Moderators: Multi Hunters, Cheating/Abuse Team
I'm half guessing this was already posted
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
DJPatrick wrote:Shai...BOOKS have been written on the subject...
Now if you could get those 'Invisible Children' guys to go viral on the subject ...i.e. GLG 2012....even the cc mods wold have to take notice of "War Crimes"...just a thort...
DJPatrick wrote:that's just being flippant...just like GLG Kony leads a protected life (ref Game 6132601...altho that may well have been his father missing turns)...
I take the integrity of the game quite seriously, and I do care about our members opinions. I don't like it either when our Conqueror gets his points from cheap tactics. We just don't have a solution yet. Once again we spent quite a bit of time this morning discussing farming and ranching during the admin meeting. I've recently made improvements to the anti-farming ban, and there are more measures coming soon to protect new recruits. As king achilles has pointed out many times, it is very tricky to make rules against taking advantage of lower ranks because it is very hard to draw a line between abuse and normal playing. If you have any suggestions on how to enforce a ranching rule in a practical way we would love to hear them. In the meantime I'm looking into changing the join a game pages to show new games first, to discourage ranching, but there are serious issues I need to iron out (i.e. will most games still fill?, what to do with games that never fill?).
lanyards wrote:They would at least publicly announce the change in rules before enforcing them.
Gen.LeeGettinhed wrote:Reminders to thread creator:
-read old threads for similar treads before creating new ones
-be sure you understand the rules before accusing someone of breaking rules
FYI: note from King Achilles to GLG:
"What they see in you is that you are only specifically playing/targeting low ranked or 'fresh' newly graduated new recruits."
1) I rarely play a newly graduated new recruit. I've provided details of my last ~40 games (exlcuding large clan games) -- completed games at time of check:
-1254 was average, 436 was median -- hardly "newly graduated"
-bottom 4: 24, 60, 98, 98 -- again, other 44 (90%) hardly "newly graduated"
2) It's been over 2 years since I played a ?-new-recruit something often complained about -- ALTHOUGH I AM ALLOWED TO PLAY THEM
3) they ignore mention that after I quit playing ?-new-recruits, I quit playing cooks, and then Cadets* -- and now playing fewer Privates. Definitely making progress on increasing my opponent rank (* "quit" as in playing regularly; sometimes one in team games).
Opponents have lied about and/or exaggerated claims of my style. I recommend Management:
- get FACTS before bending to the cries of those people -- and punish false accusers
- get a MUCH more broad-based sample of site concern levels. If leaders only listened to the vocal few, there would still be Salem Witch Trials.
Also, this is not a spurious report, so no punishment will be handed down to the accusers. Also, I personally do not listen to just the "vocal few", as you put it. Whatever the outcome, rest assured it will be weighed carefully.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
deathcomesrippin wrote:Gen.LeeGettinhed wrote:"this is not a spurious report, so no punishment will be handed down to the accusers.
It is not spurious, nor is it against the current rules as has already been tested. Nor is it punishible for what you appear to be saying. These seem to be new unwritten rulesGen.LeeGettinhed wrote:deathcomesrippin wrote:Gen.LeeGettinhed wrote:"this is not a spurious report, so no punishment will be handed down to the accusers.
No, you misunderstood that point, I never said it was spurious (just redundant). It's the purposely lieing, over-exaggerating and misleading management about a player that should be punished. OK?
hmsps wrote:It is not spurious, nor is it against the current rules as has already been tested. Nor is it punishible for what you appear to be saying. These seem to be new unwritten rulesGen.LeeGettinhed wrote:deathcomesrippin wrote:Gen.LeeGettinhed wrote:"this is not a spurious report, so no punishment will be handed down to the accusers.
No, you misunderstood that point, I never said it was spurious (just redundant). It's the purposely lieing, over-exaggerating and misleading management about a player that should be punished. OK?
Leehar wrote:I think it's just interesting that I suspect an unbiased third party (who hasn't really been involved in the forums or any of the other numerous engagements happening here in C&A and elsewhere) looked at this from his uninvolved perspective and thought this was something worth being concerned about and reporting?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users