, and making your own room.

That's cool too.

You know what's cool? Doing this.

I like Zach, I like bartjan. I like everyone in this thread. 'Cept myself, but I digress.

Grow up. ALL of you. Even me :). By the way, funny as heck pics, but they didn't help anything. They just annoyed people already upset. Still... hilarious...


Thraklight Resonance December 29 2006 5:20 PM EST

There is a legitimate question to be asked here. Does taking an abandoned name in itself constitute impersonation, or, in bart's opinion, was zach doing something else to pass himself off as the old Ranger?

If the former was enough to constitute impersonation, then there would seem to be a shift from Jonathan's stated opinion in a discussion that occurred over on cb1. LadyDi complained about people taking "established names" while the rightful owner was using a different name in a thread. I seem to recall Jonathan stating something to the effect that if you decide to change your name, you've given up your right to retain the old name.

Of course, I suppose this could be another top 10 exemption that is revealing itself in this thread. :-)

kevinLeong December 29 2006 5:53 PM EST

I think a few things need re-iteration...

"For being non-PG while impersonating someone else. "

I believe the key words in bartjan's original post was "For being non-PG" -or at least those were the first words he said. IN OTHER WORDS, Zach/Ranger was fined: "For being non-PG".

And also, novice said, and I am paraphrasing, "Admin bashers...Go play in the street." I really don't see why you take such offense Ul, unless of course you are an admin basher, in which case you have the right to be offended. But then again, who likes an admin basher anyway?

Novice is right. When you publicly question the decisions of an admin you undermine his authority. It would be appropriate, however, to CM OR PM him as to avoid controversy. Instead you have people (like myself) rambling on about junk that has nothing to do with the original purpose of this thread.

Anyways, I'm sorry, but if you feel someone telling you to "go play in the street" is demeaning then you need to take what was said literally. Go play in the street. You're obviously take offense to the slightest things...go have fun and grow up. I'm tired of all the whining and personal junk that takes place. What was said wasn't even directed towards you but your egotistical, self-centered, "the world revolves around me" mentality gets old real fast.

MissingNo December 29 2006 6:02 PM EST

Obviously you don't see the point I was trying to make. It didn't offend me nor does it change anything no matter who it was directed to. My point, which you apparently didn't get, is that Novice has a tendency to insult and demean those who have different opinions that the one he has.

When someone has a problem with an authoritative decision and they try to talk to the person about it, they're met with a "I don't care. Go complain to a higher-up about it." The higher-up doesn't care because it's not seen a significant enough problem to change anything. That's why people post so it shows the higher-up that it is a problem.

No one's trying to radically change the system or promote anarchy. I'm just trying to express my opinion that Zach did not try to impersonate anyone. And how can you leave out the words in a crime and say the rest is significant. The whole of the offense was "being unPG while impersonating someone else". If the crime had been "being unPG" he would have simply said "unPG".

kevinLeong December 29 2006 6:22 PM EST

Obviously you didn't understand the point I was trying to make. Novice's statement wasn't demeaning, he is of the opinion that intentional trouble makers should leave. My point was/is also that if you find offense in everything people say you need to stop being so sensitive.

"When someone has a problem with an authoritative decision and they try to talk to the person about it, they're met with a "I don't care. Go complain to a higher-up about it." The higher-up doesn't care because it's not seen a significant enough problem to change anything. That's why people post so it shows the higher-up that it is a problem."

Um...I still don't see the justification in publicly questioning the decision of an admin. The example you're trying to make is an over-generalization of an even which did not take place.

Yes, bartjan did say "while impersonating someone else", HOWEVER, people have not been fined for impersonations. Thus, it isn't a giant leap to assume that Zach/Ranger is being fined for his non-PGness. Why do you assume the "impersonation" had so much to do with the fine?

Just accept it. Zach was fined for being non-PG, and it is a suitable fine. He knows the rules (or should) and blatently disregarded them. I was there when he left and his use of the word was uncalled for.

A Lesser AR of 15 [Red Permanent Assurance] December 29 2006 6:25 PM EST

The only reason this thread should continue is for more sage pix! :)

MissingNo December 29 2006 6:28 PM EST

Because it's part of the statement. If it didn't mean anything it would not have been included, no? And the example isn't a generalization at all, it's happened many, many times. If you want I can talk to you in CM or PM and list how many times I've seen examples of this.

AdminNightStrike December 29 2006 7:00 PM EST

bartjan, how did you decide upon $260,000?

QBsutekh137 December 29 2006 7:05 PM EST

Read the forum name at the top of this page. It says: "Public Record". I am part of the "public". OpVines is part of the "public". NightStrike is part of the "public".

We have half of the people saying, "Stop saying things that even remotely question authority." (using an "undermine" strawman, no less), and we have the other half of people saying, "No conflict! Oh, my virgin eyes!". That leaves the folks who really want to just fracking _converse_ left on the cold, sharp, infinitesmally small edge of what the forum is for: public speaking.

