Closed S&M Cheating Abuse fishydance, Josko.ri, random21

[Keefie]

Edited my post. It should have said CC7 not CC8.

[riskllama]

shouldn't it also contain some evidence????
*shrugs*

[Arama86n]

Love your post Random21...
To say that the execution is sloppy would be an understatement, but there is no faulting your strategy; fishy fishy fishy fishy.

If there is a problem it is hardly fishy, it would be more along the lines of what Bogan wrote...

That said, as was pointed out to me earlier, this should be open and shut. You [kort] couldn't replace fishy due to it being a rematch with fixed players. Checkmate TOP.

Sad to see fishy's good name get dragged into this.
Just as when niMic mentioned TSM in the same sentence as Korts previous controversies in the abuse thread I threw up in my mouth. In seven years on this site I have never heard a word spoken against TSM.
And that name drop made me as nauseous as random21 using fishy's reputation on this site as a shield.

Especially as no shield is needed as far as I can see and this is open and shut!?

Oh, and while I'm ranting. TOP, ffs... stop whining and step up to the table. By god kick Korts ass in CC7. The clan world will not allow you to be unfairly treated.
If you are truly wronged we will stand by you.
Stop making excuses.

[random21]

um k?

what is shielding here? fishy myself and josko are the accused. anyways.

[Arama86n]

Well, my first reaction to your post was that it was overly defencive, and strategically so.
But maybe I misread you. Perhaps you are just as genuinly disgusted at someone like fishy getting caught in the crossfire as I am.

Every once in a blue moon it is nice to throw political correctness off a bridge.
And I do.

Anyway, good luck with your day in court.

[random21]

Aye.

Same as you.

[josko.ri]

So has anybody any factual evidence to refute my presented defense arguments?
I replied to all accusations point-by-point, now I expect the accuser to reply to my defense arguments point-by-point.

1. In the whole January fishydance needed sitting 2 times, she was very available with only 2 emergency cases.
2. game in question Game 17163490 started on January 28, at that time we could not predict that fishydance will become busy soon.
3. fishydance's busy days lasted from February 4 to 14
4. Fishydance was completely excluded from new games in mini war vs GoN starting February 4 and ATN starting February 11 due to her busy work schedule. Furthermore she was the only active player from our clan being excluded from new games. This shows clearly that S&M takes care when our players were busy to not put them in new games, contrary to what you are accusing us for.
5. After February 14 fishydance's schedule became normal again, so she was put in Game 17215985 which started on February 17.

[FreeFalling123]

Hey, sorry to make this feel like a personal attack Random. In no way, am I against S&M Fishy, Josko or you, yourself! This is an issue in the clan world and I feel particularly threatened by this instance.I myself was personally attacked in our C&A, as well. Same as for my case, this isn't calling out the person in any way. Just as you have done, we have called out the system, which we all must abide by.

As I have explained my situation, you have explained yours. I have also felt that it was unruly to inflict consequences on someone busy in RL as well. I myself was in no way participating negatively in any insinuating circumstances by sitting for my teammates who were low on time. You guys can analyze these situations however you want in hindsight, but the cases are VERY similar.

The sitter being busy vs. the player being busy can be seen as apples and oranges, but since we put responsibility on the player, then we both seem to lose by our system.
-- I had no intentions of sitting for my teammates, whereas your player had no intentions of reaching her turn. As will be seen by moderators checking into the factual evidence. If what you guys are saying is true, your "player' never tried to reach her move within 24 hours. You may say, you never knew this would happen, but we think you could have easily foreseen the events with 9 turns sat prior to the event taking place.

I do not see anywhere in the systems ruling where it says... if your player did not log on to play her move, then you may sit for her. Just as it doesn't say anywhere in the rules, if you see your partner did log on, you may not sit for them.

