Conquer Club

I dont understand why anyone gets a second chance, premium or not. It is clearly stated when signing up and everyone doing it knows it is cheating.

In the case of premium...so what. CC has their money, and they broke the rules. A gym or sports club where the members are cheating would do the same thing.

I propose that in ANY case, a verified cheater is banned for life. Make it CRYSTAL CLEAR during signup, and there is no reason for anyone to complain when they are kicked out.

Imagine the Olympics, Tour de France or World Cup where, when found to be cheating, they were still allowed to play and just slapped on the wrist.

Should definitely be banned for a while but lifetime might be too long

I'd say a litetime and 6 month long ban is too long for first-offence. I'd say a 1 month ban for first offenence, for everyone, and a lifetime for the 2nd time.

Things are being considered.


--Andy

Well I can't make a good selection, because I do care, but I am not wearing any pants.

I think it should be more than a month. What is that gonna do? All you would do is come back a month later and do the exact same thing.

Sargentgeneral wrote:I think it should be more than a month. What is that gonna do? All you would do is come back a month later and do the exact same thing.

If they did it again, a lifetime ban would definitly in place.

Backglass wrote:I dont understand why anyone gets a second chance, premium or not. It is clearly stated when signing up and everyone doing it knows it is cheating.

In the case of premium...so what. CC has their money, and they broke the rules. A gym or sports club where the members are cheating would do the same thing.

I propose that in ANY case, a verified cheater is banned for life. Make it CRYSTAL CLEAR during signup, and there is no reason for anyone to complain when they are kicked out.

My biggest problem with this is it is often hard to be 100% sure that someone is a multi. In many cases it is very obvious and we are 99.9% sure that someone was cheating. However some cases are much harder than that. I know you aren't suggesting to get rid of the appeals system, but I think that paying members deserve benefit of the doubt that we were wrong and they weren't cheating. If they were cheating and try it again it would be much more clear that they cheated (since they had a prior record).

Anyway, it is a problem that's for sure. But I certainly don't think the current rules exist to let premium members cheat a bit and receive a slap on the wrist.

Backglass wrote:Imagine the Olympics, Tour de France or World Cup where, when found to be cheating, they were still allowed to play and just slapped on the wrist.

You mean like in every mainstream sport, especially football? Everyone in the sport cheats but they know the slap on the wrist would look bad so they just never ask the questions

Sorry if I offend anyone but I'm a track and cycling fan- two sports where they try to crack down, and it consequently makes them look terrible because you always see news about cheaters. If anyone believes Landis was on steroids and the NFL is clean then you're no friend of mine

[/rant]

I DONT CARE because i'm not wearing any pants.

wcaclimbing wrote:I DONT CARE because i'm not wearing any pants.

BUt you could care and not wear pants.

Backglass wrote:I dont understand why anyone gets a second chance, premium or not. It is clearly stated when signing up and everyone doing it knows it is cheating.

In the case of premium...so what. CC has their money, and they broke the rules. A gym or sports club where the members are cheating would do the same thing.

I propose that in ANY case, a verified cheater is banned for life. Make it CRYSTAL CLEAR during signup, and there is no reason for anyone to complain when they are kicked out.

Imagine the Olympics, Tour de France or World Cup where, when found to be cheating, they were still allowed to play and just slapped on the wrist.

I DO AGREE

wcaclimbing wrote:I DONT CARE because i'm not wearing any pants.

This is the reason why you should care - you can get somthing up your A.... from behind....

i like the way lack handles it, pay for premium or ur not comining bak. cause he makes money, which goes towards the site, and if they get caught again, well then ther screwed, so it gives the person a second chance and the site more money.

If you ban an account for cheating, wouldn't the cheater simply create a new account? And if you ban an IP address for cheating, and the IP address is that of a public kiosk like a library computer, then you're hurting the community at largish.

