Conquer Club

Accused:

DonLarry



The accused are suspected of:

Intentionally deadbeating



Game number(s):

Game 8019251
Game 8019221



Comments: Took turns in 251 while deadbeating 221 because he was losing...

dont forget game 8019251

It is already in there. I figured you would deadbeat it as well so I put it in before the game is finished.

Foe & Rate Accordingly. As said just recently in another one of these threads intentional deadbeating isa gainst the rules but the rule is for a much larger scale then a few games. Tis why the * deadbeat tag is in the tags you can leave in a rating.

Closed.

KS

Some people are just poor sports and quit when the game isnt going their way, yeah it sucks, but it would need to be on a larger scale for it to be a punishable offense. Rate him accordingly so others know what to expect if they get in a similiar situation with him.

Are you seriously saying it is okay to break the rules as long as you don't do it on a large scale? WTF?

Still waiting for an answer here... Is it or is it not okay to break the rules, as long as it is not on a large scale?

For one game what punishment would you be looking for? FAMO seems most appropriate unless it is a regular occurance

If they were to take action for 1 game, well, C&A would be FULL of pointless accusations about people who deadbeated in any game.

Since no one in charge has the balls to directly answer my question, let me repeat myself.

theherkman wrote:Still waiting for an answer here... Is it or is it not okay to break the rules, as long as it is not on a large scale?

theherkman wrote:Since no one in charge has the balls to directly answer my question, let me repeat myself.

theherkman wrote:Still waiting for an answer here... Is it or is it not okay to break the rules, as long as it is not on a large scale?

Deadbeating is when someone is around (you have proof of it cause hes playing in other games) but chooses not to take turns in a game for 3 consecutive turns and gets kicked out of the game.
Missing a turn here or there is a tactic that is used and while I personally dont like it, it isnt against the rules..

When someone deadbeats (by the definition above) it is frowned upon, but as stated in this thread a few times, and repeated now cause you couldnt pick up on it, this is abuse when it is done on a wider scale of more then 2 games... or even 3..

There is a real world out there, things happen, people get busy, or even frustrated with a game and they choose not to play in it anymore. It happens, its also why their are tags to explain this sort of behavior.. Rate, Tag & Foe Accordingly.

This offense was not measurable enough to warrant any more punishment then that, which was the ruling. So if you still have a problem with the ruling then open up an E-Ticket about it and hear the same thing from another mod/hunter. Cause their is a standardization to the disciplinary actions that we hand out called the community guidelines, perhaps you should read them.

KS

king sam wrote:

theherkman wrote:Since no one in charge has the balls to directly answer my question, let me repeat myself.

theherkman wrote:Still waiting for an answer here... Is it or is it not okay to break the rules, as long as it is not on a large scale?

Deadbeating is when someone is around (you have proof of it cause hes playing in other games) but chooses not to take turns in a game for 3 consecutive turns and gets kicked out of the game.

Got that. That's why I posted this...

king sam wrote:Missing a turn here or there is a tactic that is used and while I personally dont like it, it isnt against the rules..

Don't care, since that's not what happened and has nothing to do with this situation.

king sam wrote:When someone deadbeats (by the definition above) it is frowned upon, but as stated in this thread a few times, and repeated now cause you couldnt pick up on it, this is abuse when it is done on a wider scale of more then 2 games... or even 3..

GREAT!!!! Glad you told me this!!!

Game 8032819
Game 8034429
Game 8034326
Game 8046017
Game 8028840
Game 8044389
Game 8044292
Game 8043881
Game 8043881
Game 8043675
Game 8037479
Game 8032296
Game 8032364
Game 8032409
Game 8032499
Game 8028961

By the way, these games are all from the top half of page 1 of his games! Let me know if you need me to do some more of your work for you.

In all of these games, he realizes he can't win, usually says gg and leaves. Then he is either eliminated by the player or loses from deadbeating. I'm sorry, I'm not good at math. Can you count how many games are there? I think it is more than 2 or 3.

King Sam wrote:There is a real world out there, things happen, people get busy, or even frustrated with a game and they choose not to play in it anymore. It happens, its also why their are tags to explain this sort of behavior.. Rate, Tag & Foe Accordingly.

