[These cases have been closed. If you would like to appeal the decision of the hunter please open a ticket on the help page and the case will be looked into by a second hunter.]
Haha, yes poor you. Finally a guilty verdict and long overdue in my opinion. You should be thankful that you're not getting a point reset or rank stripping. Why can't you just realise and accept that nobody likes or approves of your practices and that you are cheapening the whole site for the hundreds & thousands of people that enjoy the challenge & chance of the game. The site is inspired by the board game 'RISK' but you eliminate all of the Risk & fun from the game. I imagine you 10/15 years ago going around with a box containing the board game & all the pieces, stopping kids in the playground, talking them into playing a game on a board they've never seen & betting their lunch money on the outcome. Nobody likes or approves of what you do, why don't you just feck off and play a different board game? Maybe monopoly seeing as greed is the name of the game there.
Gen.LeeGettinhed wrote:1-Unsuspecting players? they are asked if they WANT TO play a game, many say no. Others say "sure", others negotiate the map. They are given the game number and with that the chance to review the map/settings. See prior sentence. HOW IS THIS UNSUSPECTING?
2-not fair? how FAIR is it for someone of higher rank to give up 900%-1600%-2500% DISADVANTAGE (-66/+6m -80/+5, -100/+4)to opponents and not be allowed to manage that risk? explain THAT, then claim it's UNFAIR.
3-Malicious? "1. desire to inflict injury or suffering to another, especially when based on deep-seated meanness. 2. committing a wrongful act injurious to others". 4-6 point on 1,000 is no injury or suffering. Definitely not based on deep-seated meanness. Your adjective is wrong, slanderous/libelous AND malicious.
4-"Seeking out specific ranks. . .to ranch". Since when is using methodical approaches to solving problems wrong? Ranching wasn't even a term until I introduced it -- to separate it from the terrible practice of Farming. Also regarding specific ranks: stopped playing "unranked ? new recruits", cooks, then cadets. JUST began working on eliminating Privates -- CONSTANTLY improving my opponent strength, and that's WRONG?
5)Setting up private games to LURE unsuspecting players: Private games were used to PREVENT JUMPERS. since when is playing who someone wants, when they want illegal? LURE: "1.anything that attracts or entices . . .especially in trapping". Trapping? surely you jest. See #1 again. And wtH is wrong with attracting/enticing?
AND. . .you base this on less than a dozen negative replies to a HUGELY slanted "survey" by the always-altruistic Charioteer. . .after I posted 20 of 25 then-recent opponents THANKING ME (1 negative, 4 no replies) for the game and showing them a map and settings? At least be balanced, unbiased and fair.
well I can go on, and on. . .and will later. But. . .aside from the bogus/biased ruling: THANK YOU TO CHARIOT OF FIRE AND KING ACHILLES for making GLG infamous -- for making up general rules to slow down rule abiding player(s).
GLG
A lot of text, but in principle I concur. Took a look at the first game referred to by KA: Game 10811352
Apparently you had invited:
Username: tjd25041
Rank: Sergeant 1st Class
Score: 1435 Games: 520 completed, 183 (35%) won
Attendance: 99% of turns taken
I would think that such a player could take care of himself and don't really see how it could be a gross abuse to, in any circumstances, play a premium/500+ games player. Very confusing warning.
You missed the point that sfc had alot of games but had no real freestyle experience and was not familiar with the map in question.
2-not fair? how FAIR is it for someone of higher rank to give up 900%-1600%-2500% DISADVANTAGE (-66/+6m -80/+5, -100/+4)to opponents and not be allowed to manage that risk? explain THAT, then claim it's UNFAIR.
LOL, the reason you HAVE the huge risk in points is BECAUSE you play low ranks. If you played other high rankers, your risk wouldn't be nearly as high.