NS asked a simple question. I supported his curiosity. OpVines and thrak think it's all good. I am even betting that bartjan is fine with things (he's a profound ZenMaster when it comes to such things, just so you know).

So, stop telling me to be quiet. I won't. I have every right to speak here. Don't say I'm feeding a troll, don't say we all need to get along, and don't say I can't question authority. I have been doing as such since I got here, and it's been pretty damn neat-o. It is what the forums are _for_.

If you want to talk about an actual, substantial topic, stay on this thread. If you want to bad mouth those who question, feel free (I'll never stop responding, though). And if you just want to come on the thread and say, "Oh, shouldn't we just all be quiet?" then you might want to just read another thread, no? If you continue to read while in that state of mind, then _I'm_ not wasting your time, YOU are.

noneedforthese December 29 2006 8:56 PM EST

I only have minor interest in the *actual* topic, though I would like to know whether the 'impersonation' had any weight in the fine.
Surely, if one was impersonating another and blemishing his past-established-good name, it'd incur a higher fine and that is perhaps why I thought Zach received such a hefty fine.

What I am really interested in though, is our right to speak publicly about important community matters. Don't we have a stronger voice as a group than petty individual petitioners in CM? I think if people have a vested interest in the topic (number of posts on this thread alone shows plenty of interest), they deserve the right to speak of it publicly. And as someone intelligent already pointed out, you don't *^have^* to read this, you can simply ignore it if you think this is all foolishness.... it's only taking up a single line in the 'active threads' section.

So let me reiterate NS's question in my own words, the only thing I'm semi-curious about: bartjan, did the fine's amount get influenced by the fact that Zach was allegedly impersonating Ranger?

Finally my opinion on this matter: regardless of Zach's intentions, the name Ranger is so far established that I think even without the QB prefix, people could get confused... the fine is deserved, (sorry Zach, but you know I like you) and bartjan made the right call.

Happy holidays everybody! A New Year dawns on us!!!

AdminShade December 29 2006 9:05 PM EST

Also take into account the fact that this is a Jonocracy, he makes the rules, us admins only live up to the enforcement of those rules...

Drama [Just for fun] December 29 2006 11:13 PM EST

So because some one played with the same name for 2 years and became a QB, when he change is name for another, no one could take is first name? Come on... So this is like "Jesus", you can't take is name cause he's a messenger from the heaven. All praise to "Ranger" the Messiah of CB -_- . Tell me what would have happen if a new player would have taken Ranger for is name. Oh yeah and I've took a look at the other non-pg fine and they are all 50k. So maybe, even if you're an respected admin, you could admit your mistake and go back on it.

Kong Ming December 29 2006 11:16 PM EST

I think the issue here is not just about non-PG and impersonating Ranger. He was being non-PG while holding Ranger's name. This can cause confusion and damage to QBRanger's reputation because he is a well established player.

Drama [Just for fun] December 29 2006 11:25 PM EST

But I see how it can damage Ranger reputation since Ranger is no more QBRanger. We all know he's PopsicleMan. And I find it really funny to think that zack did this for that reason. I trust a witness(Ulquiora) more than an Admin who unjust fine and does not even answer to this thread that consern him.

QBOddBird December 29 2006 11:29 PM EST

Then perhaps a misplaced trust is your own personal issue here, Belle ;)

And when I read the name 'Ranger', I still initially associate that with the man we now know as Popsicle Man. That internal association could confuse me at a later date when I think back about things 'Ranger' has said.

I certainly wouldn't have wanted someone naming themselves OddBird and saying things I wouldn't have to harm my reputation after I had changed my name to BBQ, irregardless of the number of people who knew I had changed my name.

And I'm sure you wouldn't want that either should you change your name.

Hyrule Castle December 29 2006 11:30 PM EST

"We have half of the people saying, "Stop saying things that even remotely question authority." (using an "undermine" strawman, no less), and we have the other half of people saying, "No conflict! Oh, my virgin eyes!". That leaves the folks who really want to just fracking _converse_ left on the cold, sharp, infinitesmally small edge of what the forum is for: public speaking."

So since we obviously have a split decision as to what the outcome is.... does that mean that the super cool, amazing... completely random HYRULE_CASTLE! gets to choose the final outcome?!?

/me faints from excitement

Hyrule Castle December 29 2006 11:33 PM EST

/me suggests implementing a thing where you can no longer change you name.

I have been Hyrule_Castle since i joined the game... in january of 2005

and i obviously have not gotten bored with the name


So what do you say jon, one last changemonth before the year is over, to end all confusion?

Jack the price to change name to 5 mil, so that people can not do it often, or get rid of it all together!

