raston_morue - still farming NR's [warned]

by **raston_morue** on Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:59 pm

eddie2 wrote:
raston_morue wrote:
Chariot of Fire wrote:Game 10484012 created by raston_morue

I joined it. He dropped it immediately. He only wants to play noobs. Nuff said.

I dropped the game because the issue at hand was the 5 player game set-up is being called into question. So, I dropped it.

well i hate to say it but during the last case you did not drop the games. that game was proberly your only defense to say you did not care who joined. it now looks like you are only creating them games to attract new recruits. so you sir are a farmer.

only one last ? since dako dropped it i presume the others will. but i do think cof will stay in to get himself some points on the farm

I honestly cannot remember if I dropped the games then. I dropped now because I was advised to do so by a friend. Isn't what this is? Friends asking me to stop? I have said I will alternate the settings further and change my pr settings. I felt dropping the game was a sign if respect for the forum here and due to being asked by a friend

by **Butters1919** on Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:26 pm

raston_morue wrote: A 6+ player map crowds the objectives and makes for a difficult scenario.

I would assume playing a 6+ player game would be far more enjoyable than many 5 player games where a good majority of your opponents dead beat. Nothing I hate more than having to wait for them all to be kicked out. So much so, I rarely, if ever play 3, 4 or 5 player games (unless with friends or tourney games). I get it, 5 players may be ideal for this map, but in an ideal world, all of your opponents would play. They don't. You get called for farming. Add one player and your good to go.

by **QoH** on Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:32 pm

PR has objectives?

by **BGtheBrain** on Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:40 pm

by **raston_morue** on Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:48 pm

BGtheBrain wrote:
QoH wrote:PR has objectives?

He meant Bonuses

Both correct. Personal objectives. I try to do certain things in the early turns.

Anyways, I have said I will alternate the settings (last time it was a friendly suggestion - and I varied my games). It appears that it was not enough (for some). I like CC, but for the politics. Let's just play risk. (and mafia!)

by **jgordon1111** on Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:49 pm

Also just dropped game, You had ranked opponents in it that knew the map, why drop it if you are that good at it. First thing that happened when spots opened up NR's joined. That map and your rank makes it a magnet for you. And then you can say, I didnt do anything wrong they just keep joining. LOL thats a hoot. There for a while I was taking the strat advice from the forum. Pick a map and settings get good on it. And you will advance in rank. I tried it. Guess what it mostly filled up with ?. I stopped playing it period. Now if I play that map, it came up in clan wars or I am invited to a team game. I really dislike that map now. You see I knew it was wrong to play that map when so many ? kept joining, Are you seriously saying you dont see anything wrong with what you have done? After 144 games. Your kidding right?

by **owenshooter** on Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:51 pm

what's it matter... the conqueror gets away with it, too... throw in members of team CC joining games then kicking multis for their points and doing the same for their friends, a past conqueror placing an account he was controlling on opposing teams to insure a 100% win rate, and this matter seems like a tiny blip on the CC radar... the rules are not clear and the enforcement is becoming spotty around here. they are quick to ban people in the forums for "unwritten rules", but refuse to do the same for people obviously exploiting loopholes and cheating their way up the scoreboard... this stuff is just becoming tiresome...-el Jesus negro

by **Chariot of Fire** on Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:44 pm

Likewise, I've now dropped the game. Hopefully the ? get to play amongst themselves.

And I have to agree with Owen (although it's not so much becoming tiresome, just frustrating). It seems ethics have take a vacation from this site and to me that is a great pity.

by **Conchobar** on Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:48 am

owenshooter wrote:what's it matter... the conqueror gets away with it, too... throw in members of team CC joining games then kicking multis for their points and doing the same for their friends, a past conqueror placing an account he was controlling on opposing teams to insure a 100% win rate, and this matter seems like a tiny blip on the CC radar... the rules are not clear and the enforcement is becoming spotty around here. they are quick to ban people in the forums for "unwritten rules", but refuse to do the same for people obviously exploiting loopholes and cheating their way up the scoreboard... this stuff is just becoming tiresome...-el Jesus negro

Chariot of Fire wrote:Likewise, I've now dropped the game. Hopefully the ? get to play amongst themselves.

And I have to agree with Owen (although it's not so much becoming tiresome, just frustrating). It seems ethics have take a vacation from this site and to me that is a great pity.

Just want to second this sentiment. All of the above mentioned poor sportsmanship does leave a bad taste in the mouth. especially when so many players, including the current conqueror & multi-hunter multi-farmers, consistently get away with it. Sets a bad example, degrades the whole spirit of the site, insults players who achieve genuine high ranks through good play & just isn't any fun!

It's irritating that these things are so hard to prove & convict while forum infractions are punished more readily. Aside from all this the players themselves know what they're doing & know that noobs present no challenge. Seems like a pretty boring way to spend your time to me. I'm sure i'm wasting my breath (typing finger) here but please just stop!

by **Woodruff** on Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:12 pm

Conchobar wrote:It's irritating that these things are so hard to prove & convict while forum infractions are punished more readily.