Making you "Infamous" in a way that obviously harms the whole CC community. I myself could care less how you justify the way you play ,but let me say this .I joined this site after playing the original game for over four decades ,face to face .Enjoying the many many hours of personal interaction ,constant banter,many many drinks and cannons .It was and is a very social event in my view . Now I only read one game chat log of all those listed .In that log your opponent states that he realizes he is way outclassed on a map he does not have any idea how too play .You tell him that's ok "its only 14 minutes and 5 points ",then after you summarily execute him you invite him too a doubles match.Not as Buddy, Buddy and "educational for the condemned as you make out . Maybe if you started your own version of Bedrock........Where all are welcome and they have as fair a chance to win as any others on the site ,'Hedrock' so to speak, others would not be so upset and offended at your type of point collecting. One word of caution though win ratio could go down .Just saying .
jgordon1111 wrote:You missed the point that sfc had alot of games but had no real freestyle experience and was not familiar with the map in question.
Yeah, sure. But is GLG expected to make a review of the past games of a premium/500+ games player (and then not play if not sufficiently experienced/familiar)? I would think that a premium/500+ games player is capable of determining himself if he wants to play against GLG. I played King_Herpes once on City Mogul/freestyle, knew for sure that I was gonna loose, but see no problems with that.
Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.
jgordon1111 wrote:You missed the point that sfc had alot of games but had no real freestyle experience and was not familiar with the map in question.
Yeah, sure. But is GLG expected to make a review of the past games of a premium/500+ games player (and then not play if not sufficiently experienced/familiar)? I would think that a premium/500+ games player is capable of determining himself if he wants to play against GLG. I played King_Herpes once on City Mogul/freestyle, knew for sure that I was gonna loose, but see no problems with that.
To be honest alstergren, no one listens to what you say. You just have to look at your games played, a bit embarrassing really, not really much difference between you and glg in my opinion
Highest score 3372 02/08/12
Highest position 53 02/08/12
jgordon1111 wrote:You missed the point that sfc had alot of games but had no real freestyle experience and was not familiar with the map in question.
Yeah, sure. But is GLG expected to make a review of the past games of a premium/500+ games player (and then not play if not sufficiently experienced/familiar)? I would think that a premium/500+ games player is capable of determining himself if he wants to play against GLG. I played King_Herpes once on City Mogul/freestyle, knew for sure that I was gonna loose, but see no problems with that.
To be honest alstergren, no one listens to what you say. You just have to look at your games played, a bit embarrassing really, not really much difference between you and glg in my opinion
Well. To be honest, it's none of your business (so I couldn't care less). Pay your premium and play the games you want to play. And I'm surprised that the fact that GLG having invited a premium/500+ games player to a game is someone else's business. When was the last time people, who has no shoot at the Conqueror title, whined and made the current Conqueror's games their business?
Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.
king achilles wrote: exerpts:
1) . . .undeniable that the past report above indicated that private games are being set up to unsuspecting players numerous times. This shows that Gen.LeeGettinhed is systematically soliciting/inviting certain players for the purpose of ranching.
2) . . .It's not fair to regularly do this. We will classify this as a gross abuse of the game.
3) . . . this practice is more malicious than it seems.
4) . . .seeking out specific ranks or players in order to ranch some points.
5) . . .stop setting up private games to lure unsuspecting players from now on.
1-Unsuspecting players? they are asked if they WANT TO play a game, many say no. Others say "sure", others negotiate the map. They are given the game number and with that the chance to review the map/settings. See prior sentence. HOW IS THIS UNSUSPECTING?
2-not fair? how FAIR is it for someone of higher rank to give up 900%-1600%-2500% DISADVANTAGE (-66/+6m -80/+5, -100/+4)to opponents and not be allowed to manage that risk? explain THAT, then claim it's UNFAIR.
3-Malicious? "1. desire to inflict injury or suffering to another, especially when based on deep-seated meanness. 2. committing a wrongful act injurious to others". 4-6 point on 1,000 is no injury or suffering. Definitely not based on deep-seated meanness. Your adjective is wrong, slanderous/libelous AND malicious.
4-"Seeking out specific ranks. . .to ranch". Since when is using methodical approaches to solving problems wrong? Ranching wasn't even a term until I introduced it -- to separate it from the terrible practice of Farming. Also regarding specific ranks: stopped playing "unranked ? new recruits", cooks, then cadets. JUST began working on eliminating Privates -- CONSTANTLY improving my opponent strength, and that's WRONG?