Drama [Just for fun] December 29 2006 11:35 PM EST

I meant" I don't see how it can"

MissingNo December 29 2006 11:38 PM EST

Wow. OB, I like how you're talking as if you were there, you weren't. He wasn't "saying things that would have harmed Ranger's reputation". He was getting so much crap from the people there about him changing his name to Ranger so that he got frustrated and said he had enough of the [blank] and then left. He did not sit there and flame other people with obscenities. There was no illusion that he was the real Ranger, and I fail to see how Belle's "misplaced trust" is the issue, since you know, I was there and a part of it, and again, you weren't.

Hyrule Castle December 29 2006 11:39 PM EST

/me raises his hand... "but i still get to make the final decision right?"

QBOddBird December 29 2006 11:46 PM EST

So you don't think somebody going by his name in chat saying something obviously considered to be unPG could harm his reputation?

TheHatchetman December 29 2006 11:57 PM EST

Haven't read anything but the original post and a few words of a few posts after this... Why is this debatable? is there anything that would possibly reverse this decision? 66 replies in under 22 hours? CRAZY. It happened. it's over. If you want more info about the backlash to the public and the families of all involved, pick up next weeks edition of the enquirer, otherwise, an admin has spoken, decision made. Final.

MissingNo December 30 2006 12:32 AM EST

No, OB, I don't. Because everyone in the chat KNEW he wasn't the real Ranger by the time he had let the curse word slip, which is what I've said like 23 times, and yet it doesn't seem to sink it.

And Hatchet, one of the main points made in this thread was that we have the right to discuss things and those of us who want to continue discussing it won't shut up because you want us to. If you have a problem with it, it's really illogical that you continue reading and replying.

TheHatchetman December 30 2006 2:07 AM EST

touche' I'm out :-)

Miandrital December 30 2006 2:19 AM EST

The irony of this situation is that Ranger sent Zach 10k to help him get out of the negatives.

smallpau1 - Go Blues [Lower My Fees] December 30 2006 3:18 AM EST

and its funny how people who go in the negative think they cant use existing chars to fight and build up money with to send back to their money needing chars....

And doesnt it sound convenient how Zach changed his name to someone in the game and THEN said an un-PG word "for the first time" after he changed it to something other than his original name, maybe trying to trick admins into believing it was actually TPM (real QBRanger)?

and btw, just cuz its your first time, you get exempt from a fine? <sarcasm> So all of us at 1 PM server time tomorrow, lets all say a curse word "for the first time".</sarcasm>

MissingNo December 30 2006 3:35 AM EST

I think it's time for me to leave this thread alone now. I've made all the points I can make and realize now I won't change anyone else's opinions. I'd like to leave with one final thought though.

Paul, he changed his name to Ranger because he thought it was funny. There was no big conspiracy to ruin anyone's reputation. And like I have said before, his curse was the reaction of all the stress he was getting from people giving him a hard time about the name change. And on top of that, the fact that every single active person in the chat was completely aware that he wasn't the real Ranger. How? Because he even said he was Zach in the chat.

Everyone has their opinions and that's fine, but please don't come in here with a cynical attitude and completely ignore a recurring fact that I've stated dozens of times.

smallpau1 - Go Blues [Lower My Fees] December 30 2006 5:17 AM EST

Ok, what about people who mightve been afk and then came back at the time of the un-PG word in chat and saw <Ranger>[un-PG word]

Would they honestly be saying to themselves, "Oh, that couldnt be Ranger."

Gandalf December 30 2006 7:18 AM EST

nice point SmallPaul. nothing else from me. dont like to argue through posts. =)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 30 2006 8:01 AM EST

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if the ability to change your user names is now removed.


Doesn't bother me any.

Flamey December 30 2006 8:07 AM EST

I bet there's a "Ignore this thread" sign up by the admins and jon for jon and the admins, so they don't waste their Precious time :P

QBJohnnywas December 30 2006 8:21 AM EST

Lately you'd be better off with a "Read this thread, it won't waste your time." notice Flamey. I never thought I'd see the day when I simply couldn't be bothered involving myself in the forums.

AdminNightStrike December 30 2006 10:05 AM EST

For all of those complaining that taking someone else's name is a way to scar a reputation, read this:

If the former was enough to constitute impersonation, then there would seem to be a shift from Jonathan's stated opinion in a discussion that occurred over on cb1. LadyDi complained about people taking "established names" while the rightful owner was using a different name in a thread. I seem to recall Jonathan stating something to the effect that if you decide to change your name, you've given up your right to retain the old name.

For all those that are still complaining and think that you somehow have some sort of staked claim on your old name when you change to a new one, read this:

If the former was enough to constitute impersonation, then there would seem to be a shift from Jonathan's stated opinion in a discussion that occurred over on cb1. LadyDi complained about people taking "established names" while the rightful owner was using a different name in a thread. I seem to recall Jonathan stating something to the effect that if you decide to change your name, you've given up your right to retain the old name.


