Game Throwing?

[Mr Changsha]

Farming is quite different than joining games that one will probably lose.

I disagree, because both issues are related to our freedom to play what we want within the current rules of the site. You may personally believe the rules should be changed with regards to farming (while I of course don't), but I have always been of the opinion that one can't pick and choose about these things...farmers and farming symbolises our right to play as we want: rank restrictions and restrictions about dropping points would both infringe upon those rights.

Some see dumping as somehow distasteful (I frankly don't...unless in the scenario incandenza illustrated above) others see farming as the height of poor play. But I have always been of the belief that to campaign against one, as you Fitz have done so against farming, puts at risk our overall freedom to play as we want. It is the old slippery slope argument that I am of course employing: most people have some element of the gaming on this site they would like to restrict (as another example generals employing stripers in quads teams for point benefit), but once one is reformed, say the latter argument, then the cries for change in another would become overwhelming "If CC changed that then why won't they change this", thus the only thing to do is leave well alone entirely.

So...if you believe high ranks should be free to drop their scores (as you are), then you must also advocate farming, point manipulation and every other devious means of boosting score because they are all interconnected: the right to play the game how you want.

[jefjef]

Hey CC.

ljex isn't one of the more popular persona's here at CC yet I see many well known people, some of whom are often on the other side of ljex, in here questioning this absurd ruling. The attached poll also reflects overwhelming opinion against the ruling.

How about THIS case also get a re-do just like the blitz case that was re-looked at due to public out cry.

[SirSebstar]

Hey CC.

ljex isn't one of the more popular persona's here at CC yet I see many well known people, some of whom are often on the other side of ljex, in here questioning this absurd ruling. The attached poll also reflects overwhelming opinion against the ruling.

How about THIS case also get a re-do just like the blitz case that was re-looked at due to public out cry.

I concur, but i think an e-ticket is still the way to go

[ljex]

Hey CC.

ljex isn't one of the more popular persona's here at CC yet I see many well known people, some of whom are often on the other side of ljex, in here questioning this absurd ruling. The attached poll also reflects overwhelming opinion against the ruling.

How about THIS case also get a re-do just like the blitz case that was re-looked at due to public out cry.

I concur, but i think an e-ticket is still the way to go

it has already been filed

[Bruceswar]

Hey CC.

ljex isn't one of the more popular persona's here at CC yet I see many well known people, some of whom are often on the other side of ljex, in here questioning this absurd ruling. The attached poll also reflects overwhelming opinion against the ruling.

How about THIS case also get a re-do just like the blitz case that was re-looked at due to public out cry.

I concur, but i think an e-ticket is still the way to go

it has already been filed

Good luck

[Bruceswar]

Hey CC.

ljex isn't one of the more popular persona's here at CC yet I see many well known people, some of whom are often on the other side of ljex, in here questioning this absurd ruling. The attached poll also reflects overwhelming opinion against the ruling.

How about THIS case also get a re-do just like the blitz case that was re-looked at due to public out cry.

I concur, but i think an e-ticket is still the way to go

it has already been filed

Good luck

[ljex]

Hey CC.

ljex isn't one of the more popular persona's here at CC yet I see many well known people, some of whom are often on the other side of ljex, in here questioning this absurd ruling. The attached poll also reflects overwhelming opinion against the ruling.

How about THIS case also get a re-do just like the blitz case that was re-looked at due to public out cry.

I concur, but i think an e-ticket is still the way to go

it has already been filed

Good luck

Yeah, i know i have heard from others. Even before i filed it KA didnt respond to my pm about how to file one, as i figured you needed to attach it to a case thread, pm or something. Anyway after i gave up on him responding and found out from someone else you didnt need to do that i filed it sometime yesterday.

[nippersean]

Fritz, I..concur.
Playing to win cannot be pointdumping.

But as an example, say i would have 4 k points, started 50 speedgames doodle assassin and then would "incidently" attack the wrong target or neutrals in at least a couple of games? How would you qualify this?

show me where i ever did that...oh thats right i didnt i played a bunch of casual turns and i took most turns, maybe missed a few when I couldn't get them and gave sitters short notice during the middle of the night when I went out and then went back to my friends instead of my house.

my team should have won WWII Europe...even you admitted that in the chat and i do suck a lot at Napolean which is 2 of those games i lost i believe anyway jefjef im not really trying to have an e-penis fight but if thats what it takes for you to believe i would be higher than major with only sequential games then im willing to do that.

So...the chap destroyed his rank to prove something to jef jef. I consider this to be absolutely idiotic and also quite liked the rather subtle, 'rank idiocy' to boot.