This is why I like the idea of a cheat icon, but you would have to couple it with the following options for game creation:

Allow Cheaters
Allow *ONE* Cheater
DO NOT Allow ANY Cheaters -- Default

Oh, dang, I'm sorry, did I make another suggestion for more options?

CreepyUncleAndy wrote:If you ban an account for cheating, wouldn't the cheater simply create a new account? And if you ban an IP address for cheating, and the IP address is that of a public kiosk like a library computer, then you're hurting the community at largish.

This is why I like the idea of a cheat icon, but you would have to couple it with the following options for game creation:

Allow Cheaters
Allow *ONE* Cheater
DO NOT Allow ANY Cheaters -- Default

Oh, dang, I'm sorry, did I make another suggestion for more options?

You have unique ideas for sure....but do you really think they would work? Do you think people would want to pick anything other than the default setting?

Being branded by a cheater would essentially have the same result as being banned because no one would want to play with you. And I don't think I would want to play on this site either if cheaters were allowed to continue playing and cheating while simply being branded.

Fortunately measures are taken to keep cheaters from returning to the site, and even if they manage to get a new account they will be caught again if the cheating continues. Just remember- if you cheat, we WILL catch you!

Well, as far as allowing *ONE* "cheater", this would be acceptable 99% of the time, because 99% of cheaters are simply using more than one account simultaneously. Allowing ONE cheater would prevent that cheater from logging in with more than their one account....unless they create a newbie account to double-play with just for that game. Still, it would give cheaters a chance to redeem themselves; perhaps they'll see the light.

Allowing any number of cheaters is for those of us who don't care about winning.

Also, if you are a cheater, and try to create a game that doesn't allow ANY cheaters, well, then, you're just out of luck.

CreepyUncleAndy wrote:Well, as far as allowing *ONE* "cheater", this would be acceptable 99% of the time, because 99% of cheaters are simply using more than one account simultaneously. Allowing ONE cheater would prevent that cheater from logging in with more than their one account....unless they create a newbie account to double-play with just for that game. Still, it would give cheaters a chance to redeem themselves; perhaps they'll see the light.

Allowing any number of cheaters is for those of us who don't care about winning.

Also, if you are a cheater, and try to create a game that doesn't allow ANY cheaters, well, then, you're just out of luck.

I cannot see this ever being implemented. Condoning cheating will only make the problem much worse. And besides, if you are 'allowing' it, nothing would really be cheating any more right? Any rules would go out the metaphorical window, and that just doesn't seem sensible to me.

You're right.

Hmmm, I wonder if it would be a good idea to log players' IP addresses, and prevent more than one player from the same IP address from joining the same game? Maybe, again, this would be too complex, and end up causing more harm than good. I concede, Multi Hunter.

CreepyUncleAndy wrote:And if you ban an IP address for cheating, and the IP address is that of a public kiosk like a library computer, then you're hurting the community at largish.

Yes...but how many members use public libraries & kiosks AND cheat? I would bet it's a tiny amount.

CreepyUncleAndy wrote:You're right.

Hmmm, I wonder if it would be a good idea to log players' IP addresses, and prevent more than one player from the same IP address from joining the same game? Maybe, again, this would be too complex, and end up causing more harm than good. I concede, Multi Hunter.

The problem with this is some IP adresses are used by people from the same family. There are some couples who play. My wife and I play many doubles games and a few singles games with friends.

Evil Semp wrote:

CreepyUncleAndy wrote:You're right.

Hmmm, I wonder if it would be a good idea to log players' IP addresses, and prevent more than one player from the same IP address from joining the same game? Maybe, again, this would be too complex, and end up causing more harm than good. I concede, Multi Hunter.

The problem with this is some IP adresses are used by people from the same family. There are some couples who play. My wife and I play many doubles games and a few singles games with friends.

Same with me and my bro..


-X

Bust them down to private...then it's not worth the risk...

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10710

Same with me as it is with Evil Semp & XenHu, but no one seems to believe me.... Atleast i'm not the only one.