W3C - False accusation at the Security Council (Little Upsilon)

Let me state that I am CarlosG and CarlosG is Slade. I changed my name back to Slade to prevent any further confusion.

I've tried to hold my tongue for the past three days and told the GM's that I wouldn't go public. I won't reveal any private discussions that I had with GM's and won't comment on the specfics of this case. My orginal post can be found in the LU forums under the name of CarlosG.

Let me address Accordian because that is what is really irrating me the most. I was in fact accused of "scamming", which has now been clearly proving otherwise. I was accused of taking military assets out of a country and then selling the country for a overpriced amount. I was then slandered and asked that I be punished. The GM's and I did discuss privately, via email, and was happy to learn of the truth. I compare it to buying a car from someone and then removing the engine and the buyer asking for hi

Case Closed! Slade is innocent. Tom is right on this one.

Oh, for crying out loud! My argument is NOT that Slade is guilty. Slade is innocent. My argument is NOT that Tom should not have given Slade the evidence he needed to defend himself. My argument is that Tom, as a GM, should not be speaking and arguing angrily with players on the forums as he has here and many times before. It is poor conduct and it will cause players to leave Simcountry.

I'm not fussed about the case of Slade and Eden. Frankly, I'm glad it was resolved justly. But that doesn't excuse Tom's bad behaviour, and it doesn't excuse the fact that he doesn't seem to know how to act as a GM.

Let's remember that we're not talking about a player here, we're talking about a GM. Should a teacher in a classroom argue angrily with a student because that student has been arguing, outside of class, with another student? No. Should a GM argue angrily with a player in the public forums instead of in priva

I'm happy that Tom announced in the public forum to allow for the impartial provision of information.

I'm happy that Tom engages with players to give reasons for game development and seeks player feedback.

I'm happy that Tom answers many questions in the forum and helps players.

If you don't like it, you could always ask Tom to ignore you lol.

Accordian, I think its good for the GMs to step in and argue if they need to. This is their game and we need to follow the rules. They would be the ones to clarify issues, like Tom did, and thats what we as a player base needs, someone to moderate what the real truth is, so all the second guessing can be put to rest.
Tom bringing it to forums first is ok because the GMs are probably tired of all the accusations by members with no way for those accused members to prove otherwise.
How many posts have u read about one topic, and all of a sudden it turns into a fighting match of words between players accusing one or the other of certain things? I read it everyday, almost every post. Why do you think certain people have been banned?

truth be told, i don't want them involved in everything. but their are certain things that no one else can clear up. this is one. and john henry was working on making this as public as he could. it was necessary for this to be open to the public. and honestly, it was john henry that was doing the arguing, and belittling. the only thing that Tom did was to stand up for the truth. which was pretty embarrassing for john henry.

frankly, i looks like john henry made his bed. approaching every thing in sim country, with the attitude that the GM is always wrong... well maybe you should rethink that notion!!

you know, Tom, thanks!

I take back half the stuff i said about ya

Any more disputes will be quickly resolved once the database is altered to easily access all data. That alone makes reading this worth it!

Sigh. Had a post ready, accidentally hit back button. qq. Here's a summary:

- Keto, you've accused SuckerPunch of being a multi ("I smell a multi"). Certainly, that's not a public accusation of scamming, but it is an implied public accusation of cheating, the very thing you and David have been railing against.

David, I'm glad Tom does the things you listed, but I wish he would do them with a little less:

- Public disgracing of players

- Forum bans on players who disagree or argue

- Arguments with players who don't agree with his answers or who suggest changes he doesn't agree with

- Ignoring of proposals or questions that are "too hard"

- Angry, sometimes rude, responses to players.

I'm not smearing Tom. Tom does good things - he just does them in a very unethical way sometimes. What I am trying to say is, Tom, act a bit more like a G

Accordion,

Don't worry, I've typed a long post only to lose it in the past. It is frustrating!

I've not seen Tom do the tings above you describe. Arguing is allowed but players that disrespect other players or the GMs have crossed the line. I do not see that as disgracing.

Many players argue and disagree with the GMs (including myself in the past) and they do not stop that. Even with some strongly worded posts they still answer them kindly, but some players push it too far, like calling for a boycott of the game or directly attacking a player of GM and not conducting a good argument.

GMs will often look into things they cannot explain straight away.

I think the GMs reply very kindly compared to what some players write and maybe some players need swifter and firmer responses.

In my 7/8 years of play, I have argued, disagreed and posed difficult questions to the GMs privately and p

Dear Accordian,

This whole thing with John Henry and um SuckerPunch smacks of something not quite right...... I mean really, SuckerPunch a few days ago was coming into chat as a visitor without a voice,,,,, now he/she is in the chatroom yappin' it up, and John Henry just randomly chose this player out of the blue to give his country to???? (Rolls Eyes). I believe Keto said it smelled of a multi account situation, not that it is. And if this is how he feels, and in this case, I think the thought justifiable given the circumstances, he should be able to state his view.

Yeah, except tom hasn't provided any proof to back up his story either.

Tom told us of the proof he has and I think it would be ridiculous to expect it to be published

Hi David,

How do you know the proof exists, if you haven't seen it? For that matter if you do see it, you still don't know it exists. Tom could have just made it up, or more likely was smoking too much weed when he thought he saw it. Point is: No proof exists, and you poor dumb bastards just believe what your told.

with logic like that...

This is getting stupid.

Last time I click on this thread.