Not really...more so bored of playing only oasis quads

So recently I got a warning for "point dumping" because

These recent public post that I have read in the forums has shown that you intentionally lowered your rank to achieve a certain score so that you can be a "normal player" again coming from being a Conqueror.

Now I will admit that I have done this but i have also played to win every game and have not been provided any evidence by the part of the mods to show me otherwise. Furthermore later in the pm KA says

game throwing is still game throwing and to do it a number of times just to lower your score is still gross abuse of the game.

To me this means they should provide me with at least 4-5 instances of me "throwing" games in order to have a case against me...which has not been done. All they have stated in the pm is that I am intentionally lowering my score...but how is this illegal if i am playing to win every game?

I would like a serious discussion on the matter

If you really didn't through games (I am not going to watch all your games) then I think the accuses are unacceptable.

Didn't he quote the game numbers in which you threw games?

If not, then that was very unprofessional and in the future he should be more careful if he truly work for the best of the site.

You can not play like other guys because you have the ability to play better and select the games with which you can have 5000 points? this is ridiculous.
On the other hand if you did through some games then he is right but he should have quote the game numbers and I would be interested in having a look at them

No game numbers were given as evidence...just posts or game chats of me saying i was intentionally point dumping through the legal means of game selection. This is what bothers me most, KA says you cant intentionally lose games numerous times but gives me no evidence of games being thrown.

So ijex you tried to prove you could "legally" point dump, to stick up for your friend Commanderxyz, who did it illegally, and got away with a tap on the wrist, and then stuck it in the C&A mods faces to prove how clever you are.

Very smart, but a tad childish, don't you think.
So basically you point dumped aiming for 1500, but weren't good enough (or got caught) attempting to achieve this?

[ljex]

Fritz, I..concur.
Playing to win cannot be pointdumping.

But as an example, say i would have 4 k points, started 50 speedgames doodle assassin and then would "incidently" attack the wrong target or neutrals in at least a couple of games? How would you qualify this?

show me where i ever did that...oh thats right i didnt i played a bunch of casual turns and i took most turns, maybe missed a few when I couldn't get them and gave sitters short notice during the middle of the night when I went out and then went back to my friends instead of my house.

my team should have won WWII Europe...even you admitted that in the chat and i do suck a lot at Napolean which is 2 of those games i lost i believe anyway jefjef im not really trying to have an e-penis fight but if thats what it takes for you to believe i would be higher than major with only sequential games then im willing to do that.

So...the chap destroyed his rank to prove something to jef jef. I consider this to be absolutely idiotic and also quite liked the rather subtle, 'rank idiocy' to boot.

Not really...more so bored of playing only oasis quads

So recently I got a warning for "point dumping" because

These recent public post that I have read in the forums has shown that you intentionally lowered your rank to achieve a certain score so that you can be a "normal player" again coming from being a Conqueror.

Now I will admit that I have done this but i have also played to win every game and have not been provided any evidence by the part of the mods to show me otherwise. Furthermore later in the pm KA says

game throwing is still game throwing and to do it a number of times just to lower your score is still gross abuse of the game.

To me this means they should provide me with at least 4-5 instances of me "throwing" games in order to have a case against me...which has not been done. All they have stated in the pm is that I am intentionally lowering my score...but how is this illegal if i am playing to win every game?

I would like a serious discussion on the matter

If you really didn't through games (I am not going to watch all your games) then I think the accuses are unacceptable.

Didn't he quote the game numbers in which you threw games?

If not, then that was very unprofessional and in the future he should be more careful if he truly work for the best of the site.

You can not play like other guys because you have the ability to play better and select the games with which you can have 5000 points? this is ridiculous.
On the other hand if you did through some games then he is right but he should have quote the game numbers and I would be interested in having a look at them

No game numbers were given as evidence...just posts or game chats of me saying i was intentionally point dumping through the legal means of game selection. This is what bothers me most, KA says you cant intentionally lose games numerous times but gives me no evidence of games being thrown.

So ijex you tried to prove you could "legally" point dump, to stick up for your friend Commanderxyz, who did it illegally, and got away with a tap on the wrist, and then stuck it in the C&A mods faces to prove how clever you are.

Very smart, but a tad childish, don't you think.
So basically you point dumped aiming for 1500, but weren't good enough (or got caught) attempting to achieve this?

You do realize there were more reasons that i "point dumped" than just for the commander thing.

