Cantr II Discussion Forum

A ******, text-based, role-playing webgame that's run by violent psychopaths, perverts, and wannabe fascists. It's famous for its idiotic rule of "No out-of-character cooperation between players," which gives them carte blanche to ban anyone they want. If you try to attack the character of someone on the staff, they will abuse their power to protect the character. The website is cantr.net -- sign up and make their lives a living hell.

lollllll

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cantr

lmao.

that was a bit harsh, yugo, tone it down a bit!

Yea, I'm aware of this. I filed a complaint, but that didn't do any good. It's there forever. If someone wants to become an urban dictionary editor, maybe they could do something about it.

yugo wasn't the one who said it if you were thinking that. He is just repeating what it says on the link.

I'm against having it removed. Satire ftw.
Taking stuff on UrbanDictionary serious is stupid anyway. I mean... Just take a look around.

There's also... http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Cantr

Urban Dictionary allows several definitions per word so if someone writes a better one, people will vote it higher and it will go to the top of the page. However we shouldn't write stuff that clearly smells like an advertisement, it needs to be something funny and dictionary-like.

*Wiro wrote:I'm against having it removed. Satire ftw.

It's not satire, it's purely malicious. This was obviously written by someone that had a PD case go against them.

And it has more negative votes than positive so not like anyone is going to base their opinion on the game based on that. If you try to get an entry deleted, it would only look like the staff has something to hide, so a better strategy is to write more accurate or funnier definitions, submit them and have them voted to the top of the list.

Doug R. wrote:

*Wiro wrote:I'm against having it removed. Satire ftw.

It's not satire, it's purely malicious. This was obviously written by someone that had a PD case go against them.

I totally agree with Wiro.

And Doug, it could've been written by anyone who has ever hear of Cantr. Just because it's in UrbanDictionary and it's says that Cantr is a sh***y game doesn't mean that the person who wrote it has ever even played Cantr, or had a PD case go against them. It could've been someone who saw "Role-playing game" in the website and said "F**K NO! God damn larpers... That does it. I'm writing some s**t about this on the UD."

I'm happy for every new player we get, but if we lose a player due to something that's written in UrbanDictionary I'm not sure if that's a huge loss..

Would we really want players that believe the crap written on Urban Dictionary anyway? :S

Oh and...
"Honey would you stop cuddling me? I'm trying to check Cantr."
Nice, Seko.

The Latter, I think the person who made the definition played the game.

When you start saying that PD players will do anything they can to protect their players, it's quite obvious the person has a beef with PD.

But whatever noone needs to stress this. I think it's pretty funny.

Umm...

I think it's kinda obvious, which exact person wrote this.

It's all fine except for "If you try to attack the character of someone on the staff, they will abuse their power to protect the character." --That's rather obviously a personal rant and doesn't fit in. Write a new one that's similar but without that line!

The person that wrote it has played Cantr and started whining over the death of one of his characters. I've argued and had a few conversations with him elsewhere.

What strikes me is that he's whining over the death of his character because he believes it was due to some misuse of OOC information and hates us for it but then he supports IG groups existing OOCly and stuff like that.

A decision to attack somebody certainly shouldn't be affected by knowledge of who's behind the character. I wonder what the policy is, if a PD member's character was attacked and they suspected foul play, would they need to request another PD member to lock the enemy's account or would they be allowed to do it themselves?