Posts by brightcrane56

Well, damn.

Ashley Vaughn79 said:Don't try to bring up Nice now just to twist what was actually said.
I guess she didn't think you could just use a clone while your main account is banned.

I guess Milojko is sitting in a ban since April 10th. You were posting perfectly fine on the US boards under restlesstiger49 just yesterday, so maybe you shouldn't be bringing up stricter moderation rules now?

I guess stricter moderation would be if you, restlesstiger49, were permanently banned, while Milojko's suspension got extended by another week.

Get lost and go jump in a lake.

Please stop making fun of me... you're starting to get on my nerves, too. 😁

The thing is, Nick Quark is banned, yet this guy is running around the site with about ten different alts, all while acting like he speaks for Nicin PM.
So, you really ought to be careful with those Nicin PM stances, because they aren't exactly applied equally to everyone.

Anderlon, I’m officially throwing down the gauntlet—name the place and the time, because you and I are grabbing a beer. 🙂

Casey Bennett said:I honestly can't tell if you're just losing your mind over this kid or if you think all "clones" should be wiped out, but take a deep breath and actually look at where I am in this thread—did I ever actually claim anything like that?

Where in this entire discussion have I written even a single letter suggesting that anyone is or isn't some sort of clone?

And who exactly gave you the green light to act like the ultimate clone hunter? If the moderation team isn't stepping in, it’s because there isn't a damn thing to step in for.

You’re honestly just trying to turn this serious discussion into some silly little girls' chat just to undermine her credibility, all in a desperate attempt to bail out Quarka once again.
Second of all, where exactly do you get the authority to be answering these kinds of questions? Seriously, who do you think you are? Are you actually an admin or a moderator for the community forum?
Do something productive for once—go wash the windows.

First off, Nica claimed he wasn't even a clone in the previous thread.
But let's be real, he is a clone, even if his permanent ban was somehow overturned. There goes Nica again, jumping from one thread to another.
Now, since they won't admit that his permanent ban should have stood, we've got moderators—who clearly have zero grasp on the subject matter, let alone common sense—trying to argue that he isn't a clone after all.
Honestly, can you guys really sink this low?
We are talking about a user who doesn't even try to hide his real-life identity, so you don't need fancy investigative tools here; just use some basic logic to see that everything I'm saying is the truth. It’s just as obvious that you all realize you completely screwed up this situation and are now scrambling to save face. Instead of just owning the mistake and removing the individual from the forum, you keep making up new excuses every single time.
There is another option, though: just strip the permanent status from everyone. Maybe that would be an easier way out for you.

And you’re still out here making fun of people. It’s honestly ridiculous.

The permanent ban on Quark remains both final and unrevoked:

So, we’re right back to what I’ve been saying for quite some time now: this is clearly just a clone account belonging to a user who is permanently banned. I really think the moderators need to step up, do their jobs, and clear out all these duplicate accounts tied to that same individual.

Matthew Jackson2 said:A notarized affidavit swearing you'll follow the community guidelines from now on, sent via certified mail to our corporate headquarters in Delaware.

All jokes aside, "perma" is just short for permanent. I think that actually answers your question quite clearly—if something is labeled as permanent, then it’s meant to be forever.

Well, not on this site. We have plenty of evidence right here showing that "perma" doesn't always mean forever, and honestly, it would be nice if us regular users could get a lesson on how to turn a "permanent" status into something in the past tense.

What are the actual requirements for getting a permanent ban overturned? And more importantly, why aren't they clearly laid out in the forum rules?
If the rules explicitly state exactly how someone gets banned, then it’s only fair that they also specify who, when, and under what circumstances a permanent ban can be pardoned.
Whatever applies to Microsoft should apply to all the other 352,697 members of this forum too.

Grace Moore11 said:Since your recent posts haven't shown any real change since you got that partial credit, I'd say the partial credit stands.

Well, bravo—it only took you five whole days to come up with that profound observation.

But hey, thanks for letting me know that I'm still considered a bit of a loose cannon over on ZAG. 🙂

William Bennett53 said:The debate is still going on. Someone will definitely weigh in once the final verdict is read out.

Oh well, let it be. Let the chips fall where they may.
That’s just how it goes when the rules are crystal clear and transparent—it makes reaching a decision so much easier.

476 views

Could someone please let me know if I’ve met all the necessary requirements to withdraw a partial amount from JLL?
Warm regards,

It’s a bit of a mess, but honestly, it’s pretty cool too.

Sarah Doyle54 said:I totally get it, brightcrane56! 👋 👋 👋

As far as I’m aware, the forum doesn't take responsibility for what people post, though they do claim ownership over the content itself. 😉

And here's another one for the collection.

Seriously, give it a rest and stop embarrassing yourself.

Besides, don't you think there's something a bit hypocritical about banning a user but leaving behind such a massive trail of their old threads? If my posts are considered unwelcome in a specific section of the forum, then I honestly believe they should be scrubbed entirely—both the ones from the past and any new ones I might try to make.

William Bennett53 said:So what, you want me to only let through the comments that stroke your ego?
Matthew Anderson isn't actually dodging the point; if anything, he's highlighting how nonsensical your request really is. You’re basically asking us to move threads where you contributed over to a sub-forum where you earned your status—but the very fact that you earned that status there is proof of your contribution.

What does that tell you? What exactly has changed here? Huh?

Need a hint? It starts with an M.

William Bennett53 said:If we’re being honest, this thread has totally veered off course since it doesn't really address what was asked in the original post. Should we just lock this one down so you can start a fresh thread explaining the reasons behind your partial results?

Not at all, though I would definitely appreciate it if you could look out for me against the trolls who keep derailing the conversation, even if they happen to be fellow moderators.

Matthew Anderson said:That would actually be a pretty clever way to dodge a partial ban. 😁

The real question is why someone with that kind of track record would even be facing a partial ban in the first place.

I mean, if you're going to troll without consequence, you might as well go all out, right?

rustydrifter10 said:Look, threads don't just get moved around simply because the creator feels like it. It’s much more important that they stay where they actually fit best within the community structure, regardless of whether the original poster decides a few years down the road that they’d rather have them somewhere else.

But the creator isn't actually "asking" for anything.
The reality is that the creator has been locked out of their own discussions, leaving them with zero ability to participate anymore. We're talking about thread number 59 here. With over 15,000 replies and nearly 600,000 views, let's be honest—that kind of engagement is a massive deal and shouldn't be ignored.

I’m still standing my ground on this: they either need to be moved to a proper home or just deleted altogether.