5)Setting up private games to LURE unsuspecting players: Private games were used to PREVENT JUMPERS. since when is playing who someone wants, when they want illegal? LURE: "1.anything that attracts or entices . . .especially in trapping". Trapping? surely you jest. See #1 again. And wtH is wrong with attracting/enticing?
AND. . .you base this on less than a dozen negative replies to a HUGELY slanted "survey" by the always-altruistic Charioteer. . .after I posted 20 of 25 then-recent opponents THANKING ME (1 negative, 4 no replies) for the game and showing them a map and settings? At least be balanced, unbiased and fair.
well I can go on, and on. . .and will later. But. . .aside from the bogus/biased ruling: THANK YOU TO CHARIOT OF FIRE AND KING ACHILLES for making GLG infamous -- for making up general rules to slow down rule abiding player(s).
GLG
If you are this concerned... Means you have something to hide obviously...
Just create public games so anyone can join! I mean, you are Conqueror, right?
jgordon1111 wrote:You missed the point that sfc had alot of games but had no real freestyle experience and was not familiar with the map in question.
Yeah, sure. But is GLG expected to make a review of the past games of a premium/500+ games player (and then not play if not sufficiently experienced/familiar)? I would think that a premium/500+ games player is capable of determining himself if he wants to play against GLG. I played King_Herpes once on City Mogul/freestyle, knew for sure that I was gonna loose, but see no problems with that.
Actually GLG most likely does just that to ensure that they dont know the map lol.
But that is pure speculation on my part. No evidence whatsoever to say my opinion is correct.
But most respondents seem to say they had never played the map before. Nor are they informed as to what map they are being invited to once they agree. Usually only find out after the invite is sent,then again I speculate they have already agreed to the lesson in chat and dont wish to back out.
But again speculation and conjecture on my behalf. LOL I think I may be close on both though.
the more I think about this ruling, the less logical it sounds. How can any logical person. . . issue a Warning. ..for a MAJOR INFRACTION. . .for a rule that was never in place?
It sort of sounds like:
-legal to collect aluminum cans and turn in for Scrap $
-BUT, if you collect too many legally, and turn in for too many $ -- it's going to be illegal
-AND after doing it legally, we're going to DECLARE it illegal in the future. . .
-AND we're going to warn you NOW. . .after doing nothing that WAS illegal -- but now we dicided it's illegal
the more I think about this ruling, the less logical it sounds. How can any logical person. . . issue a Warning. ..for a MAJOR INFRACTION. . .for a rule that was never in place?
Would you prefer to be banned or blocked for the sake of it being more logical since its a major infraction?
Gen.LeeGettinhed wrote:
It sort of sounds like:
-legal to collect aluminum cans and turn in for Scrap $
-BUT, if you collect too many legally, and turn in for too many $ -- it's going to be illegal
-AND after doing it legally, we're going to DECLARE it illegal in the future. . .
-AND we're going to warn you NOW. . .after doing nothing that WAS illegal -- but now we dicided it's illegal
Metaphors and analogies are fun to use, but are rarely equivocal to an actual argument
the more I think about this ruling, the less logical it sounds. How can any logical person. . . issue a Warning. ..for a MAJOR INFRACTION. . .for a rule that was never in place?
It sort of sounds like:
-legal to collect aluminum cans and turn in for Scrap $
-BUT, if you collect too many legally, and turn in for too many $ -- it's going to be illegal
-AND after doing it legally, we're going to DECLARE it illegal in the future. . .
-AND we're going to warn you NOW. . .after doing nothing that WAS illegal -- but now we dicided it's illegal
Where are the leprechauns and unicorns?
GLG
if you're going to low ranked people's houses and take their aluminium cans pretending to teach them how to recycle then you deserve to be punished.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
Pedronicus wrote:If GLG has been warned for something, can admin let everyone else know what that something is likely to get us a warning, if we do it?
Remove the grey and give us black and white, please.
Gen.LeeGettinhed wrote:THANK YOU TO CHARIOT OF FIRE AND KING ACHILLES for making GLG infamous -- for making up general rules to slow down rule abiding player(s).
