Yeah, I think that was the clear implication.PY said:Are you saying Rodgie isn't respected?
More to the point, these suspensions are consistent with the OLD punishments for players who broke the code of conduct. 2 and 3 games. Borcich and Blackman got what, 20 and 40 games? Hardly consistent, and the repeat offences argument doesn't really apply as both these players have been suspended before as well.Matteh said:One was a massive outburst against everyone that dared speak. One was talking about the rather soft retirement of a respected player. Seems fair.
First suspension for me.FaaipDeOiad said:More to the point, these suspensions are consistent with the OLD punishments for players who broke the code of conduct. 2 and 3 games. Borcich and Blackman got what, 20 and 40 games? Hardly consistent, and the repeat offences argument doesn't really apply as both these players have been suspended before as well.
My mistake.James90 said:First suspension for me.
Man, the world can't operate without the use of smileys now!Adamc said:Yeah, I think that was the clear implication.
My post was in response to some random insults which Rodgie directed at me earlier in this thread. I don't think what I said was particularly malicious, but whatever.
First for Demeza too.FaaipDeOiad said:My mistake.
You're probably right.Buddhmaster said:I don't remember ever being suspended for CWXI offences? I didn't play some early games because I got a CW ban, but that was nothing to do with CWXI.
You'll all be told if it happens.pasag said:So is there an appeal in motion or what?
Haha. I thought you misinterpreted my post because I didn't use a smiley either.PY said:Man, the world can't operate without the use of smileys now!
I was being tongue-in-cheek.
No it's not. He got two games for abusing Dauth, I believe.Samuel_Vimes said:First for Demeza too.
Now I'm completely confused. You're talking about the abuse in this thread? That's what he got two games for now, in the same batch as Stedman.FaaipDeOiad said:No it's not. He got two games for abusing Dauth, I believe.
No, I'm saying he has been banned for two matches for abusing Dauth (I think, not sure about the player) in the past. This is his second ban. Demeza himself mentions that he's been banned before earlier in this thread.Samuel_Vimes said:Now I'm completely confused. You're talking about the abuse in this thread? That's what he got two games for now, in the same batch as Stedman.
OK, you're his teammate so should probably know. Honestly can't remember it tho.FaaipDeOiad said:No, I'm saying he has been banned for two matches for abusing Dauth (I think, not sure about the player) in the past. This is his second ban. Demeza himself mentions that he's been banned before earlier in this thread.
No offence, but if you're going to be deciding bans for players shouldn't you be aware of their past record?Samuel_Vimes said:OK, you're his teammate so should probably know. Honestly can't remember it tho.
There isn't a ban register yet. Should we stop banning people because of that?FaaipDeOiad said:No offence, but if you're going to be deciding bans for players shouldn't you be aware of their past record?
Suits me.Samuel_Vimes said:There isn't a ban register yet. Should we stop banning people because of that?