Conquer Club

Accused:
nooruddinaftab


The accused are suspected of:
Point Dumping

Game number(s):
Game 15376195

Comments:
Something funky is happening. When this game started he had 1774 points, now he has 790. It may be game staggering, but I would like someone to look into it.

Last game that he won was Game 15371133 where he had 1566 pts after that and it was just yesterday.
He has lost 50++ games since then to which this brought to his current score of 790. He is not missing turns and no one has reported him losing a game intentionally or questionably. He is currently in 218 active games, all public casual games.

This issue has been raised once before in https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=239&t=210478. I believe this player is known for vast point fluctuation because of the method involved. This player plays a lot of games and finishes the games which are likely losses first and then goes through the likely wins. You can probably expect nooruddinaftab's score to go back up within a few days.

Currently active in 218 games. He appears to be the only one playing all his games. How can we enforce something if there is no secret or agreed connivance between opponents, granted that he is after a certain goal? To win back as much points lost as he could.

How does one delay a win? Playing hostage? Can anyone come forward with this proof?

Should we put a cap as to how many a player should only have as his active games because of this player?

As I said from my previous ruling, this is neither a black or white case where we can say it clearly violates the rules. The only thing questionable here is that his score fluctuates so fast. With that many active games, he tries to (unbelievably) win back his points as fast as he loses them. This is not normal and looks to be an isolated case.

I think this is just going to remain one of those rare instances of a statistical anomaly. The only method I can think of to legally delay a win would be to take the turn latter within the twenty-four hour time period. I do not think an active game cap would necessarily work. It could lead to a backlash from premium players, while if it is a number such as 100 or 150 there would still be a large point fluctuation because of the way the player's games are organized.

2015-02-20 09:13:08 - nooruddinaftab has a score of 2056.
2015-02-20 09:13:08 - Doc Dice has a score of 2032.

I joined 11 of his games at the same time, thinking it would be an even play, best of 11, winner might make 20-50 points

I will win 6 of 11, making me the series winner.

I played all eleven in sequence every time.

I noticed however that the games I was ahead, even by a little bit, in round two, he reduced all his armies to 1 on every territory. I thought it was odd, but not too much because it's pretty common for players to reduce 1v1 games when the outcome becomes obvious.

Then I noticed his score crashing quickly, right as I was gathering my share of the wins


2015-02-23 13:30:24 - Doc Dice gained 9 points
2015-02-23 08:32:35 - Doc Dice gained 11 points
2015-02-23 08:30:32 - Doc Dice gained 11 points
2015-02-23 06:06:27 - Doc Dice gained 13 points
2015-02-23 06:06:13 - Doc Dice gained 13 points
2015-02-23 03:47:18 - Doc Dice lost 29 points
2015-02-22 20:52:45 - Doc Dice gained 14 points

Still four to go. He will win all four. Even if he waits to finish these until he is a major again he will net gain points.

Not what I expected going into the series, but oh well. Shame on me for not paying closer attention. I will still win 6-5. So I still win.

It was an interesting exercise to watch from the inside.

the way to avoid it is to avoid joining batch games with a player that suddenly opens up 300 new games, or if you do, prepare to match his strategy.

Surely there's something against deliberately suiciding in losing games, rather than just playing them more quickly?

I guess this can be closed. I've put him on my foe list and I will drag the game out as much as I can to stage when I lose points to him.

iAmCaffeine wrote:Surely there's something against deliberately suiciding in losing games, rather than just playing them more quickly?

Why would there be ? I do that too - rather quick death than a long and painful one.

king achilles wrote:How does one delay a win? Playing hostage? Can anyone come forward with this proof?

i thought this had been noted just a few weeks ago... he should be back there in your rolodex...-Jn

owenshooter wrote:i thought this had been noted just a few weeks ago...

Yeah, that's my mistake for not looking before I posted.

owenshooter wrote:

king achilles wrote:How does one delay a win? Playing hostage? Can anyone come forward with this proof?

i thought this had been noted just a few weeks ago... he should be back there in your rolodex...-Jn

Just look at the four games I have remaining with him. He is definitely waiting, and at this point I am ok with that. If he takes the points right now he will gain about 150. If he waits until he's back near the top, it will be about 80. So I'm happy to be hostage for now.

The only problem with taking players hostage is it can discourage freemium players.
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=15371427
It takes up one of their spots, and who knows how long he will keep this guy hostage? Just seems wrong to me.

Gabriel13 wrote:The only problem with taking players hostage is it can discourage freemium players.
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=15371427
It takes up one of their spots, and who knows how long he will keep this guy hostage? Just seems wrong to me.

then you should have been in here 2 weeks ago when he was accused of this and it was deemed within the rules and acceptable behaviour.. we all do this to an extent, he is is just move obvious because of the huge number of games and points...-Jésus noir

I will stick to this matter as being a grey area. As such, even though I agree that there looks to be something questionable in this. regardless, unless there is enough proof that there is a violation of rule here that is beyond reasonable doubt, we will leave this as it is.

king achilles wrote:I will stick to this matter as being a grey area. As such, even though I agree that there looks to be something questionable in this. regardless, unless there is enough proof that there is a violation of rule here that is beyond reasonable doubt, we will leave this as it is.

same outcome as before...-Jésus noir

i hope you all enjoyed my rank flying
PS. this is the last time i am doing this shit. because handling 370 games was really pain in the ass.

nooruddinaftab wrote:i hope you all enjoyed my rank flying
PS. this is the last time i am doing this shit. because handling 370 games was really pain in the ass.

Nobody actually cares about your personal view on the situation.

How does this not fall under gross abuse?

iAmCaffeine wrote:

nooruddinaftab wrote:i hope you all enjoyed my rank flying
PS. this is the last time i am doing this shit. because handling 370 games was really pain in the ass.

Nobody actually cares about your personal view on the situation.

How does this not fall under gross abuse?

viewtopic.php?f=239&t=201636&p=4407020&hilit=Josko.ri#p4407020

Same case same judgement ?

Donelladan wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:

nooruddinaftab wrote:i hope you all enjoyed my rank flying
PS. this is the last time i am doing this shit. because handling 370 games was really pain in the ass.

Nobody actually cares about your personal view on the situation.

How does this not fall under gross abuse?

viewtopic.php?f=239&t=201636&p=4407020&hilit=Josko.ri#p4407020

Same case same judgement ?

I would argue that both should be counted as offences, yes.

this is gross abuse, and should be considered point dumping.

i think a reset is in order...

ronc8649 wrote:this is gross abuse, and should be considered point dumping.

i think a reset is in order...

the last part of your comment is as stupid as it gets. the problem here is that he can be playing with a too low score with his method, so you want to point reset him so we can make sure he has a lower score than what he's actually worth?