Conquer Club

Aloha to all:
Please consider the following question!
Why not eliminate players who also miss three (3) Non-Consecutive turns as well???
Or as an alternative to the above: Automatically eliminate any player who misses four (4) or more turns, that need not be consecutive in a game????
To me; there seems to be players who use the strategy or tatic of missing turns on purpose to stock troops up without risk! Do you agree? If you do agree, then what are our alternative options in dealing with that issue. Please join me in requesting of the administrators of Conquer Club to institute that new rule of eliminating a player who misses four (4) or more turns in a game that are not consecutive!

Thank you for timely consideration of this question!

I don't even think the Last Jedi made much sense anyway. I know people go on about Luke Skywalker being all angsty and that, but none of the other characters from the original trilogy really made sense either.

I totally agree

Yep, agree with the first post. Would like to see people who miss 3 non consecutive turns get kicked from that game.
Wastes all other players' time. Slows down the game unnecessarily. Selfish and frustrating.
We're here to play, if you're not then get out, go mess up some other game.

Because it would make too much sense.....

(real reason given in the past..."because this is a casual gaming site")

I would support this if it were reasonable. For instance, in a game that goes fifty turns, I think its too harsh, but in a game that goes 10-15 turns it is appropriate.

There is already a pending suggestion to get elimination with player who miss 3 consecutive round in Poly game disregarding the color...such as in Poly 3 if player miss turn consecutively with red, green and blue he will get kicked.

Now with this inquiry, i would say the same as rockfist, therefore I doubt webmaster can found a way to make it work based on amount of round...but I agree with the overhaul thought, it could be annoying.

I have always been in support of this.
I assume that the reason they never implemented this has something to do with scaring away customers, fear of people rage-quitting after being kicked from a game.

They should have had the integrity to implement this ten years ago, consequences be damned.
We could afford to lose a few players to make the site better.

No. Kick the people who play 3 consecutive turns. I'm sick of people taking this site so seriously.

You can't have a serious gaming website if all the good players have been banned.

All Black Rugby wrote:Yep, agree with the first post. Would like to see people who miss 3 non consecutive turns get kicked from that game.
Wastes all other players' time. Slows down the game unnecessarily. Selfish and frustrating.
We're here to play, if you're not then get out, go mess up some other game.

In what way does it waste people's time? Seriously, are you sitting there watching the screen until they take a move?

If you want to speed the game, why not make team chat illegal in clan games?

When you say you agree to the first post, does that mean you think people do it just for stacking? That may be the case sometimes, but it often isn't a great strategy if others are paying attention.

By the way, this is obviously a bot.
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=201159&p=4396896

Arama86n wrote:We could afford to lose a few players to make the site better.

This is true, but the ones we couldn't afford to lose (the actual greatest in the world, that make this the best RISK website) are all already gone.

Oh i dunno, still a few Great's still around
But yeah, in general I don't pay suggestions and the like that much attention anymore.
It feels like the train has left the station.

So, just to recap:

ITT- a bloke logs in for two minutes and scams some of the highest ranking and most prominent players on the site. Gets reported, and the mods do nothing. Idiotic high ranked players now argue with each other, because it's better to pretend that this con-artist had some kind of valid point than admitting they were made to look like fools by a question mark.

Have I got this right?

Symmetry wrote:So, just to recap:

ITT- a bloke logs in for two minutes and scams some of the highest ranking and most prominent players on the site. Gets reported, and the mods do nothing. Idiotic high ranked players now argue with each other, because it's better to pretend that this con-artist had some kind of valid point than admitting they were made to look like fools by a question mark.

Have I got this right?

Not quite. The point of the OP has been long discussed on this site. It's kind of like if a bot came on and said "is global warming real?" people would still argue about it.

In retrospect engaging in a conversation started by an obvious multi might not be the best approach.
The actual argument was valid though.

DoomYoshi wrote:

Symmetry wrote:So, just to recap:

ITT- a bloke logs in for two minutes and scams some of the highest ranking and most prominent players on the site. Gets reported, and the mods do nothing. Idiotic high ranked players now argue with each other, because it's better to pretend that this con-artist had some kind of valid point than admitting they were made to look like fools by a question mark.

Have I got this right?

Not quite. The point of the OP has been long discussed on this site. It's kind of like if a bot came on and said "is global warming real?" people would still argue about it.

No, I got this one right. You got conned.

Name one way in which I got conned.

Go away, Paul.

DoomYoshi wrote:Name one way in which I got conned.

Sure- you're still trying to back up the OP's point, and even that dude hasn't logged in since the day of the OP.

Is that enough? You'll probably feel the need to shift the goalposts now.

Symmetry wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:Name one way in which I got conned.

Sure- you're still trying to back up the OP's point, and even that dude hasn't logged in since the day of the OP.

Is that enough? You'll probably feel the need to shift the goalposts now.

Nope. I didn't back his point and I referred to the actual OP in my post. I will not move the goalposts, so you're wrong on 3 counts.

Name one way in which I got conned.

DoomYoshi wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:Name one way in which I got conned.

Sure- you're still trying to back up the OP's point, and even that dude hasn't logged in since the day of the OP.

Is that enough? You'll probably feel the need to shift the goalposts now.

Nope. I didn't back his point and I referred to the actual OP in my post. I will not move the goalposts, so you're wrong on 3 counts.

Name one way in which I got conned.

You got conned, the OP hasn't even't posted anything apart from this, you fell for it.

Score!

Do you need yet another goal post shift or are you going to try to tell me that you were never offside?

Symmetry wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:Name one way in which I got conned.

Sure- you're still trying to back up the OP's point, and even that dude hasn't logged in since the day of the OP.

Is that enough? You'll probably feel the need to shift the goalposts now.

Nope. I didn't back his point and I referred to the actual OP in my post. I will not move the goalposts, so you're wrong on 3 counts.

Name one way in which I got conned.

You got conned, the OP hasn't even't posted anything apart from this, you fell for it.

Score!

Do you need yet another goal post shift or are you going to try to tell me that you were never offside?

I didn't fall for anything. The OP has 8 posts. I posted a link to the OP in my post.

Even if I did fall for it, why should more posts than one be required for someone to take a discussion seriously?

I'm talking about the real OP, you're talking about some Vietnamese knock-off. You can stick with your Nikk brand sneakers and your SQNY speakers, I'll stick to the facts.