Why are some people allowed to be crewless and others are killed for not wanting to be in a family? 

There are two players one Apple somethingorother who is older than a week and alive and crewless, and there is Cash who is crewless and alive. 

It looks like another double standard.

Please clarify this conundrum for me.

-1 status. 

They aren't doing anything to remove that so they aren't worth the waste of a timer. 

I know for a fact that the -1 doesn't mean anything.

I know that people have killed for being crewless and barely a day old they had the -1.

So it is still a riddle to me. 

It's my understanding you will or could lose a +1 gunning down a -1 thus why Ameila said a waste of timer. 

Yes, that is my understanding also but you are ignoring what I said.

I have seen a day old with a minus one on them and they were killed for not joining a crew (On multiple accounts). That was a waste of time also. 

So my curiosity still stands.  It is looking like a double standard especially with  the repeated answer. 

So you are saying Cash it is a double standard. 

Thank you for your time and  the clarification everyone.

What do you want from me? Do you want me to die?  What have I done to deserve this?!

I can't see any -1s in the Obits that have died, so I can't provide any answers that will satisfy you. I suppose the best course of action at this point is to collect the WS of any unsponsored users going foward and contact the killers or their CLs directly, in order to get the answers you are looking for. 

But I suppose if you're unsatisfied with this I can give you a quick list of possible reasons why -1s are killed. 

1.) War and about to turn and could be a pro'er or on info

2.) Were rude in mails/lounge/forums

3.) They did something to earn a shot in the face

4.) the person with the gun that can afford to lose a +1 felt like it. 

Okay I have seen it with my own eyes. I have watched people kill minus ones for not being in  a crew. And I have seen a few who are a week old 30 days old and even older who are crewless and remain so. 

You present all good reasons to uphold the undermining of your own rules, because each of those reasons is based on opinion or paranoia, and not a set guideline. 

So this is  still evidence of a double standard.

I am not pointing this out to be a bitch I am just naturally a bitch to those who only know of me and actually don't know me. 

I am pointing it out because you people who are always in CL positions like yourself Amelia ( maybe because you are staff, maybe not)  But you folks who control the game play around here the ones always in CL positions, 

 push the rules on the rest of  us but don't enforce it on certain people.

This act means that the rules don't mean anything, having a double standard with the rules that you people set for the game play negates the rules or undermines them.

Cash I am not out to get you killed or the 2 or 3 others I have seen over the age and crewless. 

My only desire to stop seeing the double standards that undermine the rules of the game play.  And if pointing  it out to the masses has the possibility to stop it I will point it out.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

It is about FAIR game play for everyone involved. 

Yikes.

There is no double standard. There is no set rule or guideline. It's a case by case basis thing. Is the -1 and potential wackback death worth taking to be rid of the potential threat? Is the person known or unknown? Do they build, do they log in often etc etc. Have they been a twit? Do they perhaps have enemies who would love any opportunity to shoot them? There's so much that goes into it when any one person considers killing an unsponsored.

LG had an unsponsored live for like, 120 days I think? Because he is known and people knew he had no desire to do anything other than log in occasionally to chat with friends. Eventually, someone bit the -1 and killed him, probably just because he had gotten so old.

Your tendency to formulate conspiracies from nothing is eye watering as ever, as is your insinuation that Amelia only got her position because she was staff. Tbh I'm a bit shocked you didn't catch a DD for it.

Way it seems to me, you or one of your pals got blasted for being annoying or rude as an unsponsored (either in mail or forums) at some time in the past and now you want to cry about fair play.

I am pointing it out because you people who are always in CL positions like yourself Amelia ( maybe because you are staff, maybe not)  But you folks who control the game play around here the ones always in CL positions, 

Lol when was the last time I was a CL AliceLiddell

I have had more suicides to avoid CL in the last year than I've had CL accounts in total. 

Well I don't bloodline people, nor do I stalk them. So I would not know that answer Maxine.  

You are correct on an implied point I see in your question. I should have said upper structure.

 Dagda you and the other can rationalize it however you want. It is a double standard. 

The Warren Commission of our times

The only double standard here is your innate belief that only your opinion is the one true opinion and everyone else's is nonsense, regardless of any facts or evidence provided to the contrary. 

No I accept the reason you all said a person would be shot. I accept the fact that you all let some people live unsponsored for months, and others you take out immediately. 

I also recognize that act for what it is regardless of the propaganda.

It is my opinion that you all do not accept my opinion , my opinion you all treat as nonsense.  My opinion that many of you have taken as personal attacks even when no names get mentioned; look at how you all treated Joald and her topics you all used personal attacks instead of having an actually intelligent discussion, because it was taken personal when no names were mentioned. 

Well as they say, its hard to have intelligent discussions with idiots.