Conquer Club

http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?s ... =&private=



what is the deal with saxi.. I'm not accusing them of cheating but htey have 2 pages of active games and just joined a couple days ago... they've already bought premium etc.. I dont know any new players who do that so I want perhaps an Ip check.

bump.

yeah, he basically joined every game that was public and had room for a player

i was a little suspicious about that 2 but maybe he just rly liked the site 2 begin wit

So other than the fact that he joined so many games and he is new, is there any other reason? Maybe he want to have the record like his post seems to ask.

reverend_kyle wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?submit=Search&start_rec=100&game_number=&game_status=&map=&num_players=&game_type=&bonus_cards=&play_order=&fortifications=&player1=Saxi&player2=&private=



what is the deal with saxi.. I'm not accusing them of cheating but htey have 2 pages of active games and just joined a couple days ago... they've already bought premium etc.. I dont know any new players who do that so I want perhaps an Ip check.

He isn't a they he is a he! I recommended Saxi check the site out.

So other than the fact he has created an incredible amount of games - what warrants your post in here. Even if he deadbeats them - which I don't think he will - that isn't chating and premium members have no limits on games they can play.

He does have a challenge in mind - should he do it then i'm sure everyone will know - but its not cheating in any form.

I do think we should calm down on looking for a cheater under every stone - we're meant to be welcoming to new members not looking for reasons to put them off. Maybe there should be a count for unsubstantiated accusations - would a least make people like aspiring youth think twice before posting there accusations. R.kyle I had thought more of you


Tals

tals wrote:I do think we should calm down on looking for a cheater under every stone - we're meant to be welcoming to new members not looking for reasons to put them off. Maybe there should be a count for unsubstantiated accusations - would a least make people like aspiring youth think twice before posting there accusations. R.kyle I had thought more of you


Tals

I don't think the count is a good idea, and I don't think we're looking for cheaters under every stone these days either. Implementing such a procedure would lessen the chance of cheaters being caught. If someone takes the risk to report someone, which will entail negative backlash for them if their presumptions are wrong, I say good on them.

qeee1 wrote:

tals wrote:I do think we should calm down on looking for a cheater under every stone - we're meant to be welcoming to new members not looking for reasons to put them off. Maybe there should be a count for unsubstantiated accusations - would a least make people like aspiring youth think twice before posting there accusations. R.kyle I had thought more of you


Tals

I don't think the count is a good idea, and I don't think we're looking for cheaters under every stone these days either. Implementing such a procedure would lessen the chance of cheaters being caught. If someone takes the risk to report someone, which will entail negative backlash for them if their presumptions are wrong, I say good on them.

Its more the lack of thought which appears to be occuring which is my concern. But yes my example was an alternative way at handling at the stupidity of some of these cheating posts - unfortunately it wouldn't be right to stop some of the very good posts being made.

Tals

Well I agree with tals. I just checked the last 3 pages in the Cheating and Abuse forums for the busted and cleared multis. My count might be a little off because I ran out of fingers and toes but my count came up with 33 cleared and 37 busted. Those are just the ones with cleared or busted in the subject line. Can you imagine the outrage if our criminal justice systems had results like this?

Many came to the defence of Medal of Honor and dugcarr1 because there wasn't any proof provided against them. Shouldn't the burden of proof apply to all members of CC? Or just the ones who have been here 3 months, 4 months or only the ones who have been here from the start.

People have been accused just because of their name, playing turns to soon after each other, { the thing with the green, red and black icons makes that possible}, joined to many games and they are new here or part of the "proof" against dugcarr1 was his spelling.

Lets get some proof before we accuse someone. How many new membrs stopped playing because they were accused?

I like saxi, he has been fun in the games I have with him... I just figured it seemed slightly suspicious.. and if he is a multi.. good I got him checked.. if he isnt cool. no harm done right? except for the time wasted by multi hunters.. but we've got 3 new ones.. they need some material to practice on.

So it was ok for you to have saxi checked, no harm no foul but what about when Medal of Honor and dugcarr1 were accused. I didn't see you saying it was ok to accuse them. No harm no foul then? I don't thin so.

All I am saying is lets treat everyone the way we want to be treated. Like MOH and dugcarr1 the have been around awhile so their reputations weren't hurt as much. But a new player who doesn't have a reputation might find it harder to repair any damage that was done.

When you started playing here would you have been accused of being a multi if you went on one of you game starting sprees? If so would it have been right? No it would not!!

Evil Semp wrote:So it was ok for you to have saxi checked, no harm no foul but what about when Medal of Honor and dugcarr1 were accused. I didn't see you saying it was ok to accuse them. No harm no foul then? I don't thin so.

All I am saying is lets treat everyone the way we want to be treated. Like MOH and dugcarr1 the have been around awhile so their reputations weren't hurt as much. But a new player who doesn't have a reputation might find it harder to repair any damage that was done.

When you started playing here would you have been accused of being a multi if you went on one of you game starting sprees? If so would it have been right? No it would not!!

There is nothing wrong with getting a check done on someone. Being accused of a multi doesn't really soil one's reputation. It's the [Busted] sign that hurts one's reputation. I don't see why anyone would take such offense to an accusation.

MOH and dugcarr both handled the accusations very poorly, i.e. namecalling. I certainly thought less of them after I saw their responses, but not after they had been accused.