We both followed the 2 hour sitting rule as in our system, wherein our partners did not find a reasonable time to take their moves. Now I realize I am colliding two cases "apples and oranges," but IMO these situations are VERY similar, whether or not one instance is more noble or more justified does not make a difference. The "player" must be responsible for his or her move! Since your "player" was not in any way responsible for 2 crucial turns, as was our "players," then we must make fair rulings in these cases. It's quite obvious that you guys are abusing account sharing in the same instance we are. In no way, do I believe it's causing unfair advantages in these games, which is why I think both remakes are absurd, but you guys feel cheated, and now I feel cheated as well.

[josko.ri]

If what you guys are saying is true, your "player' never tried to reach her move within 24 hours.

Isn't it actual purpose of having sitting tool in CC implemented, to play turn for a player who cannot reach CC within 24 hours time frame?

In case of TOP sitting case, this was NOT the case, because your players played other turns within 24 hours time frame but selectively chose not to play Usa 2.1 turn and leave it to be played by better player/team leader.

[Robespierre__]

Blah blah blah we are TOP and everyone hates us because we are good. No, people don't like you because you are loud mouth whiners.

You want to perceive yourself as a victim? Wait till we get done with you, it won't be a perception. You'll be road kill.

Very sadly you won't get the chance. TOP have withdrawn from CC7 (a massive mistake imho)

Nothing to see here .... move it along. S&M has earned respect over many years of its inhabitants' play on this site in the various clans that preceded it. I would not bother spending any time defending yourselves S&M. We know what the deal is.

Robes

[FreeFalling123]

Please, explain "what the deal is," to TOP members for us Robespierre... I understand
there is a disparity in the clan world right now, which may stiffen blood vessels a
bit, but systemization & a RULY institute must be foremost if we are to find harmony.

If there isn't a ruling that is stated "you cannot sit / be sat for over 50% of your turns
at any point of the game." Then why wouldn't TOP or S&M sit for their players when they
need to be sat for? Both of these things have become suspect to the clan world...WHY?

My imagination runs wild at these discussions because WHO KNOWS what
the outcome is going to be? On top of that, both teams would have gracefully
missed a turn had their been a rule set prior to the investigation.

We simply cannot punish people with partial rulings! There are so many clans
that would be getting sent to C&A right now for this same ruling. I have no
problem setting the precedent, but the system needs to do so in a justifiable manner!

I am going to hold to my guns... TOP would have won the first USA
game without sitting and S&M would have won the second game
without sitting. The turns sat were NOT CRUCIAL; however, you want to
interpret that. The rules are not CLEAR and we have a very substantial CASE here.

By the way, I didn't realize my former case didn't get put into the C&A thread, which
would be why the details never surfaced. S&M were too grateful at the response to the
discussions in the CL7 thread; there was no reason for them to pursue the case further.

Good luck hunting folks...

[Extreme Ways]

Please, explain "what the deal is," to TOP members for us Robespierre... I understand
there is a disparity in the clan world right now, which may stiffen blood vessels a
bit, but systemization & a RULY institute must be foremost if we are to find harmony.

If there isn't a ruling that is stated "you cannot sit / be sat for over 50% of your turns
at any point of the game." Then why wouldn't TOP or S&M sit for their players when they
need to be sat for? Both of these things have become suspect to the clan world...WHY?

My imagination runs wild at these discussions because WHO KNOWS what
the outcome is going to be? On top of that, both teams would have gracefully
missed a turn had their been a rule set prior to the investigation.

We simply cannot punish people with partial rulings! There are so many clans
that would be getting sent to C&A right now for this same ruling. I have no
problem setting the precedent, but the system needs to do so in a justifiable manner!

I am going to hold to my guns... TOP would have won the first USA
game without sitting and S&M would have won the second game
without sitting. The turns sat were NOT CRUCIAL; however, you want to
interpret that. The rules are not CLEAR and we have a very substantial CASE here.

By the way, I didn't realize my former case didn't get put into the C&A thread, which
would be why the details never surfaced. S&M were too grateful at the response to the
discussions in the CL7 thread; there was no reason for them to pursue the case further.

Good luck hunting folks...

Completely unrelated to this case, why do you sometimes cut off your sentences early like it's a poem and sometimes dont?