I will ask again my original question, as bartjan has still refused to comment on it -- where did you get the number of $260,000?

48Zach December 30 2006 10:28 AM EST

I believe the number was $260,000 because that was the rounded-up number for all my cash..

AdminNightStrike December 30 2006 11:09 AM EST

That's what I want bartjan to answer. As I mentioned already, someone like me would suffer greatly at a loss of 180m.

Looking at past threads of such punishments, I can find no correlation between crime and punishment. I'm tired of this constant attitude of letting everything an admin does be total ad hoc, from the existence of rules to their enforcement.

I also would like to question why nothing happened to any of the people that were attacking Zach in chat. Is it ok for people to be complete jerks as long as they don't say any of George Carlin's 7 magic words? Look at novice in this thread -- he's a complete "turd", yet nothing happened to him simply because at one point in his posts, he said "turd" instead of what he really meant, something more vulgar.

Also, one more point to those who hate people who speak up....

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] December 30 2006 11:14 AM EST

you sir are a ninny

QBRanger December 30 2006 11:17 AM EST


Please refer to the following thread in response to your last post.

People have tried to ask admins about their actions, and you can plainly see from Jon's response what the answer is.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] December 30 2006 11:20 AM EST

You mean the thread where Jon finally had to come in and stop people from badgering volunteers? For people with a lot invested in this game you sure like kicking the power cord...

QBRanger December 30 2006 11:24 AM EST

Nope novice,

The thread where selective enforcement was in place and to question an admin resulted in being called nasty, vile names by other people in power.

Tezmac December 30 2006 11:51 AM EST

Interesting. From that same thread:
"The fine COULD be made to be proportional to how much money you possess, but we don't do that." - Vestax

smallpau1 - Go Blues [Lower My Fees] December 30 2006 12:16 PM EST

and Vestax is no longer around anymore, lol

miss the guy, =/

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 30 2006 12:50 PM EST


Please refer to the following thread in response to your last post. "

Exactly why the next changelog entry will probably be

"Usernames can now only be changed by Admin". ;)

Gandalf December 30 2006 2:28 PM EST

wow GL is that honestly whats going to happen? well i am for this as then there wont be as much arguing if another occasion like this happens. /me is all for peace.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 30 2006 2:34 PM EST

I couldn't say for sure, but it's what happened after the last time something like this occured. ;)

But I suppose we would be able to 'bribe' admins (with donations to central bank) to change our usernames. The Admins would of course make sure we didn't request an old users name.

Would make removal of '!' a little more interesting as well...

Drama [Just for fun] December 30 2006 4:32 PM EST

That's funny, an Admin does a big mistake, what to do. Well give the Admin more power. Great thinking there. Starting to look like some dictatorship.

QBOddBird December 30 2006 4:38 PM EST

1) The opinion that this was a mistake on bartjan's part is simply that: an opinion.

2) If you didn't notice, of course this is a dictatorship. This is Jon's game: he created it, he hosts it, he updates it, and he keeps himself involved in it, all at ZERO cost to you and somewhere between zero to little profit for himself, with a large donation of his own time.

If it was a democracy, with this community, I sure as heck wouldn't play.

Drama [Just for fun] December 30 2006 4:47 PM EST

Don't make me laught, first 260k is too much, second I know a dictator who died today, third only one with power thinks dictatoship is good since they are the one who control everything.

QBRanger December 30 2006 4:53 PM EST


You are 100% wrong. CB is Jon's game. Admins are chosen by him alone.

If he or his admins decide to fine someone 1M they can, since it is their game and you play it.

To assume anything else is just foolish. 260k is not out of line with other fines that have been assessed. I have seen fines up to 1M for less severe infractions of the rules then this.

Whether or not Bart was right in fining the new Ranger does not matter. It is done. If you have a problem with an admin or chat ops, best to CM Jon or a different admin with your questions/comments.

As we all have seen in the past, this type of "calling out" admins/ops serves no purpose but to start a crap storm that never seems to end.

AdminJonathan December 30 2006 10:06 PM EST

novice isn't the only one to notice that NightStrike is the latest in a string of trolls who like to stir up trouble by questioning admins' judgement. The best trolls are the ones who _seem_ reasonable.

It's really simple. There is no CB case law for fines. There never will be. If that is where the community wants to go I will pull the plug. The right amount is "enough to discourage such behavior in the future." If the amount of cash available is "close enough" we will settle for that sometimes if taking someone negative might be too harsh.

QBPixel Sage December 30 2006 10:25 PM EST

Well there you have it NightStrike, a nice solid answer from the head of Jonocracy. Now, let's all let this thread sink into the pool of the forgotten.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001zIV">Fined Zach $260k</a>