Agurus Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 Agurus and Confess have been net banned from SSC for stealing the zone from I\/Ir Beefie and true_vision. They also exploited SSCI and took down the SSC biller.Ghost Ship and PriitK will soon have the copy zone on Confess' server banned from the directory server list.Sorry for all the inconvenience, from now on there will be no issues at Halo. Ghost Ship, true_vision and myself worked out all the issues and now Halo can continue to grow.I know I am not going into all the details, it is so long disgusting, but here is a SHORT SUMMARY...Agurus !@#$%^&*ed up stole money =Logs/Proof, well do!@#$%^&*entedGhost Ship announces no more agurus or bye to SSCI halo =SSC Emails/Log to me on ICQAgurus gives zone to true_vision, =Screenshots by multiple witnesses including MikeTheNose who sent Ghost Ship the evidence along with the othersAgurus dislikes how he is not owner and tries to steal back with SST copy. =true_vision and rest of staff explained what happened and all the bull!@#$%^&* like ssc biller being taken down, we wait for Ghost Ship to actEND OF Bull !@#$%^&*….Ghost Ship,true_vision and myself end this bull!@#$%^&* from agurus. As a result there will be no more SST on directory list, Netbans on agurus & confess and SSCB Super Fortress has the SSC billing slot revokedIf you need be all materials and evidence can be posted if you feel you MUST SEE IT, coughs SVS/noobs(SSC) First off TV gave me back ownership screens to proove it? Second off beefie was then removed from power becuase he was CO, the owner has the complete right to do that. Third since I wa owner I am not allowed to be on SSC so that is what will happen right? We did what we were told what the !@#$%^&* are you saying stole zone? I did as you said, and logs can be provieded if you dont belive me. Fourth I didn't steal the money the tracking number was sent and I still have it, unless your still a git and can't read. Also no need to netban Confess he didn't do anything, if you are going to abuse (as the corrupt this council is) then you can netban me as I am leaving this game anyways.
ThunderJam Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 Im kinda neutral on this whole issue... But in F1 or somewhere, beef and tv were both listed as co-owners. Which would mean they would both need to agree on giving the zone back to you. And yea, whats this whole thing about confess and super fortress being banned and removed?
gameplay Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 I believe its because he hosts SST and was hosting a "stolen" zone.
»i88gerbils Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 Interesting. Well if Agurus did have some right to that zone, then he has every right to host it somewhere else separately. "Stolen zone" is a bull!@#$%^&* excuse Ghost Ship. That's a precedent that I have not seen the SSC billing pull yet. This extends the rule of not having a copy zone on the SSC to the entire SubSpace directory list. I guess we can call it the SSC Directory now too. First they coded "protection" against non-SSC zones. Then they had that god !@#$%^&* awful copy zone rule, which never made any sense anyway. And now this. Good !@#$%^&*ing game. So is there an independent directory server still?
Agurus Posted September 12, 2006 Author Report Posted September 12, 2006 The zone currently is rightfully mine, I gave ownership to TV, and he gave it back to me yesterday. I am following the options I was given by GS through death+: - 1.) Leave SSC and go to another NON SSC server, and be netbanned (< netbanned for no reason still eh?) -2.) Give up ownership I take choice 1, cool move to SST all good; no these newbs probably didn't expect that answer choice? Stole the zone from SST moved it from SSC, netbanned Confess and me for no reason (only reason probably is me taking my zone back after I was returned ownership?). If you think netbanning us will cover this !@#$%^&* up your wrong, as I already said I dont care about SSC nor I will move to it. I moved out of SSCI on my own free will as the best desicion for the zone away for corrupt hosts like Death+, and his !@#$%^&*es. Give me my zone back Death+ even though I have it to TV a on Sunday, he popped back and gave it right back on Monday, might I add on SSC as well.
»doc flabby Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 Interesting. Well if Agurus did have some right to that zone, then he has every right to host it somewhere else separately. "Stolen zone" is a bull!@#$%^&* excuse Ghost Ship. That's a precedent that I have not seen the SSC billing pull yet. This extends the rule of not having a copy zone on the SSC to the entire SubSpace directory list. I guess we can call it the SSC Directory now too. First they coded "protection" against non-SSC zones. Then they had that god !@#$%^&* awful copy zone rule, which never made any sense anyway. And now this. Good !@#$%^&*ing game. So is there an independent directory server still?yes. i was concerned quite a while ago about the lack of backup directory servers in case the main one crashed and set one up. Details below: http://forums.minegoboom.com/viewtopic.php?p=65215#65215 I do dislike the fact non-ssc zones have that "your password may be stolen" warning come up everytime for each zone you add. I think once should be sufficent.
