RL_Orange: Points dumping to Karlo Veliki

[e_i_pi]

Accused:

RL_Orange
Karlo Veliki



The accused are suspected of:

Points Dumping



Game number(s):
All on Doodle Earth, all Private games, Escalating, Chained, and all games over with 5-10 minutes.
Game 5167302 - RL_Orange attacks only neutrals, loses in 3 rounds
Game 5167297 - RL_Orange attacks only neutrals, loses in 3 rounds
Game 5167289 - RL_Orange attacks only neutrals, loses in 2 rounds
Game 5167097 - RL_Orange attacks only neutrals, loses in 3 rounds
Game 5167095 - RL_Orange attacks only neutrals, loses in 2 rounds
Game 5167094 - RL_Orange attacks neutrals 5 times, attacks Karlo twice, loses in 4 rounds
Game 5167064 - RL_Orange attacks neutrals 3 times, attacks Karlo once, loses in 4 rounds
Game 5167063 - RL_Orange attacks only neutrals, loses in 5 rounds
Game 5167057 - RL_Orange attacks neutrals 6 times, attacks Karlo twice, loses in 3 rounds
Game 5167055 - RL_Orange attacks neutrals 3 times, attacks Karlo twice, loses in 5 rounds



Comments:

This pattern and behaviour is just way too suspect not to notice. I mean, in Karlo we're talking about someone who has managed to lose against cooks, cadets, and stripes on Doodle Earth, and yet he pulls off an 11-0 result against a THOTA member. Whatever is going on, it's cheating, and whether or not RL is privvy to it, or his account is being abused/hijacked, this Karlo fella needs a points reset.

If you don't believe me (and I'm guessing a few THOTA players will take offence at my claim and rush to RL's defence) just have a look at this game log, and tell me this is something a once-upon-a-time Brigadier would do as an opening move:

2009-06-28 20:58:51 - Game has been initialized
2009-06-28 21:00:24 - RL_Orange received 3 troops for 6 regions
2009-06-28 21:00:26 - RL_Orange deployed 3 troops on Austr(al)ia
2009-06-28 21:00:44 - RL_Orange assaulted Irakistan from Germany and conquered it from neutral player
2009-06-28 21:00:56 - RL_Orange assaulted Europe from Sarah Desert and conquered it from neutral player
2009-06-28 21:01:15 - RL_Orange ended the turn and got spoils

[e_i_pi]

Apologies for the dual thread, didn't realise the first was in place, merge up please

[Karlo Veliki]

Those games were given to me on purpouse becourse an unexpected occasion.
Ahunda explain it perfectly!!!

Here is the answer:

Game 4815289, a 6p Esc game ended in a stalemate of 5 players, and the remaining players decided to play a tie-breaker.

The tie-breaker, Game 4986654, ended in a stalemate too, and yet another tie-breaker was started, this time on another map: Game 5073804.

Then one of the players went away on holidays and obviously didn´t leave proper instructions for his account-sitter, who then went ahead & eliminated Karlo from Game 4815289.

Karlo then won the tie-breaker Game 5073804. At this point, the 2 stalemate games should have been handed to him. This was the initial agreement. Since this was not possible with the game, where he had been eliminated by mistake, RL_Orange went ahead to take this one & hand Karlo the points via 1v1s instead.

Check the Game Chat of Game 4815289.

[samuelc812]

Those games were given to me on purpouse becourse an unexpected occasion.
Ahunda explain it perfectly!!!

Here is the answer:

Game 4815289, a 6p Esc game ended in a stalemate of 5 players, and the remaining players decided to play a tie-breaker.

The tie-breaker, Game 4986654, ended in a stalemate too, and yet another tie-breaker was started, this time on another map: Game 5073804.

Then one of the players went away on holidays and obviously didn´t leave proper instructions for his account-sitter, who then went ahead & eliminated Karlo from Game 4815289.

