Gen.LeeGettinhed [Banned] DCR

[rhp 1]

omg 3 years on the site i still hate waterloo and avoid it.. but if a top rank invited me to it on the promise of advice during the game then yes i proberly would... but the fact is he dont give them advice on the map. and picks players who have never played it on settings that secure him first turn and win the map.

Who cares what he says to get them to join a game? Is it immoral? SURE! Is it against the f'ing rules? No.
Nobody's saying this is the most stand up way to win a game. But its not against the rules to tell someone something that isn't true (fog of war anyone? "omg he's got a huge stack on dakar!" when its a 2 troop territory)

He's targetting experienced players who can say no at anytime.

As for your previous comment its completely bullocks, they aren't "throwing games" to him. The accusation is becoming more and more like a bad joke.

IcePack

IMMORAL???? omg... you guys need to get over yourselves with the moral talk... jesus...

[eddie2]

ice pack look above glg has admitted he will give pointers on the map.
there is a game chat that proves he would not do during the game.

so either these players are paying with points to get pointers on a map or glg is promising them advice during the game and not doing it.

so this case is either

glg ranching again

or

his opponants dumping points to get pointers....

both of these are ban able

1) glg 2nd ranching major infraction 1 month ban.
2) opponants point dumping to him auto site ban.

so which one is it ???

[jghost7]

I'm sorry but this is kinda silly.
Are we not allowed to join a game someone else creates when we know they've never played it or won't do well??? ...

Sorry - no matter what you think of GLG I don't see much basis for punishment here. And by punishing him I think A) now we r just inventing rules and B) this sets a dangerous predicent for anyone who invites anybody to a game that they previously didn't know.
...
Sorry, not going to join this witch hunt. I understand the ? Marks and privates etc but this is silly.

IcePack

IcePack has the right of it here.

...
It only becomes abuse of the system when you ... refuse to join any games that are not guaranteed wins. ...

Wow. Why can't he choose which games he would like to join? How does that constitute abuse?

Do you not think the exclusive use of Live Chat to entice his opponents is a telling sign? A telling sign of what exactly? That he wants to play a game?

Chances are the players in there are new to chat and probably inexperienced enough to not have the time or nous to do a check on GLG (who will undoubtedly have already checked their game history to make sure they haven't played City Mogul before he gets them into a private chat room) while he talks them into setting up a game that conforms to his requirements. ... All this conjecture will attempt to mislead casual readers to assume this is true. If he would like to play a game of city mogul with someone then there is nothing wrong with using live chat to gauge interest. Also, if the player is interested in playing a game, then so be it. That player obviously had the time to check on GLG, if he had the time to play a speed game(Although one could probably just assume he is an expert at his suggested map based on the request and his rank.)

He hangs around in chat looking for easy targets. Should read: He hangs around in chat looking for available players for speed games. Easy targets just equals more slanted verbiage.


To me that is intrinsically wrong and I'm sure others feel the same way. If you think he's game to play higher rankers (or anyone for that matter) then why not use the Callouts forum like everyone else? There he can say "Hey, set up a game with these settings and invite me and I'll consider it" and the reader has the opportunity to do some background check if he so wishes. Instead GLG chooses a method that doesn't afford the opponent a great deal of time to do such a check and his use of live chat is akin to the very methods used by confidence tricksters the world over.
What exactly is wrong with it? Why does he have to use that forum exclusively? Why can't he choose how he wants to do it? Why doesn't a live chat user have enough time to do such a check? What is wrong with his use of live chat? Is he not even allowed to use chat or even communicate? Believe it or not, you will be hard pressed to convince me that he suckered anyone into a game. No matter the map, anyone can see that his rank is tops, and anyone can look into game histories if they choose to. It is not exactly rocket science here.

I have a terrible City Mogul rank, only played it a few times, never on his settings. Should he be able to play me or is that ranching to? Its a joke! I have 3k+ games and when I was starting out I would have never joined one of the games he offers.

IcePack

thats the point ice pack he wont play you because you have played it and even though your rank is bad for that map you have experiance.i will bet you the first time you played it via a experianced player you lost in about 4 5 rounds.

Uhhhh, you are the new mouthpiece for GLG? I would suggest you refrain from saying what GLG would potentially do or not do as you are not GLG. You avoided the question, Should he be able to play IcePack or would that be farming too? It really is a joke.