Also, when I joined this site I remember reading something in the guidelines that said something along the lines of "We randomly screen players to see if they are multis." How is accusing a random person any different than a random screening...other than the fact that the public can see who is being scanned.

stinkycheese wrote:
There is nothing wrong with getting a check done on someone. Being accused of a multi doesn't really soil one's reputation. It's the [Busted] sign that hurts one's reputation. I don't see why anyone would take such offense to an accusation.

Would you even be saying any of this if it wasn't a new player being accused?

Maybe you could ask MOH and dugcarr1 why they were offended.

So you wouldn't be offended if you were accused of cheating? Of forming a secret alliance?

stinkycheese wrote:MOH and dugcarr both handled the accusations very poorly, i.e. namecalling. I certainly thought less of them after I saw their responses, but not after they had been accused.

Don't you think your loss of respect for MOH and dugcarr1 were a result of a false accusation?

stinkycheese wrote:Also, when I joined this site I remember reading something in the guidelines that said something along the lines of "We randomly screen players to see if they are multis." How is accusing a random person any different than a random screening...other than the fact that the public can see who is being scanned.

Random screening for drugs in say the NFL is alot different than another player pointing at someone saying that player takes drugs.

When we signed up for an account here we knew they did random checks, but I don't remember reading that it was ok to accuse someone of something false. Like I said before almost 50% of the cases that have been finalized were proven wrong. I don't like those odds.

Evil Semp wrote:Would you even be saying any of this if it wasn't a new player being accused?

I've always been in favor of any accusation, I don't care who it is...

Evil Semp wrote:Maybe you could ask MOH and dugcarr1 why they were offended.

Why? I don't care that much.

Evil Semp wrote:So you wouldn't be offended if you were accused of cheating? Of forming a secret alliance?

I've been reported for being a multi twice in the forums and I've had numerous negative feedbacks accusing me of being a multi. You can look at those and see for yourself if I was offended; I don't believe that I was.

Evil Semp wrote:Don't you think your loss of respect for MOH and dugcarr1 were a result of a false accusation?

I think I already said it was because they resorted to namecalling as opposed to sitting back and waiting for the [Cleared] sign to appear.

Evil Semp wrote:Random screening for drugs in say the NFL is alot different than another player pointing at someone saying that player takes drugs.

Well...you win this one! Your analogy is a little over-dramatized though.

Evil Semp wrote:When we signed up for an account here we knew they did random checks, but I don't remember reading that it was ok to accuse someone of something false. Like I said before almost 50% of the cases that have been finalized were proven wrong. I don't like those odds.

It's ok to do anything but break the two rules. As far as I see it, it isn't accusing someone of something false, it's asking for a simple check to make sure that this site is the best it can be.

Semp,

i think that the reason this is is because there are a lot of friends on this site. ok, so u join a game with P Gizzle and A KIZZLE. obviously, this looks like a poor attempt of multiing. so, u get it checked out. sometimes, ur right, other times ur wrong. in this case, ur wrong, but is it ur fault?

"You left this feedback for *clare* can only win by missing his turn on purpose so that he gets double armies."

this is your response to *clare*s feedback to you. "stinkycheese's response: im not being sore, all i did was leave feedback for you because people deserve to know that you will manipulate the system to win. its only fair for me to let other people know..."

this is what you said earlier in this thread.

"It's ok to do anything but break the two rules"

So if it is ok to do anything but break the two rules why did this tatic in a game deserve neg feedback? Do you interpet the rules depending on the situation?

And my example might have been a little dramatized but it is the same thing except the stakes are alot higher.

Gizzle

In the case you are talking about I think it was a legit reason. But what about the guy who went by the name "Multi"? Just because of his name he was accused.

well, i don't know. obviously, it could be like Steve Griffiths1-23, or whatever. it was obvious he was a multi. somebody could be beggin for attention and thought, "hey, why don't i make a guy named multi?"

But what did he do wrong except have a name of "Multi"? Nothing.

true. but what did i and KIZZLE do wrong except have similar names?

I would think you thought they were trying to impersonate you. I don't know why they would you are a SeaChicks fan. lol

SeaChickens!!! anyway, that could be true, but when i posted R Grizzle, everyone got mad at me, and i never got a true response

OK SeaChickens it is.

All I am asking is was someone joining 144 games reason to accuse no matter what wording was used in the orginal post. Don't you think we should have valid reasons not just because someone forgot to put a comma in a sentence.

Evil Semp wrote:"You left this feedback for *clare* can only win by missing his turn on purpose so that he gets double armies."

this is your response to *clare*s feedback to you. "stinkycheese's response: im not being sore, all i did was leave feedback for you because people deserve to know that you will manipulate the system to win. its only fair for me to let other people know..."

this is what you said earlier in this thread.

"It's ok to do anything but break the two rules"

So if it is ok to do anything but break the two rules why did this tatic in a game deserve neg feedback? Do you interpet the rules depending on the situation?

And my example might have been a little dramatized but it is the same thing except the stakes are alot higher.

Yes, I realize that that isn't against the rules...if we only left negative feedback for people who cheat then what would the purpose of it be? I left the feedback to warn other players that if they disapprove of that tactic then they might not want to play with that person. The feedback system is more or less a warning system for future team mates and opponents to look at and decide whether or not they want to play with that person.

Johnny rotten and I were accused once for being multis.. before we'd ever played a game together.. obviously we werent but I wasnt offended.