I get tired of arguing with a brick wall. I'm just going to agree with you. Yes, donlarry gets busy and has things happen every time he is about to lose... Yes, you are right...

King Sam wrote:This offense was not measurable enough to warrant any more punishment then that, which was the ruling. So if you still have a problem with the ruling then open up an E-Ticket about it and hear the same thing from another mod/hunter. Cause their is a standardization to the disciplinary actions that we hand out called the community guidelines, perhaps you should read them.

Okay, hows about this? I just gave you 16 more games. In several of them he was eliminated after missing 1-2 turns. But in several he also deadbeated. There is a pattern and more than 2-3 games. He even admits to it in this thread. So, is this enough evidence for you? Or would I have to hack his webcam and show you where he says, "Meh, I quit this one"? Let me know if I can be of further assistance.

KS[/quote]

theherkman wrote:

king sam wrote:Deadbeating is when someone is around (you have proof of it cause hes playing in other games) but chooses not to take turns in a game for 3 consecutive turns and gets kicked out of the game.

Got that. That's why I posted this...

Hmm.... really you understand?

theherkman wrote:

king sam wrote:When someone deadbeats (by the definition above) it is frowned upon, but as stated in this thread a few times, and repeated now cause you couldnt pick up on it, this is abuse when it is done on a wider scale of more then 2 games... or even 3..

GREAT!!!! Glad you told me this!!!

Game 8032819 *DEADBEATED
Game 8034429
Game 8034326 *DEADBEATED
Game 8046017
Game 8028840
Game 8044389
Game 8044292
Game 8043881
Game 8043881 *Repeat from game above still no DEADBEAT
Game 8043675
Game 8037479
Game 8032296
Game 8032364
Game 8032409
Game 8032499 *DEADBEATED
Game 8028961

Obviously I added the text explaining which games out of the 16 that you just posted were truly games that he deadbeated in. Regardless of whether the other 12 were going down that road or not he did not commit the crime of deadbeating in them, therefor he can not be punished for "looking like he was going to give up and deadbeat in those games".

theherkman wrote:By the way, these games are all from the top half of page 1 of his games! Let me know if you need me to do some more of your work for you.

In all of these games, he realizes he can't win, usually says gg and leaves. Then he is either eliminated by the player or loses from deadbeating. I'm sorry, I'm not good at math. Can you count how many games are there? I think it is more than 2 or 3.

When you fill out a form accusing someone of something you should provide all the evidence you can, kuddo's to you for going back and searching what I already have but the outcome as I see it is still the same. My math skills, which ARE very good still only counts 3 games out of that mess that he "deadbeated" in. As explained 2 paragraphs above, and reiterated here cause I think you will need it, The intentions to deadbeat in the other games are subjectively there but without committing the act of missing 3 consecutive turns and getting booted from the games he can not be held accountable by this rule. Could I have missed some further down the list of games that he has played that he has officially "deadbeated" in, why of course, Im human. But as I saw it and as you posted here throughout the games I searched he only had a few that he actually "deadbeated" in.

By all means if you can find more that he actually missed three turns in and was booted from then post them or open up an E-Ticket and it will be re-evaluated. If I was opening up a thread accusing someone of this, this would have been in my OP with the accusation..but thats me.

KS

king sam wrote:Obviously I added the text explaining which games out of the 16 that you just posted were truly games that he deadbeated in. Regardless of whether the other 12 were going down that road or not he did not commit the crime of deadbeating in them, therefor he can not be punished for "looking like he was going to give up and deadbeat in those games".

king sam, I'm going to weigh in (this is where everyone groans) on this because I think you may not be considering this in the most constructive manner. I think you know that I think highly of you as a C&A individual, so I don't mean this to sound like a criticism against you, because it's not...it's a criticism against the system. I think this part of the system should be reviewed by you C&A folks.

