Conquer Club

Hey guys,



Reading through the Cheating and Abuse forum, the stickied topic directs us here (a request by TeeGee) to post off topic suggestions for the cheating and abuse policies.


It is wonderful that we have dedicated Volunteers, Support Admins, and Multi Hunters. . . . but I wonder if they are overworked and too harsh on these people to begin with. This is only my opinion. I've read through some forum posts from 2018 about multis and I've read through some other forum posts that show a real sense of resentment and mercilessness towards people who farm and achieve high rank.


Bear in mind, by multi I do not only mean people who create duplicate accounts, but also people who are banned and try to come back. I do think it's reasonable to ban people who create multiple accounts and play against themselves to inflate their rank and screw up everybody else's representation of rank earned. This creates some ambiguity in what I am trying to say, but generally, I think we take it a little too hard on people who are trying to have fun playing a game.


As we all know, games can be addicting; war games such as Conquer Club are especially addicting because people love strategizing about war. So, it is not surprising, this game can become very addicting.


Another thing worth pointing out is that this community is not a bunch of nerdy kids playing games like some other communities. We are a diverse group of all types and the game is generally accessible to anybody. Many games are more restrictive. This gives Conquer Club an advantage over other games.


So, it got me to thinking, what is so bad about the fact that somebody was banned and tried to make a new account to come back and play games with their friends? Especially a Conqueror, someone who cares a great deal for the game. I think banning them, "for life" from the game is sort of harsh.


Concerning farming, to put into perspective, consider speed games. Playing about 20 or 30 different maps regularly--even if you cycle between them to create interest in the games--a large percentage are joined by the same small group of people. These people are not always online so oftentimes you wait over an hour for a game to start. If you try to create multiple games, people join too many at once, or you have to set long turn times. If you create the same map again and again, almost nobody joins except those who have a calculated edge on you, or they join infrequently. People are often silent and unfriendly. It is not easy to play Random all the time, and some maps are difficult to interpret. Some maps are fun and we enjoy playing them again and again. Given all this, I think it is wrong to punish somebody for inviting people to games.


What strikes me most is basically turning a blind eye to somebody farming their way all the way to Conqueror and then banning them. There used to be a player who did this in live chat publicly and everybody knew he was doing it. I think his username was some iteration of David. He was also banned for this but only after he spent years trying to get his rank up, and everybody publicly knew what he was doing (correct me if I am wrong). When he finally I assume achieved his Conqueror rank, I was surprised the community turned on him so quickly. Last I saw (several years ago), he was a General or Field Marshall. I think the same thing probably happened to PaulatPeace - he spent a lot of effort giving to this community but the community turned on him and banned him for life? Again, correct me if I am wrong.


And AGAIN, I do not assume that I am completely correct in my enforcement policy recommendations here - but I think we should consider giving people less than a life sentence. After all, the game is very addicting and fun for many people, it's only natural people will do whatever they can to win and play. It seems very harsh to turn on these people who give a lot to the site, their usernames and forum posts will already be online forever stating they are cheaters, many bad things are said about them online and it's shameful.

This topic is open to discussion for everybody so we can have a conversation about this, but no need for Admins/etc. to respond if they do not feel the need to. I have faith this community will do the right thing.

I agree with your point that we shouldn't ban people for life but allow them to come back.
But there is some mistakes in your appreciation of how things happened.

What strikes me most is basically turning a blind eye to somebody farming their way all the way to Conqueror and then banning them. There used to be a player who did this in live chat publicly and everybody knew he was doing it. I think his username was Davidxxx. He was also banned for this but only after he spent years trying to get his rank up, and everybody publicly knew what he was doing (correct me if I am wrong). When he finally I assume achieved his Conqueror rank, I was surprised the community turned on him so quickly. Last I saw (several years ago), he was a General or Field Marshall. I think the same thing probably happened to PaulatPeace - he spent a lot of effort giving to this community but the community turned on him and banned him for life? Again, correct me if I am wrong.

I don't know about a DavidXXX.
The only guy I know that did that except PaulatPeace was GLG, and he was warned several times before being permabanned.

As for PaulatPeace, I am the one that opened the case against him, so fyi, no I didn't know what he doing for a long time and only "turned on him" once he was conqueror.
Though I did digged into him when he was closed to become conqueror, but this is logic because you don't pay attention to the doing of a regular player, but you do pay attention to the doing of the conqueror.

Furthermore he was NOT permabanned because of the farming but because of the way he behaved with the admins ( and he already had communicating issues with admin before I accused him of farming his way to conqueror).

