Forest

That feel when people are confusing CS:S boom with TF2 boom. Isn't anything you can do but just reflect on the nostalgia though, times change and so do people. Besides, its not so much that people grew out of it so much that it is that conflict arose between Members :coffee:

I lol'd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaEnaoydUUo

No, this ain't no pringles community

I hadn't noticed :coffee:

The hell is this mp3

#CoolDude

Bunch of queermo sexuals all up in here.

The hero that xG needs, but not what it deserves

:coffee:

I hope you people are happy.

I agree. #CanadaSwag

I rated you furry, therefore you're a furry you buttwad

^ I'm fairly sure everyone is aware of what these ratings mean aside from ratings like "African", which is just however you want to interpret it. Its nice to see someone who wants to aid on removing the toxicity, but ratings have little to no practical effect. It is entirely up to the "victim", for a lack of better words, who ultimately determines whether they should take offense to something as frivolous as a rating or not. The obvious answer is no, you shouldn't :coffee:

I AM WOUNDED.

Eight pages in a span of one hour.

>"British humor thread" >not mentioned once >winning >still got cancer from reading though >insert :coffee: >I'm still british >Bleed's a plug who edits posts

They already have the privilege of wearing the [xG-Rep] clan tag if they are in the group, this doesn't make them a Member so much as it makes them a supporter. Those who want to be recognized as a full Member have to apply to be one on Forums, and are given the rights to have "xG" in their actual name. I see no problem other than hostile Staff, and if that's the case, screenshot the Staff Member and call them out on it. Players should feel welcomed to the Server, not ridiculed.

When dealing with situations that involve hacking, scripting, or other "exploits" for a lack of better words, Staff is always required to have at least two other Staff Members (admin+) support the claim. That means at least three or more Staff Members has agreed upon suspicious activity; however, some sort of evidence should have been taken down at the time (demo, screen cap) in addition to the support of two other Staff members witnessing the suspicious activity. With that said, I'll assume that there was no demo or screenshot taken (correct me if I'm wrong). Although, given that a Division Leader agreed upon this ban then I believe it was justified in that this particular instance required no substantial hard proof if the Division Leader witnessed it first hand, but that's just my opinion.