I don't have a particular dog in this fight (I don't know much about theherkman or donlarry (other than that I find theherkman mildly annoying), but I have to say that strictly adhering to rigid guidelines is foolish in instances when common sense and looking at the situation rationally would find this individual guilty. I mean, it's painfully clear that he's literally intending to deadbeat and is only saved from it by his opponents continuing to play the game. He even admits it himself in this thread. Do you really feel that opponents should stop playing themselves just to prove that someone is actually deadbeating? Does this REALLY make sense as a policy? Again, don't allow devotion to guidelines to override common sense.

Woodruff wrote:

king sam wrote:Obviously I added the text explaining which games out of the 16 that you just posted were truly games that he deadbeated in. Regardless of whether the other 12 were going down that road or not he did not commit the crime of deadbeating in them, therefor he can not be punished for "looking like he was going to give up and deadbeat in those games".

king sam, I'm going to weigh in (this is where everyone groans) on this because I think you may not be considering this in the most constructive manner. I think you know that I think highly of you as a C&A individual, so I don't mean this to sound like a criticism against you, because it's not...it's a criticism against the system. I think this part of the system should be reviewed by you C&A folks.

I don't have a particular dog in this fight (I don't know much about theherkman or donlarry (other than that I find theherkman mildly annoying), but I have to say that strictly adhering to rigid guidelines is foolish in instances when common sense and looking at the situation rationally would find this individual guilty. I mean, it's painfully clear that he's literally intending to deadbeat and is only saved from it by his opponents continuing to play the game. He even admits it himself in this thread. Do you really feel that opponents should stop playing themselves just to prove that someone is actually deadbeating? Does this REALLY make sense as a policy? Again, don't allow devotion to guidelines to override common sense.

So you suggest more liberal interpretation of the rules? Punishment for perceived intentions? Not a good plan.

It does not matter if he intended on deadbeating 1000 games if he was unsuccessful. No rules against missing turns.

I intend on flaming several people and CC in general most everyday (If this is random my ass is chocolate) but I fail to do it. Perhaps since I have the intent I should be banned even though I do not go thru with it...

jefjef wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

king sam wrote:Obviously I added the text explaining which games out of the 16 that you just posted were truly games that he deadbeated in. Regardless of whether the other 12 were going down that road or not he did not commit the crime of deadbeating in them, therefor he can not be punished for "looking like he was going to give up and deadbeat in those games".

king sam, I'm going to weigh in (this is where everyone groans) on this because I think you may not be considering this in the most constructive manner. I think you know that I think highly of you as a C&A individual, so I don't mean this to sound like a criticism against you, because it's not...it's a criticism against the system. I think this part of the system should be reviewed by you C&A folks.

I don't have a particular dog in this fight (I don't know much about theherkman or donlarry (other than that I find theherkman mildly annoying), but I have to say that strictly adhering to rigid guidelines is foolish in instances when common sense and looking at the situation rationally would find this individual guilty. I mean, it's painfully clear that he's literally intending to deadbeat and is only saved from it by his opponents continuing to play the game. He even admits it himself in this thread. Do you really feel that opponents should stop playing themselves just to prove that someone is actually deadbeating? Does this REALLY make sense as a policy? Again, don't allow devotion to guidelines to override common sense.

So you suggest more liberal interpretation of the rules? Punishment for perceived intentions? Not a good plan.

When there is overwhelming evidence, it is no longer "perceived intentions". I'm not talking about deadbeating a bunch of games at the same time...that could be a bad internet connection at that point in time. I'm not talking about situations in which there is some reasonable question as to intent. I'm talking about routinely no longer taking turns once the game is decided against the person and it is obvious that they are doing so, based on their activity in all of their games at the same times combined with the circumstances of whether they are winning or losing those games in which activity disappears.

jefjef wrote:It does not matter if he intended on deadbeating 1000 games if he was unsuccessful. No rules against missing turns.

No rule should be so rigidly adhered to that it promotes abuse. By not taking action against the excessive serial game-quitters, this sort of action is being promoted.

jefjef wrote:I intend on flaming several people and CC in general most everyday (If this is random my ass is chocolate) but I fail to do it. Perhaps since I have the intent I should be banned even though I do not go thru with it...