Icepack,

You keep referring to the fact that "experienced" players should know better; this is not the case. GLG is doing in a modified form what he was warned not to do and that is abusing the invite system and taking advantage of players who don't have a clue. Is there a difference between a player who has played 500 games or a player who has played 10 total games when both haven't played the mogul map ever? No, there isn't. The fact is they are and were totally clueless on that map and settings; do you find it odd in any fashion that all these players have never played mogul? Do you not get it? These players were solicited and taken advantage of, period! Should they have known better, perhaps but that IMO is irrelevant.

...

Actually, this IS the case. Players who have played 500 games have a significantly more game/site savvy than a player that has 10. Also he knows that he hasn't played the map before and goes in knowingly. A player with 10 games hasn't played many maps at all. As stated previously, it is not very difficult for the player to grasp the idea that he will be playing the top ranked player on an unfamiliar map. That player then has the choice of whether or not to play it or to decline. It really is that simple.

icepack look at the examples again mate.

then click on each players name scroll down then look at forum posts. these guys do not use the forums so will not be aware of previous cases via the accused. so his is picking people who will not know about what he does.

out of the 5 examples.
3 have no forum posts.
1 has 1 forum post
and 1 has about 10.

LOL, one does not have to post in order to read. And anyways ones forum posts or lack thereof have no relevance to their ability to reason out their chances in a game vs. the top ranked player on an unfamiliar map.





The main point is that KA truly had to stretch the rules when he hung that warning on GLG. . The potential for this to continue and more rules to be made up on the fly and then immediate consequences to be applied retroactively is the worst part of this.


I am not a fan of GLG's, but I am wholeheartedly against this type of persecution.




There are no rules broken here.


Thanks,

J

[rhp 1]

I'm sorry but this is kinda silly.
Are we not allowed to join a game someone else creates when we know they've never played it or won't do well??? ...

Sorry - no matter what you think of GLG I don't see much basis for punishment here. And by punishing him I think A) now we r just inventing rules and B) this sets a dangerous predicent for anyone who invites anybody to a game that they previously didn't know.
...
Sorry, not going to join this witch hunt. I understand the ? Marks and privates etc but this is silly.

IcePack

IcePack has the right of it here.

...
It only becomes abuse of the system when you ... refuse to join any games that are not guaranteed wins. ...

Wow. Why can't he choose which games he would like to join? How does that constitute abuse?

Do you not think the exclusive use of Live Chat to entice his opponents is a telling sign? A telling sign of what exactly? That he wants to play a game?

Chances are the players in there are new to chat and probably inexperienced enough to not have the time or nous to do a check on GLG (who will undoubtedly have already checked their game history to make sure they haven't played City Mogul before he gets them into a private chat room) while he talks them into setting up a game that conforms to his requirements. ... All this conjecture will attempt to mislead casual readers to assume this is true. If he would like to play a game of city mogul with someone then there is nothing wrong with using live chat to gauge interest. Also, if the player is interested in playing a game, then so be it. That player obviously had the time to check on GLG, if he had the time to play a speed game(Although one could probably just assume he is an expert at his suggested map based on the request and his rank.)

He hangs around in chat looking for easy targets. Should read: He hangs around in chat looking for available players for speed games. Easy targets just equals more slanted verbiage.


To me that is intrinsically wrong and I'm sure others feel the same way. If you think he's game to play higher rankers (or anyone for that matter) then why not use the Callouts forum like everyone else? There he can say "Hey, set up a game with these settings and invite me and I'll consider it" and the reader has the opportunity to do some background check if he so wishes. Instead GLG chooses a method that doesn't afford the opponent a great deal of time to do such a check and his use of live chat is akin to the very methods used by confidence tricksters the world over.
What exactly is wrong with it? Why does he have to use that forum exclusively? Why can't he choose how he wants to do it? Why doesn't a live chat user have enough time to do such a check? What is wrong with his use of live chat? Is he not even allowed to use chat or even communicate? Believe it or not, you will be hard pressed to convince me that he suckered anyone into a game. No matter the map, anyone can see that his rank is tops, and anyone can look into game histories if they choose to. It is not exactly rocket science here.

