Gen.LeeGettinhed [warned]

[Sniper08]

no doubt he will be cleared again as he always is but the constant reports in C&A keep this issue fresh and highlight that the CC community is unhappy with the current system of farming or ranching rules and they need to be changed. While the admins have promised change or atleast they look into it we all know that takes a long time for anything to happen.

i still cant see how this doesnt fall under gross abuse of the game, he contacts unsuspecting low ranked people and gets them to play in games on hard settings and difficult maps that they dont know anything about under the premise of "teaching them".The fact that CoF has proven that GLG coerses people to join games should fall under gross abuse of the game.

[betiko]

what if you guys changed the settings for invites?
I think the best would be to be able to send invites only to players that have friended you. It doesn't solve everything but I think it does help moving towards a more "ethical" way of playing.
Otherwise just go to the callout section.

Anyway, there is always tons of abuses, mostly with freestyle games. Maybe people should have 2 rankings; a sequential ranking with points and a freestlye ranking with points.

[hmsps]

Unfortunately, I think the only thing that will come of this is a ban to CoF for a spurious report. The C&A mods have warned that will happen. I think perhaps this should have been posted in Suggestions, rather than C&A. As it currently stands, what glg is doing is well documented, and has been found to not be against current rules. Which means that what everyone ought to be pressing for is a rule change.

Regardless, good luck to you, CoF.

How is this possibly spurious, has this been brought up before? All COF has done is what CC admin should have done all along, its obviously an issue but so long as the $$ come in they are happy.

Well done COF for putting the time and effort in.

[Gen.LeeGettinhed]

Since this report is based on private messages, I would have to agree with jefjef here that we would need the whole conversation of those pm's. Please report all those private messages from the beginning, which means including the pm's before they responded to you. Click the little ! near the Quote button while viewing the message. When you have done that, feel free to also post them here in this report.

No problem. A copy of my PM is set-out below.

Sent: Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:06 pm
by Chariot of Fire

Hey guys,

I'm conducting a survey on behalf of many CC players who are upset with the manner in which certain high-ranking players (take our Conqueror for example) adopt a cheap method of gaining points. It's not quite 'farming' (that involves deliberately setting up games for noobs with under 5 games' experience to join) but it is 'ranching'. Ranching is setting up a game with difficult settings, e.g. freestyle, manual, and inviting players to it who have no idea what to do because they are new to the map & settings.

You have all fallen prey to this cheap tactic. Here's a game example: Game 10476064

This player has done this to over 1,300 people! You may think "Ah well, it's only 4 or 5 points lost" but the important thing is he does it to everybody he thinks he can take advantage of. There have been many Cheating & Abuse reports made against this player, but what he does is apparently not breaking any rules. It is however cheap and unethical.

We are looking at ways to prevent this kind of thing. I would be interested to know how you were approached by this player (was it in Live Chat, or did you simply receive an invite when you logged in?).

Does this kind of play spoil your enjoyment of CC and/or change your opinion of the purpose of the Leaderboard?

Having been a victim of one of CC's most notorious 'ranchers' would you like to see this kind of thing stopped in future? Do you have good or bad feelings about people who do this kind of thing?

Please bear in mind this guy does not play fair. If you were going to win your game he would have delayed the outcome and had CC Admin check to see if you were a multi - that's how he plays. See Game 7239410 for a good example of what he did to one player who was going to win (read all chat).

So I'd like to hear from you - the players who were duped into playing a speed game on a foreign map with odd settings - and see what the feedback is like and hopefully make CC a fairer place for everyone to enjoy a game, and also make ranks/points/scoreboard something that people can't take advantage of.

