by General Quigley on Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:06 am
You can add game 2814178 to this list.
Frankly, I do not know enough about the ins and outs of Conquer Club to be able to identify a cheat. Several of my teammates were convinced wicked and her team mates were cheating, that possibly they were the same person, and lodged another complaint elsewhere.
I want to put my two cents in to question Conquer Club management's wisdom in giving people such as wicked admin status.
Our game was a clear mismatch. A group of people ranked captain and higher, one of which was wicked, joined a game four others of us ranked sergeant and lower had started, and proceded to use tactics they had honed over the course of many months mastering their Conquer Club skills (all of which will no doubt carry them far in life).
In chess we call this practice where a master plays a "D" category player for the few rating points he can garner and which he has virtually no chance of losing "bunny thumping". It's a practice that no peer master respects, not only because it is unsportsmanlike, but because it provides such a negative experience for the "bunny" that it turns people (which means revenue) away from chess. Much of a master's income depends on the prize money contributed by such players who are also a master's fans, and to needlessly discourage people from playing is bad sport and just pure economic folly.
Here at Conquer Club I have the feeling that precisely that type of sporting behavior and economic bad thinking is not only implicitly encouraged (one way is by giving a bunny thumper like wicked admin status), it's institutionalized through poorly thought out policies. Through "Bunny thumping" wicked actually gains the respect of her peers, and they all enjoy ganging up in the hunt for bunnies to thump. Conquer Club definitely sends the message they endorse such behavior when they make one of these (namely wicked) an admin. This makes it impossible for regular players to put her on our foe list and escape her. Believe me, many, many of us would very much like to do this. So, thanks a lot, Conquer Club!
One way of overcoming this problem is to give someone of say more than a 400 or 500 points ratings difference zero rating points for a victory, but they lose 100 or 200 if they were to lose the game. To players of wicked's petty mentality, life is all about the Conquer Club rating points. No points, then why bother, they would no doubt figure. Had such a policy been in effect here at Conquer Club I really think wicked and her ilk would not have bothered giving the four of us on my team the very negative experience we took away from that game.
To discourage players of >400 ratings point differences from playing one another would be a good thing in general, I think. The type of behavior Conquer Club rewards by giving rating points to is not a way of playing the game I have any interest in. It rewards people who put the time in to closely observe their games 24 hours a day, and who wait for their opponents to begin their turn (even in a 24-hour game) first so that everything comes down to mouse control and finger exercises regarding who can refresh the quickest. No real strategy or tactical vision is required for such play, and I don't want to play against players who value that mode of play and consider themselves geniuses for figuring it out. Separating us by rating points difference is a great idea!
General Quigley