I have a terrible City Mogul rank, only played it a few times, never on his settings. Should he be able to play me or is that ranching to? Its a joke! I have 3k+ games and when I was starting out I would have never joined one of the games he offers.

IcePack

thats the point ice pack he wont play you because you have played it and even though your rank is bad for that map you have experiance.i will bet you the first time you played it via a experianced player you lost in about 4 5 rounds.

Uhhhh, you are the new mouthpiece for GLG? I would suggest you refrain from saying what GLG would potentially do or not do as you are not GLG. You avoided the question, Should he be able to play IcePack or would that be farming too? It really is a joke.

Icepack,

You keep referring to the fact that "experienced" players should know better; this is not the case. GLG is doing in a modified form what he was warned not to do and that is abusing the invite system and taking advantage of players who don't have a clue. Is there a difference between a player who has played 500 games or a player who has played 10 total games when both haven't played the mogul map ever? No, there isn't. The fact is they are and were totally clueless on that map and settings; do you find it odd in any fashion that all these players have never played mogul? Do you not get it? These players were solicited and taken advantage of, period! Should they have known better, perhaps but that IMO is irrelevant.

...

Actually, this IS the case. Players who have played 500 games have a significantly more game/site savvy than a player that has 10. Also he knows that he hasn't played the map before and goes in knowingly. A player with 10 games hasn't played many maps at all. As stated previously, it is not very difficult for the player to grasp the idea that he will be playing the top ranked player on an unfamiliar map. That player then has the choice of whether or not to play it or to decline. It really is that simple.

icepack look at the examples again mate.

then click on each players name scroll down then look at forum posts. these guys do not use the forums so will not be aware of previous cases via the accused. so his is picking people who will not know about what he does.

out of the 5 examples.
3 have no forum posts.
1 has 1 forum post
and 1 has about 10.

LOL, one does not have to post in order to read. And anyways ones forum posts or lack thereof have no relevance to their ability to reason out their chances in a game vs. the top ranked player on an unfamiliar map.





The main point is that KA truly had to stretch the rules when he hung that warning on GLG. . The potential for this to continue and more rules to be made up on the fly and then immediate consequences to be applied retroactively is the worst part of this.


I am not a fan of GLG's, but I am wholeheartedly against this type of persecution.




There are no rules broken here.


Thanks,

J

1+ to pretty much all of that...

[IcePack]

ice pack look above glg has admitted he will give pointers on the map.
there is a game chat that proves he would not do during the game.
so either these players are paying with points to get pointers on a map or glg is promising them advice during the game and not doing it.
so this case is either
glg ranching again
or
his opponants dumping points to get pointers....
both of these are ban able
1) glg 2nd ranchig major infraction 1 month ban.
2) opponants point dumping to him auto site ban.
so which one is it ???

Its neither. He's not obligated to give any advice or pointers.
GOOD players are being ASKED if they WANT to start a game on his map and settings. They can say no. They dont. They create a game and lose. They are good players who are smart enough to say no if they dont want to risk the points. These aren't clueless noob players.

They aren't "point dumping" to get pointers, they are joining a game for pointeres (whether he provides them or not is not important) and end up losing.

IcePack

[eddie2]

what ?

hhhh, you are the new mouthpiece for GLG? I would suggest you refrain from saying what GLG would potentially do or not do as you are not GLG. You avoided the question, Should he be able to play IcePack or would that be farming too? It really is a joke.

yes he could play icepack. but i will tell you now he would not because icepack has played the map....

look in callouts he has been offered games from ranks just bellow conqurer before his map his setting and refused. he will not play anybody who has played the map once this is where the problem is. sorry but several people looked at all of this before talked about it all a member even put a survey out to people he had played. If you had looked at it all past and present you would see he is doing exactly what he was warned not to do.....

even 1 of these players offered him another game on a map he had not played before but glg refused it.

[Gen.LeeGettinhed]

King Achilles Ruling:

Basically, in these 1 vs 1 games, the opponent does not have an idea of how to play the map or how to engage in the settings of the game that was made. It's like you constructed a way to make a player become like a "new recruit", because (1) you made a game that he will play for the first time in which you have played countless times already. Regularly doing this to different (2) (unsuspecting) players is a systematic way of ranching points for yourself. These games exhibits a pattern of how someone can methodically target specific ranks or players that have no idea on how to play the map for the purpose of ranching. It's not fair to regularly do this. We will classify this as a gross abuse of the game.