Thanks for your time

Simon (CoF)

A concerned CC'er

Whoah, whooah, whoooah. There are MANY things wrong with this:
PM's
1) PM's are for inviting people. I do NOT "BLAST them out", but send 1 at a time.
2) if sending out PM's 1 at a time is an issue, than would not Chariot sending out HUNDREDS be a MUCH bigger gross violation? <=== THIS is a problem
. . .confirmed by eddie2 above: ". . .due to the fact that we were all invited by cof to pm all his past opponants. . ."
3) I do NOT begin by sending out PM gme number and password -- I ask for a game, they say "yes, no, or discuss"
Chariot's lies/flames/baits:
1) ON BEHALF OF MANY CC PLAYERS: BS, it's on behalf of Chariot and his buddies -- and serves to mudsling against GLG
2) "cheap method. . .unethical" - CHEAP/unethical are very derogatory terms. He may not agree with it, but it IS totally legal.
3) "fallen prey"- FLAMING, it's derogatory. they wanted a game, agreed to a game, no "prey" about it
4) "4-5 pts. . .take advantage of" misrepresenting - I risk 80/100 pts to get 4-5. it's RISK MANAGEMENT
5) he would have delayed the outcome - misrepresentation: just because I do it when someone plays better than their experience does NOT mean I do it much at all. I HAVE caught multi's this way -- but ONLY when warranted.
6) duped: again derogatory, Risk Management tool

7) a survey: is normally unbiased. that was the most slanted survey I've seen in a while.
if my math is right, I counted 11 negative responses. ~1% -- much better than most companies would find acceptable. How many people:
-ignored it as spurious or didn't care?
-replied positively? though not many I bet due to the hugely negative slant
. . .for one C&A report listed TWENTY recent game comments of "thanks. . .appreciated, etc." of ~25 last games (4 no comment, 1 negative). This is VERY slanted.

He/they focus on "prey/take advantage of" -- but it's controlling losses, not preying.

Global mods,
-let me know if this needs to go under C&A for so much flaming/baiting while misrepresenting/exaggerating
-you warned people of Spurious reports about GLG style. Chariot knows better.
==> Greenoaks: . . .a forum ban for the op is well desersed. . .
==> Serbia wrote: Unfortunately, I think the only thing that will come of this is a ban to CoF for a spurious report. The C&A mods have warned that will happen.

GLG

[Evolution299]

Sorry GLG but I don't think this is spurious at all. by the examples that COF has produced, it seems that no everyone is happy with playing games with you, like you like to portray.

On a side note you might be putting up 80 points in a game to play against these players, but you have around a 95% chance or higher to win, so its really not much of a gamble. Try playing an easy map and they say you are risking 80 points a game. Then someone might care.

And I doubt that you send out emails one at a time. Until I told you to stop blasting me with emails, I was getting emails from you when ever my ranking got to a certain score. And I was receiving them on the same day.

You will skate on this charge as well, more than likely, but one day the powers that be will change the rules for the betterment of this site and its paying customers, and you sir, will be out of business as a rancher.

[Evolution299]

Your slant theory goes 2 ways:

7) a survey: is normally unbiased. that was the most slanted survey I've seen in a while.
if my math is right, I counted 11 negative responses. ~1% -- much better than most companies would find acceptable. How many people:
-ignored it as spurious or didn't care?
-replied positively? though not many I bet due to the hugely negative slant
. . .for one C&A report listed TWENTY recent game comments of "thanks. . .appreciated, etc." of ~25 last games (4 no comment, 1 negative). This is VERY slanted.


How many people are unhappy with the treatment you give them and just: a) come forward on their own and said something, or b) never got the well written letter from COF and added their opinion.

You are correct. This is VERY slanted. You're 1% couple be as high as 80%. We just don't know until everyone comes forward.
It's just slanted by you.

[Gen.LeeGettinhed]

Sorry GLG but I don't think this is spurious at all. by the examples that COF has produced, it seems that no everyone is happy with playing games with you, like you like to portray.

On a side note you might be putting up 80 points in a game to play against these players, but you have around a 95% chance or higher to win, so its really not much of a gamble. Try playing an easy map and they say you are risking 80 points a game. Then someone might care.

And I doubt that you send out emails one at a time. Until I told you to stop blasting me with emails, I was getting emails from you when ever my ranking got to a certain score. And I was receiving them on the same day.

You will skate on this charge as well, more than likely, but one day the powers that be will change the rules for the betterment of this site and its paying customers, and you sir, will be out of business as a rancher.

