How to enforce the rules?

[AndyDufresne]

It would limit it, but I still see the revenge users using it for unintended purposes. Jeez, glass half empty sort of rut I'm in.

--Andy

[Blitzkreig]

I'm all for making the site the best it can be but I see this becoming too big. A forced "jury" is only going to piss people off, this is a game site, if you force people to do something they'll just leave.

The rating system is a good idea but bugs need to be worked out as to people needlessly giving you a low score simply because you won. I forsee people not necessarily being multis but at least making a new account simply because they got a low score.

A cool idea would be to make your rating (private, captain, etc.) mean something. For instance, and I'm just thinking here, you have to "unlock" maps with certain ranks. This way people will be deterred from simply making a new account because then they can't play certain maps. I basically just want something to make them want to better themselves rather than start over.

[lackattack]

Now that the Ignore List is done I'd like to focus on reputations, and I'm leaning toward the eBay method. This is how eBay Feedback works:

After completing a transaction with someone you can leave feedback, which can be positive, neutral or negative and you may include a comment. Next to everyone's username is a reputation score. Each positive feedback adds 1 to the score, each negative subtracts 1 and neutral does nothing. So Hazmaniac (69) means Hazmaniac has received 69 more positives than negatives. If you click on the (69) you get to see Hazmaniac's reputation page which lists all the comments people wrote about him. Each person can only give feedback once to the same person.

To make this work on Conquer Club, I'm thinking of only allowing negative feedback, and only on people that you've played against. I'd also weigh the score by games played to that someone with 4 complaints on 10 games does not have the same reputation as a player with 4 complaints on 100 games. I also think that leaving a signed comment should be mandatory, to make players more accountable for the feedback they leave.

A cool idea would be to make your rating (private, captain, etc.) mean something. For instance, and I'm just thinking here, you have to "unlock" maps with certain ranks. This way people will be deterred from simply making a new account because then they can't play certain maps. I basically just want something to make them want to better themselves rather than start over.

Interesting idea. Maybe reputation should be a criteria for rank as well.

[areyouincahoots]

Now that the Ignore List is done I'd like to focus on reputations, and I'm leaning toward the eBay method. This is how eBay Feedback works:

After completing a transaction with someone you can leave feedback, which can be positive, neutral or negative and you may include a comment. Next to everyone's username is a reputation score. Each positive feedback adds 1 to the score, each negative subtracts 1 and neutral does nothing. So Hazmaniac (69) means Hazmaniac has received 69 more positives than negatives. If you click on the (69) you get to see Hazmaniac's reputation page which lists all the comments people wrote about him. Each person can only give feedback once to the same person.

To make this work on Conquer Club, I'm thinking of only allowing negative feedback, and only on people that you've played against. I'd also weigh the score by games played to that someone with 4 complaints on 10 games does not have the same reputation as a player with 4 complaints on 100 games. I also think that leaving a signed comment should be mandatory, to make players more accountable for the feedback they leave.

A cool idea would be to make your rating (private, captain, etc.) mean something. For instance, and I'm just thinking here, you have to "unlock" maps with certain ranks. This way people will be deterred from simply making a new account because then they can't play certain maps. I basically just want something to make them want to better themselves rather than start over.

Interesting idea. Maybe reputation should be a criteria for rank as well.

I like it, Lack! You're the king!

[kingwaffles]

Sounds good so far Lack!
I think having the reputation as part of the ranking is a great idea, as it makes rank conscious players more concerned about how honourably they play. Additionally adding some kind of reward for maintaining a good reputation might not be a bad idea to actually make the reputation have some effect.

[Marvaddin]

I dont know, some people can give others negative marks only because they were defeated... It can be abused, so we will need a moderator to activate the complaints, I think.

[AndyDufresne]

But as the system is currently set to be, if you can only mark once for whomever and must include some sort of comment post with it, I think the abuse will be drastically less than other systems. So far it's the best idea I've seen. Perhaps along with the user rating system, you could rate the game with the person. If it was fun and experienced, alright-moderate, intolerable, etc and include why. Or perhaps that simply goes into the comment post, I don't know really. But I think for the most part if everyone could rate the game, it would show what most people generally thought about it, leaving the poor sport lonesome in his ratings of poor of whatever for whomever. Anyways, it's all worth a shot, you can't accomplish anything without first stepping out.

--Andy

[Hoff]

I posted this in the Announcement forum but then realized i should have posted it here.

A good idea for the feedback idea would be a point system. You like the way someone plays, you click a button giving them a plus point. You think the person you are playing is cheating, or dont like the way he/she talks in the cheat, give them a minus point. So when you are viewing someone's profile you can see how well liked that person is.

example: Hoff (-4/+10) then you would be able to tell that generally the people that play me like the way I play. I've seen this idea used on other sites, i think it could work out well here too. what do you think?

[Hoff]

so does anyone like this idea or no?

[battletroop27]

with the huge amounts of time, maybe you can try to recruit more moderators/ whoever the hell has the power to block or something like that.

[alster]

The only constructive thing I really have to add is that I think that you should consider banning people playing with the same connection from playing in the same game unless it is a private game. This would cut out a lot of the nonsense with people using multi personas in the same game to cheat. It also would give all the college guys and such a chance to keep playing their friends as long as one of them could pony up $20 for a membership.

Scarus

That's not a constructive thing.