Karlo then won the tie-breaker Game 5073804. At this point, the 2 stalemate games should have been handed to him. This was the initial agreement. Since this was not possible with the game, where he had been eliminated by mistake, RL_Orange went ahead to take this one & hand Karlo the points via 1v1s instead.

Check the Game Chat of Game 4815289.

Does not make it right.

Unwritten Rules
Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden. This includes but is not limited to: throwing games or deliberately benefiting from thrown games, intentional deadbeating, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts, systematically "farming" new members.

[Karlo Veliki]

Does not make it right.

Unwritten Rules
Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden. This includes but is not limited to: throwing games or deliberately benefiting from thrown games, intentional deadbeating, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts, systematically "farming" new members.

[/quote]

Ok can you tell me how could I get my, fair earned, points?
All 5 players have agrred abot this way...

[jiminski]

Does not make it right.

Unwritten Rules
Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden. This includes but is not limited to: throwing games or deliberately benefiting from thrown games, intentional deadbeating, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts, systematically "farming" new members.

Ok can you tell me how could I get my, fair earned, points?
All 5 players have agrred abot this way...

no other way Karlo - go to the other thread mate, i assume they will be merged anyway.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

Does not make it right.

Unwritten Rules
Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden. This includes but is not limited to: throwing games or deliberately benefiting from thrown games, intentional deadbeating, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts, systematically "farming" new members.

Ok can you tell me how could I get my, fair earned, points?
All 5 players have agrred abot this way...[/quote]
all 5 players should be aware of the rules. I read in the other thread where someone mentioned all of you being experienced players. Again, just to add to the thread.

[ahunda]

I´d rather highlight this part:

Unwritten Rules
Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden. This includes but is not limited to: throwing games or deliberately benefiting from thrown games, intentional deadbeating, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts, systematically "farming" new members.

Please explain to me, where the gross abuse in this case was.

Karlo didn´t benefit from thrown games. He won a tie-breaker game, fair & square. And he only got the points, that were rightfully his, according to the agreement of all players involved.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

I´d rather highlight this part:

Unwritten Rules
Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden. This includes but is not limited to: throwing games or deliberately benefiting from thrown games, intentional deadbeating, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts, systematically "farming" new members.

Please explain to me, where the gross abuse in this case was.

Karlo didn´t benefit from thrown games. He won a tie-breaker game, fair & square. And he only got the points, that were rightfully his, according to the agreement of all players involved.

you unbolded the part that answers your own question

[ahunda]

you unbolded the part that answers your own question

No. Because Karlo did not "deliberately benefit from thrown games". He benefited from winning a tie-breaker game.

Don´t take this case out of its context.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

Game 1389885

Ironically, look who won this game too after I stated I did not want to play another game. So when players dont agree, this was the result. So certain people want to play another game to settle the current game, but when players dont want to they are eliminated. So why not just eliminate players and finish the 1st game in whole ?

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

you unbolded the part that answers your own question

No. Because Karlo did not "deliberately benefit from thrown games". He benefited from winning a tie-breaker game.

Don´t take this case out of its context.

the 10 game were thrown so he could collect points. So yes, it was done deliberately.

[jiminski]

you unbolded the part that answers your own question

No. Because Karlo did not "deliberately benefit from thrown games". He benefited from winning a tie-breaker game.

Don´t take this case out of its context.

the 10 game were thrown so he could collect points. So yes, it was done deliberately.

ok, so you want Orange and Karlo to be website banned JR?

[e_i_pi]

I'm staying out of this, didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest, it looked very suspicious to me. I have my opinion on how it should be handled, but ultimately it is uyp to the mods to rule on this one. This is the sort of case that can cause a precedent, so don't expect the ruling to come quickly or rashly.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

you unbolded the part that answers your own question

No. Because Karlo did not "deliberately benefit from thrown games". He benefited from winning a tie-breaker game.

Don´t take this case out of its context.

the 10 game were thrown so he could collect points. So yes, it was done deliberately.

ok, so you want Orange and Karlo to be website banned JR?

are you saying they should not just because of who they are ? Its not my call.