1)THANK YOU FOR MAKING MY POINT:
005% chance of loss at 80-100 pts = -4.00 to -5.00 ~ -4.500
095% chance of gain at 5 - 4 pts = +4.75 to +3.80 ~ +4.275
100% chance net gain/loss of pts = ......................-.025.. . . I happen to be on the better side of that

2) as noted before, my 20 items were of the LAST 25 I played. Chariots were probably the only or worst of all replies. His survey is slanted.

3) as far as getting PM's from me, FOE me. I don't blast, but send out 1 at at time. CC admin can confirm that.

GLG

[Bones2484]

3) as far as getting PM's from me, FOE me. I don't blast, but send out 1 at at time. CC admin can confirm that.

Foeing does not stop PMs.

[cachejob]

i think the most relevant part was already quoted from the community guidelines:

"Don't be intentionally annoying!

Common sense prevails - if you are intentionally or continually making this community less enjoyable for others, you're going to be removed from it. It's that simple. This applies to any part of the site where interaction takes place"


GLG has continually made this community less enjoyable for many, not only through his systematic invitation abuse but also through his trolling and constant need to be the center of attention whether good or bad.

another recent example of his trying to be clever in skirting the rules is his blatantly flaming new tournament title "30-GLG Haywood Jablomie Memorial COFxxx - Classic Ass (open)".
in light of past conflict with Chariot of Fire (commonly known as CoF) i don't think anyone can doubt GLG's intention was to annoy, especially since he then felt the need to make a post in general discussion to try to draw more attention to how "clever" he is: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=167149#p3652377

frankly i think more and more people are getting sick of GLG's bs and would like to see some repercussions for him to at least deter him from making the site less enjoyable for others.

[GoranZ]

While all contacted players showed honor in not turning Gen.LeeGettinhed invitations(I decorated his nick according to his value), after the end of the game they all see them selves as victims. Is this not braking the rules or failing to interpret them properly?

Unfortunately, I think the only thing that will come of this is a ban to CoF for a spurious report. The C&A mods have warned that will happen.

This will be seriously looked at and highly doubt it will be found spurious.

CoF should also share the contents of the pm he sent these players to obtain these responses. Oh and C&A will surely be wanting these pm's reported to confirm that they exist..

I certainly hope that CoF is not banned for this report. I'm hopeful that this will be looked on as a new and valid complaint, and will be looked at separately from previous reports. As I stated earlier, I know that so far, this tactic has been viewed as not being a rules violation. I personally think it's a bullshit way of getting to the top, and would welcome a rule change. Which again is why I think this may have been best posted in Suggestions. However, I can appreciate the "gross abuse" charge; I just hope that it isn't viewed as spurious.

Serbia are you writing your comments as player or as mod? Can you write it down on your next message?

BTW Do you want to ban all other players that think like CoF? If so you will need to ban a lot of players and probably shat down the site

[hotfire]

1)THANK YOU FOR MAKING MY POINT:
005% chance of loss at 80-100 pts = -4.00 to -5.00 ~ -4.500
095% chance of gain at 5 - 4 pts = +4.75 to +3.80 ~ +4.275
100% chance net gain/loss of pts = ......................-.025.. . . I happen to be on the better side of that

you are current 279 points ahead of rank 2...at -.025 points every 20 games(if you ever magically lose one game in 20) you should only remain conqueror for (279 X 20)/.025 = 223,200 more games.. you sir are a great humanitarian giving so generously

[tkr4lf]

i think the most relevant part was already quoted from the community guidelines:

"Don't be intentionally annoying!

Common sense prevails - if you are intentionally or continually making this community less enjoyable for others, you're going to be removed from it. It's that simple. This applies to any part of the site where interaction takes place"


GLG has continually made this community less enjoyable for many, not only through his systematic invitation abuse but also through his trolling and constant need to be the center of attention whether good or bad.

another recent example of his trying to be clever in skirting the rules is his blatantly flaming new tournament title "30-GLG Haywood Jablomie Memorial COFxxx - Classic Ass (open)".
in light of past conflict with Chariot of Fire (commonly known as CoF) i don't think anyone can doubt GLG's intention was to annoy, especially since he then felt the need to make a post in general discussion to try to draw more attention to how "clever" he is: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=167149#p3652377

frankly i think more and more people are getting sick of GLG's bs and would like to see some repercussions for him to at least deter him from making the site less enjoyable for others.