Since we have always seen him as someone who just prefers to play against low ranked players in the past, re-checking his private games with certain settings has shed some light that this practice is more malicious than it seems. This does not mean that no one is allowed anymore to invite low ranks or unfamiliar players to private games. You can play any ranks publicly or privately but make sure that this practice is not done in (3) extreme numbers to the point that you are already doing this regularly, seeking out (4) specific ranks or players in order to ranch some points.

1) I didn't make the games -- the OPPONENTS made the games. NO VIOLATION
2) Unsuspecting: instead of setting up game, and give them game number, THEY SET UP THE GAME. NOT unsuspecting. NO VIOLATION
3) extreme numbers: 7 recent games, hardly extreme. KA can tell me when it's EXTREME. NO VIOLATION
4) SPECIFIC RANKS: before it was mostly Privates - had stopped playing Cadets, cooks, Unranked LONG ago (several corporals, lieutenants). These games are ranks HIGHER than Privates (WHICH KING ACHILLES SPECIFICALLY LISTED in a PM to me) -- and re Corpoarals, Lieutenants, captains. NO VIOLATION.

Now, in ADDITION to clearing this report. . . .I request that C&A Mods should ban the author of this thread AND eddie2 and any others that maliciously extrapolate and LIE about history and rulings. Point out REAL violations, not things you WISH were violations.

GLG

[eddie2]

example..

newsammy931

had at the time only ever played japan 2 times ( so set up a game after a offer for a game from glg)

obviously glg refused see my page 1 post. then glg never contacted him again. and obviosly this guy checked it out and refused to play a map he had never played on settings he had never played. like i said before most will check it and most will refuse but he gets the games with people who do not check it, which is classed as ranching. which is now against site rules.

[Pedronicus]

The main problem is because all the add on's that allow firefox users to run map rank and all the rest of the checks is available to firefox users, in the know, only.
This site is an unfair site to anyone not using firefox. Anything that someones made for firefox, should be implemented as a site option, but it isn't. And that's why CC is in decline.

Lack - sort your shit out.

[IcePack]

example..

newsammy931

had at the time only ever played japan 2 times ( so set up a game after a offer for a game from glg)

obviously glg refused see my page 1 post. then glg never contacted him again. and obviosly this guy checked it out and refused to play a map he had never played on settings he had never played. like i said before most will check it and most will refuse but he gets the games with people who do not check it, which is classed as ranching. which is now against site rules.

There's no penalty for turning down someone's game offer, and they are able to do the same to his.

Nothing that adds to the "case" here.

IcePack

[TheForgivenOne]

Ban SoC instructors then for farming/ranching since they are always playing low ranks.

Playing someone and teaching them the map changes the dynamic of the situation. It is different than just playing someone to win points

He's openly admitted that he isn't teaching them. He's giving them "Pointers"

I could be mistaken... but I'm pretty sure they can say NO... no?

Did I say anything about that? Nope.

But I will give my PERSONAL opinion, Not one based on my moderator status.

People are saying these players are more experienced, due to the amount of games or how long they've been here. Well, I've looked through a few of the players. One such player Has 560~ Games. Must be experienced? Not really, as half of his games are 1v1 on Classic. Of those games, 23 are Freestyle, which he has lost 20 of them. I really don't care How experienced you are on this site, If you don't have Clickies (The add-on, not the site built in), a knowledge of City Mogul, and a good connection, you will almost always lose on that map (Unless you are versing someone of the same caliber) if you are versing GLG.

Another player has 390. But, he's been here for 2 whole months. MUST be experienced. Then again, a majority of his maps are simple maps, like Japan, Italy, Balkan Peninsula, and, so I noticed, Not Freestyle.

Another player has 280 games. Been here since last October AND is Lieut, so he Must be an experienced player. Again, not really. A majority of his maps are 1v1 Classics with basic settings and no Fog.

Another player has been here since 2006! oh my goodness, must be experienced if he's been here for 6 years. Even though he has under 200 games in his belt, and has only been on the site for a month or two at a time.

The jist of what I am saying? Sure, these recent opponents may be more "experienced" Then someone with 20 games, but they sure as hell are not "Experienced" players. People are saying CM is not a hard map, but compared to Classic, it's sure a hell lot harder then a basic map. Unless you know which territories to take, when to attack, etc., it's a very hard map, ADD in the fact that it is on Freestyle.