The situations are not anywhere near the same. There is no action on your part to prove overwhelming evidence of your intention, jefjef.

Ok, well since it seems you are a bit dense, let me try again...

king sam wrote:When someone deadbeats (by the definition above) it is frowned upon, but as stated in this thread a few times, and repeated now cause you couldnt pick up on it, this is abuse when it is done on a wider scale of more then 2 games... or even 3..

So I only need to find 2 or 3 games for this to be abuse? I put 2 damn games in my OP! I just gave you another 3! These were in the last 5 days!!!!!

How could you look at those links and say, "Oh, only 3, not good enough." When you just said 2 or 3 is all that is needed!

Here is a list of all games lost with missed turns by Donlarry since the creation of this report.

Game 8046069 - Missed 2 turns before being eliminated. Other player asks him not to deadbeat to no avail.
Game 8046017 - Missed 1 turn before elimination. Reason? "theyre not giving me any troops stupid board"
Game 8045950 - Missed 3 turns and deadbeated. Reason? His opponent grabbed a bonus.
Game 8045018 - Missed 3 turns and deadbeated. Reason? In 1v1 feudal his opponent took one of his castles.
Game 8044919 - Missed 1 turn before elimination. Reason? He only had one territory.
Game 8044526 - Missed 3 turns and deadbeated. Reason? In 1v1 feudal his opponent took one of his castles.
Game 8044389 - Missed 2 turns before elimination. Reason? In 1v1 feudal his opponent took one of his castles.
Game 8044292 - Missed 1 turn before elimination. Reason? In 1v1 feudal his opponent took one of his castles.
Game 8043881 - Missed 1 turn before elimination. Reason? In 1v1 feudal his opponent took one of his castles.
Game 8043675 - Missed 1 turn before elimination. Reason? In 1v1 feudal his opponent took one of his castles.
Game 8043355 - Missed 2 turns before elimination. Reason? In 1v1 feudal his opponent took one of his castles.
Game 8039389 - Missed 1 turn before elimination. Reason? His opponent grabbed a bonus.
Game 8038030 - Missed 3 turns and deadbeated. Reason? Felt like having a cigarette.
Game 8037479 - Missed 2 turns before elimination. Reason? Being famed by pimphawks70.
Game 8034456 - Missed 2 turns before elimination. Reason? He only had two territories.
Game 8034429 - Missed 2 turns before elimination. Reason? His opponent grabbed a bonus.
Game 8034326 - Missed 3 turns and deadbeated. Reason? I'm getting tired of checking and don't care.
Game 8034139 - Missed 1 turn before elimination.
Game 8032819 - Missed 3 turns and deadbeated.
Game 8032725 - Missed 3 turns and deadbeated. Reason? (I love this one!) "wtf this game cheats"
Game 8032550 - Missed 1 turn before elimination.
Game 8032499 - Missed 3 turns and deadbeated.
Game 8032409 - Missed 2 turns before elimination.
Game 8032364 - Missed 2 turns before elimination.
Game 8029527 - Missed 2 turns before elimination.
Game 8028961 - Missed 2 turns before elimination.
Game 8028840 - Missed 1 turn before elimination.
Game 8023064 - Missed 1 turn before elimination.
Game 8022962 - Missed 1 turn before elimination.
Game 8021432 - Missed 1 turn before elimination.
Game 8019251 - Missed 2 turns before elimination.
Game 8019221 - Missed 3 turns and deadbeated.

There are 8 examples of missing 3 turns in a row THIS WEEK!!! You were wrong, now do your job!!!

Woodruff wrote:

jefjef wrote:I intend on flaming several people and CC in general most everyday (If this is random my ass is chocolate) but I fail to do it. Perhaps since I have the intent I should be banned even though I do not go thru with it...

The situations are not anywhere near the same. There is no action on your part to prove overwhelming evidence of your intention, jefjef.

Ever see any of my posts? lMAO! If you did not have me foed perhaps you would see overwhelming intentions.

We need guidelines that are strictly adhered to. Otherwise it ends up player A, who is not popular or ranked or respected, getting punished while player B, who is loved and worshiped by the masses getting away with the exact same offense.