I have to agree with this post, especially the underlined part. Before, I didn't give a rat's ass about glg or his methods. But after more and more of his pointless threads, and his arrogant flaunting of his ridiculous "ranching," he really is an extremely annoying person. Even if nothing comes of this, I too look forward to the day that his methods are outlawed by the powers that be on this site. It will be really funny to watch his rank drop, and rather quickly I'm sure.

Also, how is risking 80/100 points to get 5 points "risk management?" "Risk management" would more likely be only playing brigadiers and higher, so that you are only risking 20-30 points in order to get 15-20 points. Your idea of "risk management" is counter-intuitive.

I have to wonder at the type of person who continually preys on the weak. You almost exclusively play against people who have no chance of beating you. That, sir, is the definition of cowardice.

[BGtheBrain]

*staring at lock button*

[Serbia]

Serbia are you writing your comments as player or as mod? Can you write it down on your next message?

I am a Tournament Director. I am in no way affiliated with the C&A Department, or the Global Moderators team. Any opinions expressed in this thread are my own, and are not meant to reflect in anyway on the rest of Team CC.

Furthermore, I stated that my personal desire is to see that CoF is NOT BANNED for this report. Again, this is my personal favored outcome. I expressed concern that he may be banned, while adding that I hope he is not. I am not calling for anyone to be banned in this thread, nor will I.

GLG, I would appreciate it if you quote me in context. I do not believe CoF should be banned for this report. I suggested it is a possibility, based on a previous ruling. However, it is my hope that this report is viewed differently, and that CoF is not punished for what I consider to be a valid report.

I trust that this post will serve to clear up any misunderstanding regarding my previous posts in this thread, as well as any future posts.

[Chuuuuck]

i think the most relevant part was already quoted from the community guidelines:

"Don't be intentionally annoying!

Common sense prevails - if you are intentionally or continually making this community less enjoyable for others, you're going to be removed from it. It's that simple. This applies to any part of the site where interaction takes place"


GLG has continually made this community less enjoyable for many, not only through his systematic invitation abuse but also through his trolling and constant need to be the center of attention whether good or bad.

another recent example of his trying to be clever in skirting the rules is his blatantly flaming new tournament title "30-GLG Haywood Jablomie Memorial COFxxx - Classic Ass (open)".
in light of past conflict with Chariot of Fire (commonly known as CoF) i don't think anyone can doubt GLG's intention was to annoy, especially since he then felt the need to make a post in general discussion to try to draw more attention to how "clever" he is: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=167149#p3652377

frankly i think more and more people are getting sick of GLG's bs and would like to see some repercussions for him to at least deter him from making the site less enjoyable for others.

It is written right there for all of us to see. Too bad Conquer Club doesn't even follow what they say as a company themselves.

Example A: "We charge a subscription fee for premium membership to help keep this site running because ConquerClub does not use advertisements and we never will."

Outcome: Allow me to put this advertisement, which administration deems worthy on every single page within the site, even though we promised you there would never be any.

Example B: "Gambling in any form is strictly prohibited."

Outcome: Hey everyone! Go sign up for this cool new tournament in which we charge you $5 to enter but return far less in prizes. There is absolutely no gambling in your own games, but it is okay as long as we manage it and make sure to take a hefty percentage off of the top.

Example C: "if you are intentionally or continually making this community less enjoyable for others, you're going to be removed from it."

Outcome: Here we have a player making this place continuously less enjoyable for a large portion of the site. Yet he has continuously been defended in his actions and allowed to continue. If you don't do anything about it, I'd at least like to see you to take that off of the rules page so you don't give anyone the wrong idea that you are willing to do anything.

[crazymilkshake5]

I have been farmed by GLG, I said no to his first, second AND his 3rd invite, but then gave up on the fourth and joined, his pm said the exact same thing.