[e_i_pi]

I will add to this though...

ok, so you want Orange and Karlo to be website banned JR?

Jim, if it wasn't Karlo and RL, but two striped players you'd never heard of, would that make a difference? Should that make a difference? How would this be handled if it were two striped players?

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

I will add to this though...

ok, so you want Orange and Karlo to be website banned JR?

Jim, if it wasn't Karlo and RL, but two striped players you'd never heard of, would that make a difference? Should that make a difference? How would this be handled if it were two striped players?

I fast posted you with the same response

[e_i_pi]

I will add to this though...

ok, so you want Orange and Karlo to be website banned JR?

Jim, if it wasn't Karlo and RL, but two striped players you'd never heard of, would that make a difference? Should that make a difference? How would this be handled if it were two striped players?

I fast posted you with the same response

Yeah I noticed, figured it was better form to have both posts up there than just one lol

[jiminski]

I will add to this though...

ok, so you want Orange and Karlo to be website banned JR?

Jim, if it wasn't Karlo and RL, but two striped players you'd never heard of, would that make a difference? Should that make a difference? How would this be handled if it were two striped players?

hello Eip, it makes no difference to me who they are at all to be honest.
I have played many games with Orange but i do not believe he has engaged me in conversation once in 2 years. (hahah and i assure you in my case it is not easy to do so ) Karlo, i do not know at all.

So for me it is purely a matter of principle and i would like to know if JR is just making a point here or if he genuinely wants his argument to run its natural course i.e. Point dumping and website bans.

[ahunda]

you unbolded the part that answers your own question

No. Because Karlo did not "deliberately benefit from thrown games". He benefited from winning a tie-breaker game.

Don´t take this case out of its context.

the 10 game were thrown so he could collect points. So yes, it was done deliberately.

Karlo & RL did not start some 1v1 games, because RL wanted to gift points to Karlo just like that. You are still taking this out of context.

The context is the stalemate, the tie-breaker & the accidental elimination of Karlo by an account-sitter, as out-lined in the other thread.

Killing a man can be murder, self-defense or worthy of a medal of honour. It´s all in the context ...

[jiminski]

you unbolded the part that answers your own question

No. Because Karlo did not "deliberately benefit from thrown games". He benefited from winning a tie-breaker game.

Don´t take this case out of its context.

the 10 game were thrown so he could collect points. So yes, it was done deliberately.

ok, so you want Orange and Karlo to be website banned JR?

are you saying they should not just because of who they are ? Its not my call.

not in the least, no.

I am saying that we are asking for a decision which would ultimately mean website ban based upon an argument of whether a game can possibly be a stalemate or not.

I believe a stalemate is possible, sincerely and wholeheartedly and genuinely see no misdemeanour in the actions taken to resolve the Stagnant game.

So i will phrase my question better and more as i meant it:

Are you saying that your faith in the conviction as to whether stalemate is possible or not is strong enough to call for the banning of any two players?


your call or not, this is what you are asking for.

[AAFitz]

I will add to this though...

ok, so you want Orange and Karlo to be website banned JR?

Jim, if it wasn't Karlo and RL, but two striped players you'd never heard of, would that make a difference? Should that make a difference? How would this be handled if it were two striped players?

hello Eip, it makes no difference to me who they are at all to be honest.
I have played many games with Orange but i do not believe he has engaged me in conversation once in 2 years. (hahah and i assure you in my case it is not easy to do so ) Karlo, i do not know at all.

So for me it is purely a matter of principle and i would like to know if JR is just making a point here or if he genuinely wants his argument to run its natural course i.e. Point dumping and website bans.

well i hardly doubt anyone will get a website ban for this...lol

they may decide to say that this is dumping and issue a warning, but the website bans in the past have been people usually going insane and dumping all their points, or feeding one player hundreds of points just for the hell of it

In this case, we all know they didnt think they were doing anything wrong at all, and that it was just meant as and adjustment for one game.