No thank you.

DonLarry will be rewarded for his crap with poor ratings and foe lists. Overtime he will not be able to get into all the games that he would like to be in or get into some of the good clans.

Speaking of... Nice bait and flame herkman. Enjoy your upcoming vacation...

theherkman wrote:Ok, well since it seems you are a bit dense, let me try again...

king sam wrote:When someone deadbeats (by the definition above) it is frowned upon, but as stated in this thread a few times, and repeated now cause you couldnt pick up on it, this is abuse when it is done on a wider scale of more then 2 games... or even 3..

theherkman wrote:Ok, well since it seems you are a bit dense, let me try again...

How old are you? I ask because I would hope that someone older than...say 13...wouldn't say things like this WHEN TRYING TO WIN SOMEONE OVER TO THEIR SIDE. Good heavens.

As well, the information you provided there did not counter the points that king sam made, basically being that missed turns do not equal deadbeating. You simply re-stated what you had previous stated...which king sam had already dealt with.

jefjef wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jefjef wrote:I intend on flaming several people and CC in general most everyday (If this is random my ass is chocolate) but I fail to do it. Perhaps since I have the intent I should be banned even though I do not go thru with it...

The situations are not anywhere near the same. There is no action on your part to prove overwhelming evidence of your intention, jefjef.

Ever see any of my posts? lMAO! If you did not have me foed perhaps you would see overwhelming intentions.

Heh. <grin>

jefjef wrote:We need guidelines that are strictly adhered to. Otherwise it ends up player A, who is not popular or ranked or respected, getting punished while player B, who is loved and worshiped by the masses getting away with the exact same offense.No thank you.

I definitely understand this argument, so I'm not saying that potential isn't there. That's why I refer to overwhelming evidence...so much that the conclusion is unavoidable (as in this case). But as things stand now, patently obvious abuse is promoted and that is just as bad of a situation.

jefjef wrote:DonLarry will be rewarded for his crap with poor ratings and foe lists. Overtime he will not be able to get into all the games that he would like to be in or get into some of the good clans.

Some people (I would even suggest it is "most people") don't care about ratings or clans, so those aren't a deterrent in the slightest. Foe listing won't keep him out of enough games to really impact him, in my opinion.

king sam wrote:When someone deadbeats (by the definition above) it is frowned upon, but as stated in this thread a few times, and repeated now cause you couldnt pick up on it, this is abuse when it is done on a wider scale of more then 2 games... or even 3..

Game 8045950
Game 8045018
Game 8044526
Game 8038030
Game 8034326
Game 8032819
Game 8032499
Game 8019221

This is 8 times this week. Per your definition, this is now abuse.

woody / jefjef, that is the pickle.. you gotta see both points. woody of course common sense should factor in and in this case resolve what everyone knows the player is trying to do, which is abuse the site.. but to maintain uniformity throughout the community and throughout the actions handed down from mods there needs to be a threshold/standard and action for every consequence.. the standard here being while we know that he is aiming to deadbeat he technically didnt therefor benefit of the doubt has to factor to the side that since the crime wasnt committed the consequence isnt there.. i see both points, and its an interesting conversation/scenario to play out.
But always if someone is committing a fault/violation on the site it will catch up with them. just like this one just did.

theherkman this case was looked at, reviewed and Cleared on the 23rd for lack of volume of this offense making it not measurable enough at that time to warrant further action. I stated it would take more then 2 or even 3 to warrant abuse. You didnt agree with it, posted 15 games that only showed exactly what I stated 3 games with him "deadbeating"..
The 8 games you just listed were all done after the 23rd, after the initial ruling.. And yes, now this is abuse and he will be Warned. In the future you would need to open up an E-Ticket or another case stating the new evidence, as this was a Closed case.

As for the flaming in here, standby I am having another hunter/mod review and process the disciplinary actions for that for ambiguity.. And unfortunately I am locking this to prevent you from getting yourself in further trouble. jefjef / woody that is a great conversation to have, wish this didnt have to be locked but you will have to take it to the suggs department or to the PM's.

KS