[FreeFalling123]

Depends if I'm on my phone or computer and what fits on the screen lol

[josko.ri]

So it seems this case is straightforward clear.

S&M's turns were sat for player who was not able to come online that day. That is actual purpose of sitting tool, to cover for a player who cannot come online to play his/her own turn.

Contrary to that, in TOP abuse case turns were played by original player during the whole day so they were VERY available to play USA 2.1 turn as well, but original player selectively chose not to play only USA 2.1 turn and leave it to be sat by better player/leader of the team.

Furthermore, S&M leadership excluded fishydance from starting new games during 2 consecutive weeks from Feb 4 to 14 when she was having difficulties to log in to CC, in order to not be put in new games during hard real life period. From 29 active players we have right now, 28 played new games normally while only fishydance was excluded from new games in that period. That shows that S&M clan really takes care to not put players who have difficulties in real life into new games.

Her hard real life period in February could not be predicted when game in question USA 2.1 started at January 28 because she needed sitting only 2 times during entire January so she was quite available during January when that game started.

[fishydance]

Perhaps you are just as genuinely disgusted at someone like fishy getting caught in the crossfire as I am.

Thank you, and all the other gentlepersons who have said positive and supportive things in my defense. Hopefully this matter can be resolved quickly so we can put it behind us and move on with what were are here for - to play games!

[nietzsche]

fishiydance, get me into ball into ball busterz and i make all this go away.

[BoganGod]

Blah blah blah we are TOP and everyone hates us because we are good. No, people don't like you because you are loud mouth whiners.

You want to perceive yourself as a victim? Wait till we get done with you, it won't be a perception. You'll be road kill.

Very sadly you won't get the chance. TOP have withdrawn from CC7 (a massive mistake imho)

Saves them some bruises. After this mean spirited act(WHY IN THE HELL IS THIS STILL PENDING?), everyone will be keeping a close eye on every turn in every game played by TOP. Am looking forward to reading the next C&A case when one of the mean spirited hypocrites gets caught again. Fun times ahead.

[riskllama]

are you a mermaid, fer realz???

[IcePack]

Sorry, I plan to get to this soon. Just been busy / sick.

[FreeFalling123]

What I am getting from this controversy is that Fishy was forced to leave her account to be sat for either:
4 days in a row (not being able to even LOG IN for either of her turns which were 4 days apart)
OR
two weeks during crucial turns (being sat once a day on average)

At the end of the two week period, she came back and commented that she was too busy to take her turns and to have the mods check into it if we don't believe her.

I have nothing against the player, but playing against her replacement, who has 20x more map experience than she does this year and at a crucial time just seems really unfair. Especially, when we are arguing that "avoiding a player's own discretion in making his or her move dictates an unfair advantage" in the clan world.

2017-02-06 08:09:26 - josko.ri: This is decider of the home set.

With the pressure building up, fishy was nowhere to be found for her moves. Random/Dave covered for her as they have been doing all season long. These are the options I see:

1. We admit that this is ethical with the crucial game being unaffected
-- If this is true, then we must also call into question the original game's ruling
2. We find this unethical and put into practice these rules and put all parties into consequences thereafter the established ruling
-- If this is the case, neither clan should be punished and original games ruling should be a warning and not a remake.

When the game was remade, it was not remade on solid principles, which is why our clan has been very frustrated. Two players needed sitting after whatever extenuating circumstances, so their turns were sat.

If we interpret the ruling of being sat during CRUCIAL turns as unethical (tactically advantageous), then that should be in the rules. I know, I am the one who was punished for this, but I am making this a clan world issue, not my own personal issue. The fact that I was sitting for half of the first round turns never crossed my mind as illegal.

How we differentiate this case is very important, so I eagerly await the trial.

Best,
FF

[IcePack]

Sorry I was sick last week, its on my agenda to review and complete this this week.

[Donelladan]

Especially, when we are arguing that "avoiding a player's own discretion in making his or her move dictates an unfair advantage" in the clan world.

There is no such rule.