1. It's terribly common that people share IP-adresses. Most major workplaces, universities, closed networks etc. just have a set of IP-adresses that are attached to the computers online at that moment.

2. One cannot assume that people only play the game at home. Quite the opposite I would think. I frequently kill lecture time playing. (Thank you God for the wireless...)

3. Sometimes (even if home) you share IP-adresses with other people. It happens. Shit happens. Even if your IP-provider at all times know what computer is doing what, the information stays there. Outside the closed network you just see from which network people are hooked up to. Today, you cannot avoid it. You'll end up with only private games with your suggestion.

[Black Jack]

Lackattack, just keep posting the usernames of the multis... I will gladly add them to my Ignore List.

The Ignore List is an outstanding feature... I tip my hat to you.

[qeee1]

I'm set against the banning multiple accounts from the one IP thing, but I think that the system proposed by Lack sounds good. I think there should be some incentive for players to develop good reputation and something to discourage them from developing bad reputation, as it will make it more effective. Things you could do: Reputation required for rank; ability (when creating games) to restrict them to those with good reputations; and perhaps some sort of punishment/banning for those with terrible reputations, restricting them to one game or something.

Also as mentioned many times, need to be careful to ensure it is not abused... only allowing people who've played you to give feedback is a very good idea, as it stops people creating multis for vengance to destroy your reputation.

I don't think mods are necessary for game feedback (although it depends on the system used), but I do think we need some for the forums. EDIT: ... which Lack has just announced he will be implementing. The sucess/failure of the forum mods system should be used when considering using mods for reputation.

[lackattack]

Here's an update on the war on cheaters...

Rule #1: No more warnings. They're not very effective. For now on when I detect a multiple account this is what happens: They can't start or join any new games, can't use the forum, and disappear from the scoreboard. That is, until they upgrade to Premium.

Rule #2: Still have to code that reputation score... in the meantime take notes of who teams up against you

[lackattack]

Just to clarify, if two suspected multis go Premium I will still check the billing information to make sure they are two distinct individuals. I will not let people pay to cheat.

[PaperPlunger]

Rule #1: No more warnings. They're not very effective. For now on when I detect a multiple account this is what happens: They can't start or join any new games, can't use the forum, and disappear from the scoreboard. That is, until they upgrade to Premium.

that's awesome! hahahahaha

[philbert]

Do multies get penalized? If you use 2 or 3 multies to gain points for 1 does the 1 just get to keep all of his ill gotten points after the other accounts have been cancelled? As punishment and also as a deterent why not reduce any cheater back to rookie status? The reason people cheat is to gain points and rank. If they know they will lose all of that if they cheat they will be a lot less likely to have multies and will do all they can to avoid even the appearance of having a secret alliance.

[Pedronicus]

one way round the problem of multi accounting cheaters who are in it to further the score of their main account:
introduce minimum score / rank requirement to a game (set by the maker of a table)
most multis that feed the main account are just there to be beaten and I doubt if they are played on their own to ever get above 1000 points.
I doubt that any cheat would bother to spend time getting a second account up to say 1200 -1400 points.

I know that in the main, the multi accounter will start the game - and will therefore set the game entry rank to suit the lower scored multi. If everyone can see that a high ranking player has a low rank entry rate - there is a strong chance that something fishy is going on.
This obviously will be turned around by the multi - so the lower scored multi joins the game first - but with a low entry min. rank setting - most big fish will avoid it.

Minimum score / rank requirements to join a game will improve everyones experience - you will hopefully get into games with players of similar ability.

In Football - All teams are in a league with similar skilled teams so that no one gets trounced 15-0 by some big team Like Man United. This site needs to consider this - (as an option) - if nothing else

[LetGodSortThem]

It is up to us to use and read the feedback left, theres more of us then admin, We have to help weed out the undesirables from our games, by forums, chat and ignore lists(sure wish banned players could be auto removed from ignore lists).
However I think the bust rate is very good..I reported, MVincent, mcjoej,demonville,magaman and majorkinky...
majorkinky-magaman-jaroin-hitler,and demonville BUSTED
MVincent, mcjoej admitted being friends...
system works..with our help

[juggernaut man]

feedback doesn't actually work a lot of times. If you start a game, by the time you check to see who are in the games you started it will be too late to worry about feedback.

[LetGodSortThem]

Check before you join...I do
Thats why I'm usually last in game...though I miss lots but what's the hurry?

[juggernaut man]

Check before you join...I do
Thats why I'm usually last in game...though I miss lots

Check a game that you created before you join? That could get annoying at times having to check who is playing in the games you made and maybe leaving them just to make another one.

[LetGodSortThem]

Or you could just take your chances..like I said I miss a few good games..If its your game....make it private

[Gravityfailure]

Gravityfailure me , Grtlkdvr ( my husband account ) Go_dive and

Suicideblonde our daugthers accounts . We have only 1 PC .

Thank you and Happy New Year

Mónica-Thomas-Vannina y Maria Alexander

[luckiekevin]

this is a great idea! I apologize if this has been brought up before, but I think it would be nice that if you have a premium account, you could be able to filter out players with low or no approval ratings in the games you set up.

1. The newbies will have to play each other to gain an approval rating before moving on to more established players.

2. Multi's will be more difficult to create and put into games with ranked players.

3. Less deadbeats for those who pay to play here.

just a thought.. I really appreciate the effort. this place is great