[BGtheBrain]

Locked

The Cheating & Abuse Forum is basically for reports of game violations and the like. This is not the forum for flaming, suggestion ideas or off topics posts. Troll somewhere else. Take this forum more seriously.

[Dako]

I think it is quite obvious that GLG is annoying people. In the forums and in the live chat as well (thought latter is only an assumption). Yes, I do find his method of playing CC cheap as well. Not in terms of morale but more from a human standpoint. He is bending over a hundred times to play a game with a new player that that player cannot win. And we can all agree that his opponents cannot win under normal circumstances. This means that GLG is willingly putting them into a situation where only he can win. This itself is an abuse of the site in my mind.
Due to his experience he knows that, while his opponents are freshmen or new players that don't have such an experience. They don't know yet that they cannot win. Of course they accept invites because they think they stand a chance. But in reality - yeah, they don't stand a chance at all :(.

I also find that GLG presence on the site (forums at least) is, quote "continually making this community less enjoyable for others". I don't know if you want to run a poll for it but I am sure the results will be obvious. Yes, we are talking about part of the community, a forums specifically. Forums that mature and experienced players visit. So one can say that GLG annoys most of the experienced forumers of CC.

The amount of C&A reports indicates that GLG cases and ruling are against general sense. And by general I mean majority of active forum posters. That means that either he has to be removed from forums (temporarily or permanently) or the rules got to be changed. We have been witnesses of rule changes before (I think it was Commanders case or Blitz case) and it was a stand up action.

I know that C&A team will do the right thing because I trust them (how can one not?). But I hope that this ruling will be accommodating to everyone here.

[Dukasaur]

the thing that alarms me the most is this..

How did he contact me? He sent me a message. Direct to my wall. He said something about Alabama football (one of my passions, as you can see by my avatar). He played like he was a fan, but after a few questions, I realized that he really didn't know anything about them....

he befriends someone to trick them into a game to chat about something he supports. this needs to be looked at further to see how many joined his games under this false info he feeds them.
also this will not be a forum ban for cof due to the fact that we were all invited by cof to pm all his past opponants and they would not complain about it.. well cof has opened a thread because members are not happy with how they were treated by glg.

Unquestionably this is prima facie evidence of fraud. Impersonating a friend of a mark is classic con-artist behaviour.

[eddie2]

the thing that alarms me the most is this..

How did he contact me? He sent me a message. Direct to my wall. He said something about Alabama football (one of my passions, as you can see by my avatar). He played like he was a fan, but after a few questions, I realized that he really didn't know anything about them....

he befriends someone to trick them into a game to chat about something he supports. this needs to be looked at further to see how many joined his games under this false info he feeds them.
also this will not be a forum ban for cof due to the fact that we were all invited by glg to pm all his past opponants and they would not complain about it.. well cof has opened a thread because members are not happy with how they were treated by glg.

Unquestionably this is prima facie evidence of fraud. Impersonating a friend of a mark is classic con-artist behaviour.

corrected opps i said cof and not glg well i fixd it now.

[Dukasaur]

the thing that alarms me the most is this..

How did he contact me? He sent me a message. Direct to my wall. He said something about Alabama football (one of my passions, as you can see by my avatar). He played like he was a fan, but after a few questions, I realized that he really didn't know anything about them....

he befriends someone to trick them into a game to chat about something he supports. this needs to be looked at further to see how many joined his games under this false info he feeds them.
also this will not be a forum ban for cof due to the fact that we were all invited by glg to pm all his past opponants and they would not complain about it.. well cof has opened a thread because members are not happy with how they were treated by glg.

Unquestionably this is prima facie evidence of fraud. Impersonating a friend of a mark is classic con-artist behaviour.

corrected opps i said cof and not glg well i fixd it now.

Yeah, I meant "evidence of fraud by glg" not "evidence of fraud by cof." This won't be judged against CoF because GLG has numerous times challenged people to speak to any of his former victims.

