My own for-vote, which I'll leave the same nonetheless, is premature. I don't see why we're voting already. But okay.

@bosox: " We are all massive pricks when it comes to the rules. All of us say "read the goddamn FAQ for the mod email" "

No, we ALL aren't. Most of us are cool about it. Only a few of you are like that. And if you recognise it, why don't you just stop doing it? All this time, I just didn't think you realized how massively dickish it was.

And one more tweak, the "let him pay a fine" list. There were a few who said that would be ok.

Well, the mods always direct people to the FAQ as well. They have asked us to direct them there instead of just giving an email address. So lay that bit of bullshit where it belongs, on the mods. K?

Is this an appropriate time to mention 'water-boarding'?

Goddamn, he was banned for cheating *at least* three times. Would you all be okay with yourself getting banned for cheating three separate times? Do you think you would let yourself back in? That's shit, you all know it.

Phil, I don't think I ever started. I'm not a dick about that in my mind at least. People aren't often nice to new players that don't know what they're doing here from my own experiences when I first came around.

Anyway, why are we taking a vote? It's not up to us. The mods take so much shit from so many people yet they do such an awesome job. This is a case of a repetitive cheater and people are trying to give him more leeway than they give a new player that doesn't have a hellbent intent like Sandgoose did.

@Draug ... there are too many WBMs here. Wanna-be-mods. Ironically, none of the mods become mods by trying.

WBM - We'll Ban Multis

@bo - The *Real* mods have asked us in past threads to *not* just give out the email, but direct people to the FAQ. HAs jack shit to do with wanna be mods. They have said it, so we do it. What part of that don't you understand? Jesus you are fucking dense of late.

It ticks me off that someone new multis in a single game and we scream for their head on a pike but when Sandgoose sends out a bullshit sob story we are tempted to fall for it and let him back onto this site. The point is that there's not a single new player that doesn't see the flaw in this, only experienced ones that I'd think would have a more solidified view on the issue here.

Wel, Sandgoose did have positive contributions to this site. It's one of those "we threw out the baby with the bathwater" deals. Had we let him stay or we let him comback with no points so he couldn't play, he could still contribute and be a vlaued member.

Likewise, even murderers come up for parole on occasion.

Yes, many murderers in history enjoyed the standard of three paroles for the same crime.

I don't know why this thread is continuing. The community has spoken. He's not welcome back.

People criticize me for abstract and extreme comparisons all the time... comparing murderers to people on webDip would apply there.

They let him stay at least twice. How many chances do people have? I give people two in life. You screw up once, great. You screw up twice and you're not going to be fixed. Sorry, that's how I am. Cheat once, cool. Cheat twice, get out. Cheat three times, don't ever show your face again.

I think that people are forgetting too that he's tried to circumvent his bans a number of times. Worth considering.

Eh, it looks like enough people want him back that they could get an ancient med game going. Or, you know, a standard map if the mods allowed three of his accounts back.

That was directed @jamie.

I would like to adjust my "vote"/opinion. I fully support whatever the mods decide on the matter, which includes ignoring it or merely sticking with what they've already decided, or allowing Sandgoose to just post on the forum or even play games (though another option may be that in this case he must play non-anon only, so people can choose to play him or not, though that's probably a coding nightmare). I don't have all the facts (which is why I started my last post with the word "if"), and I don't want or need them. The mods do an excellent job and the reason they get paid the big bucks is to deal with this kind of lose-lose situation, so I will leave them to it, trust their judgement, and whatever they decide is the best solution in my opinion since they are the ones most informed *and* since they are accountable to Kestas and this is his site.

Having read the posts more thoroughly, I move to the 'against' camp. He's obviously a manipulator of the first order, intent on achieving his own personal ends by extremely devious means.
Let b*st*rds be burned alive!

So it looks like Sandgoose won't get granted parole this time around. I am sure in 6 months someone will resubmit the case to the board.

We all appreciate the support of our decision in this case. If we were going to allow someone back as a test run it would not be someone who has multi accounted, metagamed, and abused other members accounts. While I understand Sandgoose may be apologetic I cannot take him seriously after receiving an email titled "Challenge" saying "Hey boys.... I'm on webdip again... Just wanted you to know. :) happy hunting!".

Just to reiterate jmo and ye's comments:

The ban was approved by all the moderators and reviewed by Kestas. After considering his request and the community's response, we are affirmed in our decision of banning him and keeping him banned.

Of course, the real tragedy with SandLuna is that he has used up a few good screenname options that future members may have wanted to use for themselves.

Hip, hip...Hooray! :)

""Hey boys.... I'm on webdip again... Just wanted you to know. :) happy hunting!".
Well, that gives us something to do when we're really bored:
'Hunt the Sandgoose'.
If it really exists and is not just the product of someone's warped imagination, I have my double-barrelled shotgun loaded, locked and pointed in the right direction.

What does that even mean? You will shoot someone with a shotgun for sending an email to an internet game's moderator? Wow.

He means hunting geese. happy hunting...sandgoose...goose hunting.

Mapu, please don't take everything so literally.

This is too humorous to let up:


FOR (BRING SANDGOOSE BACK!) - 2

semck83
ghug

TROLLING (DRAUGNAR-style!) -1

Draugnar

AGAINST (KEEP HIM BANNED!) - 17

jamiet99uk
Lando Calrissian
jmo1121109
ulytau
yebellz
bo_sox
Octavious
Dejan0707
AlexNesta
Gen.Lee
NigeeBaby
SacredDigits
krellin
Indybroughton
Barn3tt
Timur
JECE

no, I'm still on FOR.

I'd just prefer to vote later.