ThunderJam Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 But before you took choice 1 (moving off ssc) you gave it to TV. Death then said another sysop must be inserted too, and put Beefie as co-owner with tv (I would imagine this is because he thought tv would just be like a puppet for agurus, so he inserted someone he liked to keep the place in-check). Once it had two co-owners, tv should not have had the sole power to give it back to you. Shoulda been a split decision with beef too. *EDIT, new thought:* If confess only heard that tv gave it back to agurus, and wasnt aware about needing beefs consent, then him hosting halo on sst could be more innocent then it appears. Like maybe he was duped into thinking it was a fair transfer from ssci to sst. Maybe he shouldnt be netbanned?
SVS Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 But before you took choice 1 (moving off ssc) you gave it to TV. Death then said another sysop must be inserted too, and put Beefie as co-owner with tv (I would imagine this is because he thought tv would just be like a puppet for agurus, so he inserted someone he liked to keep the place in-check). Once it had two co-owners, tv should not have had the sole power to give it back to you. Shoulda been a split decision with beef too. Rofl Agurus was threatend and had no choice but to give ownership away if he wanted his zone to continue on. The sysop he gave ownership didn't want any part of this !@#$%^&* and gave it back (I don't really consider Death+ *making* someone a coowner as being legitimate do you?) so Agurus put it up on a non-SSC biller. Big surprise what happened next! Agurus and Confess the guy who was hosting off of SSC get network banned and the zone continues on without the owner on SSCI. Can anyone guess what was the main objective that Death+ had from the very start? Anyone? [There was no way Halo would of ever ended up off of SSCI. Nice seeing Ghost Ship helping yet another person steal a zone from its rightful owner. It has been awhile since he was complicit in such shady happenings.
Steigerwald Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 Death did not "make" beefie co owner. Reguardless of how beefie was given co owner, screenshots will show true vision givin him half. It should not be Death's fault that TV was a push over. I would expect more from a SSC owner "figure"
The Apache Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 i don't understand agurus, you gave the ownership of the zone to t_v due to the fact you are leaving, and now you want it back? why do you want it back? so you can be owner with the powers again?
Agurus Posted September 12, 2006 Author Report Posted September 12, 2006 I don't like the zone being stolen and my work in the hands of others, after it is settled down I will leave (and this fiasco happened)
Agent Smith Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 They used to ban for zone takeovers, I guess not anymore.
Agurus Posted September 12, 2006 Author Report Posted September 12, 2006 heh now they ban to takeover...just great...really great
Hidden Player Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 Well it seems not everything is being said. According to logs and screen shots there is evidence that shows “Agurus†involved in some heavy cash theft, manipulation, dishonesty, and abuse. The history of Halo is not one many would be proud of. However, there are some individuals that have been working for the zone to keep it going strong, and as ASSS develops to improve game play and to move it into the next generation of zones. However, if the owner of a zone is corrupted to even the point where he starts to pocket money from a non profit game, not only is that unethical, but to pocket donations from players that was to be used in reward winners in a league, and funds to be used to purchase forums, it now becomes a criminal offence.(the Ipb forums were donated, Agurus claimed he pushed it) When this information reached Death+, a decision had to be made.It is clear at this point that keeping Agurus would only keep things in dysfunction.However seeing potential in those that wish to keep the zone going and moving it forward to ASSS, perhaps the drop of the zone may not be necessary. After a closed meeting that included True_vision, I\/Ir Beefie, Agurus, and a few NetOps, True_vision, and I\/Ir Beefie were declared BOTH Co-owners. (Both accepted the !@#$%^&*le)They shared the !@#$%^&*le for the zone Halo. Any ownership changes had to be made between the two co owners. When True_vision decided to step down and reposition Agurus as sole owner, TV did not have Beefie's permission. Nor did Agurus have authority to remove Beefie from co-owner position.Therefore Agurus being owner and the move to SST was done without consent of both owners.This ends up making the SST Halo a copy zone. Beefie asked Death+ to rectify the situation.Death+ had every right to restore the zone back to TV and Beefie as co-owners, and the zone on SSCI.