GLG
ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... until you have admins create rules to ban you for 6 months, you aren't even NEAR the top of the infamous list... throw in players that were SITE BANNED for made up infractions, and you are nowhere even close to the radar... but hey, think what you want!!-el Jesus negro
Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation
makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"
Gen.LeeGettinhed wrote:THANK YOU TO CHARIOT OF FIRE AND KING ACHILLES for making GLG infamous -- for making up general rules to slow down rule abiding player(s).
GLG
ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... until you have admins create rules to ban you for 6 months, you aren't even NEAR the top of the infamous list... throw in players that were SITE BANNED for made up infractions, and you are nowhere even close to the radar... but hey, think what you want!!-el Jesus negro
No kidding. I hate to say it, but I actually agree with Owenshooter. Just saying that makes my skin crawl. Go ahead and stick your head in the sand GLG and pretend that the rules don't apply to you. You know what you did wasn't "right" even if it may not have been cut and dry "wrong." You remind me of Nixon and I wouldn't be surprised to see "Agnew for GLG." I find the whole thing quite that sad that you are trying to defend your right to farm. Have you no integrity man?
Gen.LeeGettinhed wrote:But. . .aside from the bogus/biased ruling: THANK YOU TO CHARIOT OF FIRE AND KING ACHILLES for making GLG infamous -- for making up general rules to slow down rule abiding player(s).
Now your referring to yourself in the third person?
Pedronicus wrote:If GLG has been warned for something, can admin let everyone else know what that something is likely to get us a warning, if we do it?
Remove the grey and give us black and white, please.
It's pretty simple, just don't do anything unethical! Don't systematically seek up players that are much lower ranked than yourself and offer them games which they have no experience of playing on, with the intent of stealing a few points. It is gross abuse of the game! It's the same really as systematically setting up games that you know will attract almost only NR's. If you have a sense of moral you'll be fine. If you're like "Mrgivinghead" then you probably won't understand. Morals??? Whaaat????
AoG for President of the World!!
I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!
This just made my Monday and possible my whole week. KA made the right dfecision whether GLG thinks it or not. What GLG did and will probably continue to do until they give him a real punishment or block his ability to do it on the site, is a Gross Abuse Of The Game.
I think the second best thing about this thread is Alstergren coming to GLG's defense, since he was busted already for farming.
Its like Kim Jong-il coming to Hitlers defense. LOL
Pedronicus wrote:If GLG has been warned for something, can admin let everyone else know what that something is likely to get us a warning, if we do it?
Remove the grey and give us black and white, please.
It's pretty simple, just don't do anything unethical! Don't systematically seek up players that are much lower ranked than yourself and offer them games which they have no experience of playing on, with the intent of stealing a few points. It is gross abuse of the game! It's the same really as systematically setting up games that you know will attract almost only NR's. If you have a sense of moral you'll be fine. If you're like "Mrgivinghead" then you probably won't understand. Morals??? Whaaat????
So what category does Blitzaholic come under? Setting up quads games & inviting 1 patsy onto the other team so no decent quads team can join?
jgordon1111 wrote:You missed the point that sfc had alot of games but had no real freestyle experience and was not familiar with the map in question.
Yeah, sure. But is GLG expected to make a review of the past games of a premium/500+ games player (and then not play if not sufficiently experienced/familiar)? I would think that a premium/500+ games player is capable of determining himself if he wants to play against GLG. I played King_Herpes once on City Mogul/freestyle, knew for sure that I was gonna loose, but see no problems with that.
He has already say he does, to make sure they have not played. "Risk management" is his golden term for exploitation.
Last edited by BGtheBrain on Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:Removed Flame
Finally a guilty verdict and long overdue in my opinion. You should be thankful that you're not getting a point reset or rank stripping. Why can't you just realise and accept that nobody likes or approves of your practices and that you are cheapening the whole site for the hundreds & thousands of people that enjoy the challenge & chance of the game. The site is inspired by the board game 'RISK' but you eliminate all of the Risk & fun from the game. I imagine you 10/15 years ago going around with a box containing the board game & all the pieces, stopping kids in the playground, talking them into playing a game on a board they've never seen & betting their lunch money on the outcome. Nobody likes or approves of what you do, why don't you just feck off and play a different board game? Maybe monopoly seeing as greed is the name of the game there. 
Finally a ruling that makes sense.