Sure, they could say No to him, but really? Why would they say no? Based on the way he asks them, from my Point of View, it looks like he is a guy that simply wants a game. Of the 6 players he has played recently, 2 have posted in the forums since 2007. 1 of them started a clan with his single post. So he isn't experienced with the website, what has happened here, or any past rulings on certain players. Why should they suspect the guy? It's not like they are going to go research his games, posts, and anything in C&A, and notice he's trying to Ranch them.

This is my last post in the thread, Since I told myself when I first saw this thread that I wouldn't get invovled, so don't expect me to reply to anything.

[IcePack]

You only used to be punished if they were 5 games or less (?'s) etc.

These guys have much more experience than the line used to be. And clickies, site options (freestyle) and one map out of a bunch dont add up to "inexperienced" overall. I'm an "inexperienced" freestyle player but nobodys going to go to bat for me if i play vs GLG and lose. And you can't say "well if they dont have clickies he's farming them" cuz its not even officially part of the site!

One of the players has 1500 games, you forgot to mention him. And again...the argument is not that they are "experienced" but that they are experienced enough to KNOW that they can / should say "no" to a game like that! Not experienced enough to rock out a clan war vs the pack and win. Just experienced and around the site long enough to know what someones asking them to get into. Come on TFO...your smarter than that.

They dont need to know about forums or his past rulings etc to be able to make a decision on making / joining a game. "Game Finder" and typing in his name and the map is simple enough to use dont you think? Has not a damn thing to do with forums its called being smart enough to look up a game or players experience on a map. If they didn't do it for him, they probably dont do it on any game and therefore why are we punishing him for finding the stupid people who have a high rank?

IcePack

[eddie2]

lol ice pack the warning that was give before was because he was working outside of the 5 game rule. he was picking on players outside or the farming rule and several of the players before were freemium on site for long times but low in rank. which is what he is doing now apart from he is talking them into creating the game and is classed as ranching== playing exclusivly players on a difficult map when no experiance on it.

[jltile1]

Ban SoC instructors then for farming/ranching since they are always playing low ranks.

Playing someone and teaching them the map changes the dynamic of the situation. It is different than just playing someone to win points

He's openly admitted that he isn't teaching them. He's giving them "Pointers"

I could be mistaken... but I'm pretty sure they can say NO... no?

Did I say anything about that? Nope.

But I will give my PERSONAL opinion, Not one based on my moderator status.

People are saying these players are more experienced, due to the amount of games or how long they've been here. Well, I've looked through a few of the players. One such player Has 560~ Games. Must be experienced? Not really, as half of his games are 1v1 on Classic. Of those games, 23 are Freestyle, which he has lost 20 of them. I really don't care How experienced you are on this site, If you don't have Clickies (The add-on, not the site built in), a knowledge of City Mogul, and a good connection, you will almost always lose on that map (Unless you are versing someone of the same caliber) if you are versing GLG.

Another player has 390. But, he's been here for 2 whole months. MUST be experienced. Then again, a majority of his maps are simple maps, like Japan, Italy, Balkan Peninsula, and, so I noticed, Not Freestyle.

Another player has 280 games. Been here since last October AND is Lieut, so he Must be an experienced player. Again, not really. A majority of his maps are 1v1 Classics with basic settings and no Fog.

Another player has been here since 2006! oh my goodness, must be experienced if he's been here for 6 years. Even though he has under 200 games in his belt, and has only been on the site for a month or two at a time.

The jist of what I am saying? Sure, these recent opponents may be more "experienced" Then someone with 20 games, but they sure as hell are not "Experienced" players. People are saying CM is not a hard map, but compared to Classic, it's sure a hell lot harder then a basic map. Unless you know which territories to take, when to attack, etc., it's a very hard map, ADD in the fact that it is on Freestyle.

Sure, they could say No to him, but really? Why would they say no? Based on the way he asks them, from my Point of View, it looks like he is a guy that simply wants a game. Of the 6 players he has played recently, 2 have posted in the forums since 2007. 1 of them started a clan with his single post. So he isn't experienced with the website, what has happened here, or any past rulings on certain players. Why should they suspect the guy? It's not like they are going to go research his games, posts, and anything in C&A, and notice he's trying to Ranch them.