»i88gerbils Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 Agurus. You should welcome yourself to the few who have been banned from their own zones/maps such as silentdragon and TheGhostShip (not GS). Sucks doesn't it?
Hidden Player Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 I am going to pursue having the matter referred to the police... eg.. stolen money
»i88gerbils Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 Actually, you had a choice: stop playing in a zone where you believe a sysop is dishonest. I like how these server hosts have taken the role as Blackie in determining their vangels for "their zones". Right now I'd be scared to be a SSC sysop hosted on SSCI, SSCU, or Ghost Ship's servers. It used to be that a zone was free to move if they so choose, but this seems to be restricted. Sad. I wish I could write more, but I'm too tired.
Yoink Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 This is halarious. Really. I think this is being blown way out of proportion too.
Bongwater Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 Yeah the point is Agurus stole money, and i dont know why tv gave him the zone back. Agurus lied to my face and tried to STEAL MY MONEY EDIT: the rest was way too offensive, keep it clean people! -SD>Big
»1587200 Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 After a closed meeting that included True_vision, I\/Ir Beefie, Agurus, and a few NetOps, True_vision, and I\/Ir Beefie were declared BOTH Co-owners. (Both accepted the !@#$%^&*le)They shared the !@#$%^&*le for the zone Halo. Any ownership changes had to be made between the two co owners.What right do hosters and SSC netops have to make changes to the staffing/ownership of a zone? Wouldn't the prospect of co-ownership be on the head of the sole owner (in this case, tv)? If he wants to share ownership of a zone, that should be his prerogative, not the hoster, not the council, not ssc netops. I would be very afraid to own a zone on the ssc network at this point...knowing that my host or the council could oust me or place a co-owner in my zone, that I created, that I worked on for hours...something feels wrong here, and I dun like it one bit. I'll admit, if Agurus stole money, then lied about it, he should be removed from power. But the people doing the removing and taking over should be the zone's staff, and the only role the hoster should play is the removal of the name from the sysop.txt. Beefie has not played a role in Halo, as a matter of fact, doesn't he own DBZ? How can he be owner of two zones? Isn't there some rule against that too? Why was he appointed co-owner of Halo? If I suck enough !@#$%^&* can I get appointed co-ownership of a zone takeover too?
Hakaku Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 Bongwater, if you learned to type and not act racist, I would've bothered to read your entire post. And you wonder why you get banned? Anyhow, I'm not the one to judge what happened, but this is getting out of control on both sides.
Hidden Player Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 I will agree that Beefie came out of no where. Co-owners should have gone from inside the zone.
The Apache Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 syrus, mr. beefie has nothing to do with DBZ... at all. yes, i agree with syrus on the most part, SSC netops and hosters should have no control on the staff roster within a zone, regardless whether it is on SSC or not. if ssc netops get involved if someone has been stealing money, then fair enough, they can get involved and ban the thief, but there is no need to change how the zone should work at all. of course, i'm not all agaisnt SSC, i think what agurus was stupid as well. (obviously) and also, it's all true isn't it? SSC Netops are !@#$%^&*ing corrupt.
Agurus Posted September 12, 2006 Author Report Posted September 12, 2006 Wow how hard is it to understand that I didn't steal the !@#$%^&*ing money? The money was SENT and I gave you the TRACKING number, what else do you want to see? Also all I want is TV the only owner of Halo and I will back away, TV was forced to share ownership, he dosn't speak english at all
»1587200 Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 Apparently I was wrong, and tv accepted co-ownership with beefie, however, it was suggested to tv that he take on a beefie as co-owner so he doesn't look like a puppet for Agurus, which is total BS. No one should have suggested anything to tv as it was not their place. If anything, the most that should have been said is, "tv, you look like a puppet for Ag" nothing more. As it stands though, someone made the suggestion knowing that tv is a pushover, and used that to get beefie co-ownership of Halo. So if tv is the puppet for Agurus, then beefie is the puppet for SSC. Wow how hard is it to understand that I didn't steal the !@#$%^&*ing money? The money was SENT and I gave you the TRACKING number, what else do you want to see?Tracking number? Did you send cash via UPS or something?
Recommended Posts