[Chariot of Fire]

GLG - Your interpretation of flaming is rather ludicrous if you think there is anything remotely provocative in the PM I sent out. The respondents were perfectly at liberty to answer "Yes", "No" or to not comment at all. And your math isn't correct whatsoever. Of over 1,000 1v1 games you have been in I PM'd merely 81 (3 x batches of 27) of your opponents. Of that sample size I received 11 negative replies, 1 positive, and 69 did not reply.

I'd say 11 out of 12 respondents not being comfortable with the method in which you drew them into a game is a rather telling majority.

The question now is whether I take the time to poll the remaining 924 players for even more overwhelming evidence.

In the meantime you are perfectly entitled to copy/paste my PM and send it out to all my past opponents should you feel it contained any unfair bias against those who seek to gain an advantage at others' expense.

Oh...and if you want a good example of a flame/bait then look no further than your own back yard:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=167295&start=0

[ljex]

GLG - Your interpretation of flaming is rather ludicrous if you think there is anything remotely provocative in the PM I sent out. The respondents were perfectly at liberty to answer "Yes", "No" or to not comment at all. And your math isn't correct whatsoever. Of over 1,000 1v1 games you have been in I PM'd merely 81 (3 x batches of 27) of your opponents. Of that sample size I received 11 negative replies, 1 positive, and 69 did not reply.

I'd say 11 out of 12 respondents not being comfortable with the method in which you drew them into a game is a rather telling majority.

The question now is whether I take the time to poll the remaining 924 players for even more overwhelming evidence.

In the meantime you are perfectly entitled to copy/paste my PM and send it out to all my past opponents should you feel it contained any unfair bias against those who seek to gain an advantage at others' expense.

Oh...and if you want a good example of a flame/bait then look no further than your own back yard:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=167295&start=0

while yes 11/12 is how many responded negatively...i would guess that those with a negative feeling from the experience would be way more likely to respond than those with a positive. Still a pretty large percentage even if we just take 11/87 but its hard to tell in situations like this what the true percentage of negative respondents is.

[Janomike]

I have also been asked to play a freestyle speed 1vs1 against him some time ago when i was a lt.

First i thought wow one of the top players asks me to play versus him. I felt honoured and couldnt resist to
join the game, after all i can only loose 4-5 points and have a chance to win alot more. Nomrally i dont play freestyle alot havent played it ever since.

Of course i had no chance at all the game was over soon.

GLG was very nice throughout the game and in his messages as well but after it was over i really felt bad and stupid.
I should have known better. Never played the map again, never played the setting again, would not play GLG again unless in a standard setting on a map im comfortable with.

Yes its not against the rules, i could have declined after all, but its not the finest way of getting points id say and yes most players with low ranks (less xp on this site) will feel honoured and play with him, just to feel stupid like i did afterwards.

What would we all talk about without having GLG here with us

[jiminski]

GLG - Your interpretation of flaming is rather ludicrous if you think there is anything remotely provocative in the PM I sent out. The respondents were perfectly at liberty to answer "Yes", "No" or to not comment at all. And your math isn't correct whatsoever. Of over 1,000 1v1 games you have been in I PM'd merely 81 (3 x batches of 27) of your opponents. Of that sample size I received 11 negative replies, 1 positive, and 69 did not reply.

I'd say 11 out of 12 respondents not being comfortable with the method in which you drew them into a game is a rather telling majority.

The question now is whether I take the time to poll the remaining 924 players for even more overwhelming evidence.

In the meantime you are perfectly entitled to copy/paste my PM and send it out to all my past opponents should you feel it contained any unfair bias against those who seek to gain an advantage at others' expense.

Oh...and if you want a good example of a flame/bait then look no further than your own back yard:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=167295&start=0

while yes 11/12 is how many responded negatively...i would guess that those with a negative feeling from the experience would be way more likely to respond than those with a positive. Still a pretty large percentage even if we just take 11/87 but its hard to tell in situations like this what the true percentage of negative respondents is.

And a much larger percentage of newer players would not be savvy enough regarding the nuances of Conquerclub, its farmers and abusers, to pay any notice to the mail from an eccentric member on a mission.
Personally, i'm amazed how many people responded and it shows what a negative force the accused is. He's the teacher, the authority figure, unctuously grooming the uninitiated toward his unpleasant ends.