So to summarize my post, I agree with you that people should be given a second chance and be allowed to come back.
But no one is permabanned for a single offence, things were more complicated that what you described.

Thanks Donelladan.
I thought he was banned for ranching.
This is what happened to another Conqueror (i.e.; David or GLG)
Instead of removing these players from the site, you could simply remove them from the leaderboard or reset their rank.

Aba the players you mentioned were given many chances. We do not take banning people lightly. I myself will not bust a multi if I have any doubt in my mind even if all the signs point to them being multis. As far as being permabanned they can always talk to admin about getting their account back. No account is permabanned without a complete discussion with admin and the departments involved.

Aba wrote:So, it got me to thinking, what is so bad about the fact that somebody was banned and tried to make a new account to come back and play games with their friends? Especially a Conqueror, someone who cares a great deal for the game.

One thing about this comment. Many players on this site take their rank very seriously. If a banned member comes back and makes another account and wins a game he will get more points than he would if his actual rank from his previous account were used. In other words his skill would not be reflected properly by the lower rank of a new account.

If someone defies multiple warnings I agree there should be punishment.
It should also be noted that simply because something is against the rules it doesn't make it wrong, any ethics class will teach you that the law has been wrong plenty of times.
I agree with you regarding multis.
TeeGee has mentioned how difficult it is to catch multis.
It is really easy to bypass IP bans, etc.

Can't play by the rules? Banhammer. Simple.

Plenty of us been here long time, G.I., without cheating. I don't support a kinder gentler policing.

Evil Semp wrote:In other words their skill would not be reflected properly by the lower rank of a new account.

You could say the same about someone who is already pretty good at playing Risk and then opens their first account on here. It won't take many games to reach a score that's closer to their real skill/gamesmanship level, and the difference in the number of points they take off any single opponent on their way up really won't be that big.

Personally I think the people who deliberately ditch points in order to slingshot themselves up the most improved board the following month have a way more detrimental effect on the point system than someone making a new account.

Also, new accounts open with 1,000 points. Only about 16% of active players on this site actually have a score lower than that, and even then if you look at the bottom 100 or so ranked members on the scoreboard there are plenty in there who currently have scores of 600-800 but win ratios of 30-35% and all-time high scores around 1,500 - so they're almost certainly a lot better than their current score suggests.

So, 1,000 points is likely to be a pretty under-inflated score for most new starts anyway. Maybe the starting number of points needs to be raised?

Aba, using PaP as an example I can confirm that many steps were taken before the decision to perma ban. Perma banning really is a last resort and thankfully is a used very rarely and only for very good reasons.

mrswdk wrote:

Evil Semp wrote:In other words their skill would not be reflected properly by the lower rank of a new account.

You could say the same about someone who is already pretty good at playing Risk and then opens their first account on here. It won't take many games to reach a score that's closer to their real skill/gamesmanship level, and the difference in the number of points they take off any single opponent on their way up really won't be that big.

Personally I think the people who deliberately ditch points in order to slingshot themselves up the most improved board the following month have a way more detrimental effect on the point system than someone making a new account.

Very well said.

Paulatpeace was given a short ban for sending invites with private PM's to low ranking or new players to games on his favorite (and just about only good) board and farming them.

He was permanently banned from the site for causing many frivolous arguments with site admins and stirring up the community in general with half truths (in my opinion) about those arguments (because he was losing them) thus making it so that the site volunteers were spending as much time dealing with him and the fallout from him as just about everything else combined.

There are people on this game I do not always enjoy or agree with and there are people that do not always enjoy or agree with me...that's life, but in my time on CC I would have to say PaP stands out from the rest of the people I've encountered here. Inviting him back would likely be an unpleasant time sink for site volunteers and clan volunteers and likely would not help attract other new players.

Keefie wrote:Aba, using PaP as an example I can confirm that many steps were taken before the decision to perma ban. Perma banning really is a last resort and thankfully is a used very rarely and only for very good reasons.