Well, clearly the fora must be monitored and punished far more harshly than cheating in the games because the whole purpose of this site is to provid...oh, never mind. Yeah, doesn't make much damn sense.

by **king achilles** on Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:12 am

raston_morue, after your past farming report, you continued with the 5 player settings and you say that you don't want 6 player games because, as you say, "crowds the objectives and makes for a difficult scenario". You never even started a game in this map with a 6 player setting yet.

by **Chariot of Fire** on Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:05 am

Forgive my ignorance, but what possible difference does it make whether a game is set-up for five players or six? Am I missing something here?

Most of CC's renowned cheats farmers have tended to rely on 1v1 or 8 player games.

by **chapcrap** on Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:24 am

New Recruits can't join games with more than 5 people in them.

by **Chariot of Fire** on Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:32 am

ah ok, thanks

by **GeneralRisk** on Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:52 am

Chariot of Fire wrote:Forgive my ignorance, but what possible difference does it make whether a game is set-up for five players or six? Am I missing something here?

Most of CC's renowned cheats farmers have tended to rely on 1v1 or 8 player games.

? or NR cannot join 6 player games......only up to 5 player

by **hmsps** on Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:09 am

king achilles wrote:raston_morue, after your past farming report, you continued with the 5 player settings and you say that you don't want 6 player games because, as you say, "crowds the objectives and makes for a difficult scenario". You never even started a game in this map with a 6 player setting yet.

And the decision is?

by **raston_morue** on Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:31 am

king achilles wrote:raston_morue, after your past farming report, you continued with the 5 player settings and you say that you don't want 6 player games because, as you say, "crowds the objectives and makes for a difficult scenario". You never even started a game in this map with a 6 player setting yet.

I have not created ANY new games since this has been brought before me. I removed myself from the one active game that I set-up. I am awaiting a verdict. I will go from here and act according to the verdict.

by **king achilles** on Thu Jan 26, 2012 7:16 pm

raston_morue has been officially warned.

by **Woodruff** on Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:15 pm

king achilles wrote:raston_morue has been officially warned.

Again? Why bother? I mean, if the first warning didn't do anything, why would this warning do anything? What you're doing is setting the precedent that the rule has no teeth. As opposed to trolling or flaming, oddly.

by **BGtheBrain** on Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:21 am

by **jgordon1111** on Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:31 am

BG is correct woodruff I went back and looked in the first report, KA asked him to change some things and if he didnt then he would be considered farming. So officially this was his first warning.

by **Woodruff** on Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:48 pm

BGtheBrain wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
king achilles wrote:raston_morue has been officially warned.

Again? Why bother? I mean, if the first warning didn't do anything, why would this warning do anything? What you're doing is setting the precedent that the rule has no teeth. As opposed to trolling or flaming, oddly.

Did you read the first report? He was never warned.

I did read it. He was literally warned, in fact. Not just as a word placed in the subject line, but as a specific action, he was warned.

jgordon1111 wrote:BG is correct woodruff I went back and looked in the first report, KA asked him to change some things and if he didnt then he would be considered farming. So officially this was his first warning.

Wait, wait, wait...you mean to tell me that when the head-banner "asks someone to change some things and if he doesn't, then he would be considered farming"...THAT'S NOT A FREAKING WARNING? ARE YOU SERIOUS? How the hell is that NOT a warning? He freaking LITERALLY WARNED HIM. LITERALLY!

Good God, this is stupid.

by **BGtheBrain** on Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:06 pm

by **Woodruff** on Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:22 pm

BGtheBrain wrote:
Woodruff wrote:What you're doing is setting the precedent that the rule has no teeth. As opposed to trolling or flaming, oddly.

The precedent set by KA is that an official warning is exactly that.
KA would have said "raston_morue has been officially warned." as he did in this case.

The previous case the word warning is never once mentioned.

KA is never ambiguous when handing out warnings, so why would this case be any different?

Can you show me where KA says the word warning? The subject says closed not warned.

Good Lord. Common sense has been utterly destroyed in this thread.

by **eddie2** on Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:26 pm

jgordon1111 wrote:BG is correct woodruff I went back and looked in the first report, KA asked him to change some things and if he didn't then he would be considered farming. So officially this was his first warning.

in that other report was there not a discussion about poison rome being added to the new recruit black list. why was that not done. poison rome is still one of the most hated maps on this site.

this is once again someone getting warned through lack of admin doing there jobs. what i mean by this we have been shouting for updates to farming rules== everything gets knocked back.
people don't like it they get banned like cof in the glg case. this last case against this player if i remember we were told poison rome would be added to the nr blacklist. so that didn't happen but another paying member gets warned because he didn't change a setting. (that if what we were told was done then new recruits could not of joined.) cc had this same problem with the pelo war map there were 3 or 4 cases players got warned we were told it would be added to the list. it wasn't then more players got warnings.

i think c and a need to sit down and view previous cases then match them up properly so results are equal and people are not being punished because resolves are not followed through.