My guess is that CC may take this oportunity to point out that trading games for games in a standoff is not ok...but at the same time...this really was about one game, and a mistake too...so its possible they may very well not worry about the deciding game here or there...

its a tough call. the decider game has been used for years, and in some ways is necessary. I myself dont like them, which is why i end up in many, many, many games with many, many, many rounds.

but I think CC is more interested in game play that is intended to cheat the system and be unsportsmanlike.... not technicalities on a small scale that are obviously not meant to cheat the system, anyone's games, or anyone on the site at all like this.

If this is deemed worthy of a website ban, then there is probably no top player that has dropped a game as a tie breaker that is innocent of this... this one is just more extreme because of the mistake that happened, but it was an honest mistake, and if a baby sitter didnt make a mistake, it would have been one game decided by everyone to let be decided by everyone in the game.

No doubt they may specifically state that using a bunch of one v ones for tie breakers is included in point dumping, but its fairly obvious no intended cheating was meant here.


Everyone here knows this, as did the two people even reporting it.

[AAFitz]

I will add to this though...

ok, so you want Orange and Karlo to be website banned JR?

Jim, if it wasn't Karlo and RL, but two striped players you'd never heard of, would that make a difference? Should that make a difference? How would this be handled if it were two striped players?

hello Eip, it makes no difference to me who they are at all to be honest.
I have played many games with Orange but i do not believe he has engaged me in conversation once in 2 years. (hahah and i assure you in my case it is not easy to do so ) Karlo, i do not know at all.

So for me it is purely a matter of principle and i would like to know if JR is just making a point here or if he genuinely wants his argument to run its natural course i.e. Point dumping and website bans.

well i hardly doubt anyone will get a website ban for this...lol

they may decide to say that this is dumping and issue a warning, but the website bans in the past have been people usually going insane and dumping all their points, or feeding one player hundreds of points just for the hell of it

In this case, we all know they didnt think they were doing anything wrong at all, and that it was just meant as and adjustment for one game.

My guess is that CC may take this oportunity to point out that trading games for games in a standoff is not ok...but at the same time...this really was about one game, and a mistake too...so its possible they may very well not worry about the deciding game here or there...

its a tough call. the decider game has been used for years, and in some ways is necessary. I myself dont like them, which is why i end up in many, many, many games with many, many, many rounds.

but I think CC is more interested in game play that is intended to cheat the system and be unsportsmanlike.... not technicalities on a small scale that are obviously not meant to cheat the system, anyone's games, or anyone on the site at all like this.

If this is deemed worthy of a website ban, then there is probably no top player that has dropped a game as a tie breaker that is innocent of this... this one is just more extreme because of the mistake that happened, but it was an honest mistake, and if a baby sitter didnt make a mistake, it would have been one game decided by everyone to let be decided by everyone in the game.

No doubt they may specifically state that using a bunch of one v ones for tie breakers is included in point dumping, but its fairly obvious no intended cheating was meant here.


Everyone here knows this, as did the two people even reporting it.

I figured it was only a matter of time before this issue was addressed. It happens so many times in build games that it was inevitable..

[jiminski]

you plonker Fitzy!

[AAFitz]

you unbolded the part that answers your own question

No. Because Karlo did not "deliberately benefit from thrown games". He benefited from winning a tie-breaker game.

Don´t take this case out of its context.

the 10 game were thrown so he could collect points. So yes, it was done deliberately.

ok, so you want Orange and Karlo to be website banned JR?

are you saying they should not just because of who they are ? Its not my call.

they shouldnt be banned, because they werent doing what the rule was set up for

it was settup when dug set up 80 games and dumped points

it was settup to keep people from shedding points, and helping people gain points through a friend..

It was not settup to keep people from correcting an honest game mistake... it simply may cover that, because of the instances of cheating that came before it

however, since this was a case of a game deciding another game....and while this issue may very well need to be addressed...banning people who have used another game to decide a seperate game, will result in hundreds being banned, including myself I think.

by all means go for it...but we all know this was an honest mistake at best, to correct an honest mistake in the first place, to settle a game that would not end..