Since you’re a volunteer I’ll go into a little more detail than I would otherwise.
My point is that from reading through the cheating and abuse forum I see a large amount of general mean spiritedness.
For example, people accusing others of farming simply because they join games with lower ranked players...
We have people policing the site, which is good.
I do not blame the mods/hunters.
Instead of being forced to make discretionary decisions about what is and isn’t cheating (and hunters digging through game histories, compiling evidence, and posting accusations that do not end well for anybody) we could have specific guidelines for what is cheating.
Instead of simply having, "Unwritten Rules," as a catch all for these kinds of problems, the rules could be more specific.
For example, I recently read an accusation that said 25 out of 300 recent games were evidence of farming.
A mod determined that this ratio was not conclusive evidence of farming and closed the case (based on their own judgment and the fact that many of the games were not even yet started).
But the person who compiles the evidence has to defend their case, the person accused has to defend themselves, and the moderator has to read through everything, check game histories, close the case, close the topic, and has no real precedent to go by (other than other situations such as this).
If it was clear what is and isn’t allowed, what punishments are, what evidence is required (e.g.; more than half this persons’ games are spent targeting lower ranked players), then we would get along better and follow the rules more.

It is not possible to create rules that cover all cases because people are creative.

It happened several time befores that people abuse the game in a way that wasn't covered by the rules. We cannot know what will be the new cheating method someone find to become a conqueror.

Well, there are only so many ways to abuse this simple game and most are covered in the rules.
But we could make the rules more specific, so people are not making biased decisions and accusations against one another.
Rules can always be updated, but as it stands they’re pretty ambiguous and the people who police them aren’t.

i'm still using the "old style" method : farming my hapless victims on Promontory Summit... .

ambiguous = biased? in some cases, certainly.

Aba wrote:Well, there are only so many ways to abuse this simple game and most are covered in the rules.
But we could make the rules more specific, so people are not making biased decisions and accusations against one another.
Rules can always be updated, but as it stands they’re pretty ambiguous and the people who police them aren’t.

If most ways are already covered by the rule why do we gain by removing the "unwritten" part ?
Also, If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Current system is working pretty fine, since we're catching the cheaters.

mrswdk wrote:

Evil Semp wrote:In other words their skill would not be reflected properly by the lower rank of a new account.

You could say the same about someone who is already pretty good at playing Risk and then opens their first account on here. It won't take many games to reach a score that's closer to their real skill/gamesmanship level, and the difference in the number of points they take off any single opponent on their way up really won't be that big.

Personally I think the people who deliberately ditch points in order to slingshot themselves up the most improved board the following month have a way more detrimental effect on the point system than someone making a new account.

The discussion wasn't about new players. It was about a former members of CC creating a new account. Addressing a new player who knows how to play Risk. Without the ability to know how well they know the game they have to start somewhere.

Donelladan wrote:

Aba wrote:Well, there are only so many ways to abuse this simple game and most are covered in the rules.
But we could make the rules more specific, so people are not making biased decisions and accusations against one another.
Rules can always be updated, but as it stands they’re pretty ambiguous and the people who police them aren’t.

If most ways are already covered by the rule why do we gain by removing the "unwritten" part ?
Also, If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Current system is working pretty fine, since we're catching the cheaters.

The fact that we have people opening false cases, arguing over what is and isn’t cheating, getting into heated arguments, evolving into an unwelcoming atmosphere, and mods complaining that their jobs are difficult shows a need for change.
I am not saying, "remove," Unwritten Rules.
There will always be unwritten rules, we adapt to our circumstances and make judgments based on peoples’ behavior, and we exercise the right to make common sense decisions.
But restrict the extent that the rules can be misinterpreted, and the system can be abused.
Maybe less cheating would occur (there wouldn’t be as many cheaters) if we clarified policies.

imo, there really isn't all that much "cheating" going on around here, these days, Aba...*shrugs*

When a player gets guested for cheating or being a multi I believe the penalty to wanting to come back is to become a paying member.To the best of my knowledge you really have to rattle cages to be outright banned from sight or for repeated offences.

lol, true - which P@P did on several occasions... .

Evil Semp wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Evil Semp wrote:In other words their skill would not be reflected properly by the lower rank of a new account.

You could say the same about someone who is already pretty good at playing Risk and then opens their first account on here. It won't take many games to reach a score that's closer to their real skill/gamesmanship level, and the difference in the number of points they take off any single opponent on their way up really won't be that big.

Personally I think the people who deliberately ditch points in order to slingshot themselves up the most improved board the following month have a way more detrimental effect on the point system than someone making a new account.

The discussion wasn't about new players. It was about a former members of CC creating a new account. Addressing a new player who knows how to play Risk. Without the ability to know how well they know the game they have to start somewhere.

The effect on other players' point loss is the same: minimal.

'sides, as I said in my other post the starting point of 1,000 points is already super low. Most people who start new are going to be better than that.

riskllama wrote:i'm still using the "old style" method : farming my hapless victims on Promontory Summit... .

Don't you have to be good at a map to use it for farming?