This is my last post in the thread, Since I told myself when I first saw this thread that I wouldn't get invovled, so don't expect me to reply to anything.

Very good points.

[jltile1]

King Achilles Ruling:

Basically, in these 1 vs 1 games, the opponent does not have an idea of how to play the map or how to engage in the settings of the game that was made. It's like you constructed a way to make a player become like a "new recruit", because (1) you made a game that he will play for the first time in which you have played countless times already. Regularly doing this to different (2) (unsuspecting) players is a systematic way of ranching points for yourself. These games exhibits a pattern of how someone can methodically target specific ranks or players that have no idea on how to play the map for the purpose of ranching. It's not fair to regularly do this. We will classify this as a gross abuse of the game.

Since we have always seen him as someone who just prefers to play against low ranked players in the past, re-checking his private games with certain settings has shed some light that this practice is more malicious than it seems. This does not mean that no one is allowed anymore to invite low ranks or unfamiliar players to private games. You can play any ranks publicly or privately but make sure that this practice is not done in (3) extreme numbers to the point that you are already doing this regularly, seeking out (4) specific ranks or players in order to ranch some points.

1) I didn't make the games -- the OPPONENTS made the games. NO VIOLATION
2) Unsuspecting: instead of setting up game, and give them game number, THEY SET UP THE GAME. NOT unsuspecting. NO VIOLATION
3) extreme numbers: 7 recent games, hardly extreme. KA can tell me when it's EXTREME. NO VIOLATION
4) SPECIFIC RANKS: before it was mostly Privates - had stopped playing Cadets, cooks, Unranked LONG ago (several corporals, lieutenants). These games are ranks HIGHER than Privates (WHICH KING ACHILLES SPECIFICALLY LISTED in a PM to me) -- and re Corpoarals, Lieutenants, captains. NO VIOLATION.

Now, in ADDITION to clearing this report. . . .I request that C&A Mods should ban the author of this thread AND eddie2 and any others that maliciously extrapolate and LIE about history and rulings. Point out REAL violations, not things you WISH were violations.

GLG

I think everyone is wondering why you just dont start a speed game and let it fill as the other thousands of players do ??

[jghost7]

... ranching== playing exclusivly players on a difficult map when no experiance on it.

This statement is incorrect.

[eddie2]

... ranching== playing exclusivly players on a difficult map when no experiance on it.

This statement is incorrect.

lol is it...

2) (unsuspecting) players is a systematic way of ranching points for yourself. These games exhibits a pattern of how someone can methodically target specific ranks or players that have no idea on how to play the map for the purpose of ranching.

plz note this rule will not apply to setting up games with friends or setting up open games for anybody to join. when you do it by exclusivly playing this type of game private invite then it becomes ranching but most players play all sorts of games/maps with open invites which he does not.

[IcePack]

lol ice pack the warning that was give before was because he was working outside of the 5 game rule. he was picking on players outside or the farming rule and several of the players before were freemium on site for long times but low in rank. which is what he is doing now apart from he is talking them into creating the game and is classed as ranching== playing exclusivly players on a difficult map when no experiance on it.

And now they are higher in rank and game experience and should know better.

[jghost7]

... ranching== playing exclusivly players on a difficult map when no experiance on it.

This statement is incorrect.

lol is it...

It is. It is but your interpretation of the ruling from GLG's warning. FYI 'Ranching' is not a rule. It is not found on the rules page or the Community guidelines.

[Campin_Killer]

... ranching== playing exclusivly players on a difficult map when no experiance on it.

This statement is incorrect.

lol is it...

It is. It is but your interpretation of the ruling from GLG's warning. FYI 'Ranching' is not a rule. It is not found on the rules page or the Community guidelines.

Ranching = Farming, let's be sure not to be a smartass.

[jghost7]

... ranching== playing exclusivly players on a difficult map when no experiance on it.

This statement is incorrect.

lol is it...

It is. It is but your interpretation of the ruling from GLG's warning. FYI 'Ranching' is not a rule. It is not found on the rules page or the Community guidelines.

Ranching = Farming, let's be sure not to be a smartass.