If we interpret the ruling of being sat during CRUCIAL turns as unethical (tactically advantageous), then that should be in the rules. I know, I am the one who was punished for this, but I am making this a clan world issue, not my own personal issue. The fact that I was sitting for half of the first round turns never crossed my mind as illegal.

No one said such thing. You totally missundersand the rule and what happened.

Now, can please a mod provide full disclosure on TOP case on abusive sitting ? Or if you have all the information, I'd like TOP to put it here. I am not asking for your interpretation but the original PM you received with a details of why you were punished.

Because what you are saying here about sitting rule in clan world is total non-sense.
You are allowed to sit a players who is absent whenever they are and whatever turns in the game it is, regardless of the skills of the players, if the player was unable to take his turn
What you cannot do is regularly over-waiting to take your turn and ending up having in your clan a huge number of turns being sat.

Therefore, because I can't grasp why you are claiming such things, I'd like to know what you've been told.

[josko.ri]

What I am getting from this controversy is that Fishy was forced to leave her account to be sat for either:
4 days in a row (not being able to even LOG IN for either of her turns which were 4 days apart)
OR
two weeks during crucial turns (being sat once a day on average)

At the end of the two week period, she came back and commented that she was too busy to take her turns and to have the mods check into it if we don't believe her.

What you are saying here is total nonsense. Fishydance was never forced to leave her account by anyone from CC.
She was busy in her real life and unable to log in or several days, which is equal like if she took a vacation.
If for example she was travelling for several days and assigned a sitter, it is essentially the same with what indeed happened because she was unable to log in during these days.
That is actual purpose of sitting tool, to cover for a player who is unable to take his own turn during that day.

On the other side, nibotha and jaybrake played other turns earlier that day but selectively did not play the Usa 2.1 turn. They were VERY AVAILABLE to play the Usa 2.1 turn by themselves, which is essentially different than fishydance case. nibotha played turns in other games 14, 13, 12 and 2.30 hours before sitting for him was done, so he was VERY AVAILABLE that day to play the Usa 2.1 turn as well instead of leaving it for more experienced sitter.

1. We admit that this is ethical with the crucial game being unaffected
-- If this is true, then we must also call into question the original game's ruling

Sitting for fishydance is ethical and within the rules. It was sitting for absent player. Furthermore, she was excluded from starting new games in period from February 4 to February 14 when she had difficulties logging onto CC.
The original game ruling should not be questioned because it was sitting for player who was not absent during that day. nibotha, for example, played numerous his other turns 14, 13, 12, and 2.30 hours before sitting for him was done.

[TeeGee]

W
I have nothing against the player, but playing against her replacement, who has 20x more map experience than she does this year and at a crucial time just seems really unfair. Especially, when we are arguing that "avoiding a player's own discretion in making his or her move dictates an unfair advantage" in the clan world.

with all respect FF, the fact is that you have either
A) not done your research
or
B) Are telling blatant lies

Have you checked each player here on these maps

Fishy is very experienced on that map (50 quad games) and over 400 team games

random21 has only 7 quad games and no extra team games on that map
Davekettering has 4 quad games and 8 team games
Josko has 35 quad games and 42 team games

So can you tell me, who has more experience on this map?

Stick with facts and not sensationalism, it does not help your case when it can be easily disproved

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from the game chat Game 17163490

2017-02-15 02:11:02 - josko.ri: Paul, as fishydance is busy at this time, then we did not put her in any new Clan League game vs ATN, to avoid putting player who is quite busy and need sittings for her.
2017-02-15 02:11:51 - josko.ri: However this game was supposed to start more than one month ago and on that time fishydance was not busy. You can see that no round 1 turn was sat for her, because we do not put in new games players who are not available
2017-02-15 02:13:29 - josko.ri: On the other hand, your clan needed 5 sittings in ROUND 1! Why did you put players into new games who were right away not available to play in the very first round? THAT is cheating, and becoming busy after the game lasts for more than 1 month is normal
2017-02-15 05:48:03 - PaulatPeace: Yes Josko.....we are GOD! .... We know all things, at all times, in all places, for all players!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------