Smartass, Farming is not what he said,
Farming is defined as:
Systematically Farming "New Recruits"
If you are found guilty of New Recruit Farming---that is, systematically joining games with New Recruits. Systematically Farming "New Recruits" may also systematically creating unappealing games that more savvy users avoid because of unpopular or niche game settings, thus luring New Recruits into stumbling into said games.

and is not what was posted above. He said ranching, and so I addressed what was said.

Thanks,

J

[Chariot of Fire]

I think what some people are losing sight of here is that we are discussing a player who has already received a very clear warning from site admin. It was an order to cease and desist with the practice of actively seeking out players from whom he could take advantage of easy points on a complex map. These several games should not be taken out of context of the big picture. When King A ruled that this ranching practice was excessive then it follows that adding a mere seven games is actually going beyond excessive. The guy doesn't get a clean slate - he has a record that should be taken into consideration, thus there is no parallel between one of us setting-up or seeking a freestyle speed game on a map the opponent is unfamiliar with and the methods employed by GLG.

If it was clearly laid on the line to me "CoF, no more taking advantage of weaker opponents on Stalingrad quads. This is your warning" then I sure as hell would not find ways to end up in a Stalingrad quads game. If I did I would have to be prepared to accept the consequences. All GLG has done is find an alternative method to get the end result he wanted which, in my view anyway, is flagrantly in breach of the ruling that was made against him (so yes, it is a rule, and it may be applied to any one of us should we choose to play in the same manner as GLG).

Take the blinkers off and you'll see he's laughing in everyone's faces.

[IcePack]

He was already warned / punished for it. Like it or not these are not the same situation and six games (not seven, one he's not even in the listed game...)

It's new, and it's not against The rules. It's not ranching and shouldn't be punishable and doesn't just get "added" to his previous. He was punished for seeking out players who can't defend themselves. Like it or not the guys played here could / should have been able to handle themselves / him offering a game - and if they made it they were willing to risk the points.

IcePack

[rhp 1]

I think what some people are losing sight of here is that we are discussing a player who has already received a very clear warning from site admin. It was an order to cease and desist with the practice of actively seeking out players from whom he could take advantage of easy points on a complex map. These several games should not be taken out of context of the big picture. When King A ruled that this ranching practice was excessive then it follows that adding a mere seven games is actually going beyond excessive. The guy doesn't get a clean slate - he has a record that should be taken into consideration, thus there is no parallel between one of us setting-up or seeking a freestyle speed game on a map the opponent is unfamiliar with and the methods employed by GLG.

If it was clearly laid on the line to me "CoF, no more taking advantage of weaker opponents on Stalingrad quads. This is your warning" then I sure as hell would not find ways to end up in a Stalingrad quads game. If I did I would have to be prepared to accept the consequences. All GLG has done is find an alternative method to get the end result he wanted which, in my view anyway, is flagrantly in breach of the ruling that was made against him (so yes, it is a rule, and it may be applied to any one of us should we choose to play in the same manner as GLG).

Take the blinkers off and you'll see he's laughing in everyone's faces.

no blinkers here COF... I see someone on a mission to continually attack someone for how they choose to play a game... and if you havn't started a thread on him before, then one of your buds did... he got smacked for abusing the game, now you and yours seem to be on your horse again.. just let it go bud... before you could make the argument he was making the site less enjoyable for certain players... that argument fails badly here... there are VERY few who would support your argument that a warning/sactions are justified in this case.. and your last sentence there about him laughing in people's faces shows this is more about how you feel about him, than the type of play he partakes in... sorry bud, it sounds REAL personal... just let it go....

[Chariot of Fire]

He was already warned / punished for it. Like it or not these are not the same situation and six games (not seven, one he's not even in the listed game...)

It's new, and it's not against The rules. It's not ranching and shouldn't be punishable and doesn't just get "added" to his previous. He was punished for seeking out players who can't defend themselves. Like it or not the guys played here could / should have been able to handle themselves / him offering a game - and if they made it they were willing to risk the points.

IcePack

8 minutes to read my post and submit your reply. Maybe you should give it more time before leaping to his defence and reappraise yourself of the ruling made by King A.

And whether the guys he played could or should have known better is an assumption on your part. Just as I shall make an assumption that maybe 95% of people that GLG walled to get into chat did know better and declined, whereas the 5% he relies on did not.

>rhp. Thanks. I've said all I wish to on this matter now.