1) i had achieved my goal of conqueror
2) playing for score is boring and gets old when you no longer have a goal attached to it
3) because i have wanted to increase my score only through sequential games for a while now to see how high i can get that way

Also some things did come up in life for me recently with finals and all...I had a huge 150 page report for one class that basically ruled my life for the better part of a semester especially towards the end. Sometimes my group meetings would run longer than expected and i would need sitters. Anyway its not like i missed an absurd amount of turns or that it was intentional. Also being that commander62890 is a friend i still believe him to be innocent and even then that was more of a auxiliary benefit than my sole reason for doing it.

You can take a look at the games I "threw" you will see that its not really the case especially in the first 3 and in the second 3 well i could see how they look like it if thats what you are trying to see from them...but really thats some week evidence and they have let that slide for multiple players in the past...as demonstrated in an earlier post.

If i actually was throwing games dont you think i would have made it to my goal? I think i made it somewhere around 1950 and that was with me searching 1 vs 1 games and joining any game that had a low rank host...and any other game on a map i was bad at with any host for about a week.

Lastly, you can call me childish all you want it really doesn't effect me that much in the long run if i have a warning on my record as its not like i am going to break other rules and thus need to serve a ban. With that said its not really nice to get convicted of something you did do with shit evidence like give here. Beyond that add in the fact that I didnt even receive this "evidence" in my initial warning and wolla you have one pissed of site member.

[Evil Semp]

I for one think the decision on this was correct. I know that there will be many posts calling me names and such but if I had thought ljex didn't throw the games I would have said so and tried to convince the C&A team differently.

[Incandenza]

I for one think the decision on this was correct. I know that there will be many posts calling me names and such but if I had thought ljex didn't throw the games I would have said so and tried to convince the C&A team differently.

Might I ask how you reached this opinion?

[nippersean]

This possibly,

"Soon after the last of my quads oasis games start and finish im going to play a bunch of 1 vs 1 games and let my rank slide as low as it can while i still try to win every game. Im guessing if i play really simple maps 1 vs 1 and a bunch of assdoodles i can get down to 1500 or so..."

nd i took most turns, maybe missed a few when I couldn't get them and gave sitters short notice during the middle of the night when I went out and then went back to my friends instead of my house.

You do realize there were more reasons that i "point dumped" than just for the commander thing.

All quotes.

The problem is for ijex - he admits it. Ijex - if you'd simply have said you were going to "expand your game / stop chasing pts / playing games for fun..etc" You'd have been fine - anyway it was a mere warning.

But you set yourself a target of 1500, then your score dropped like a stone, then you missed turns, honestly, what did you think would happen next?

I totally understand your reasoning but....reality happens - how could C@A geezers possibly stand by and watch this? When there is a rule in place, it's their job.

This is why i called you childish, you got a warning, so what! You did well!

[Rodion]

Game 9117000 - I can't view dice, but I notice you started round 2 with UK, More Russia and Australia. The other guy had Africa bonus and the best place to attempt a break from seemed to be UK, but you dropped Australia. It's even more weird that China was neutral. Besides, a manual freestyle on Doodle means you need to have extreme awareness so you get to attack the opponent's stack before he attacks yours. Considering you're regarded as a great freestyle player and all of those have tools such as speed turns, a 42-second delay in starting your turn (round 2) is almost unforgivable. It's also unforgivable that you joined the game and allowed him to deploy his armies on round 1 ("manual round") first. This game was thrown.

Game 9085510 - I don't have MH tools to make a conclusion here. As a regular user that can only see the game log, I'd have to consider you innocent due to lack of evidence.


Game 9085720 - Green takes 2 bonuses on the west and ljex doesn't use his Archosia stack to go directly there: he rather prefers to kill unnecessary places like Caspian Sea, Babylonia and Assyria (neutral). This game was thrown.

Game 9108521 - I don't have MH tools to make a conclusion here. As a regular user that can only see the game log, I'd have to consider you innocent due to lack of evidence. I must say, though, that the log looks suspicious with your opponent taking Nairobi from Johannesburg on round 1: either he won a 3v3 attack (2 dices vs. 2 dices) or you previously suicided to make that a 3v1. I have similar suspicions on how Mexico City took Havana, but lacking MH tools I'd still be forced to consider you innocent.

Game 9108506 - you did the right thing in deploying Dakar on round 1, but killing 3 neutrals clearly show you suicided. From Jakarta you attacked Perth, a neutral, and not Port Moresby, a green? This game was thrown.

Game 9108494 - this one actually looks legit. Innocent.

I'm changing my vote on the thread. I originally had "no" as I think it's ok to try to play games that will statistically make you lose points as long as you try to win them all, so that shouldn't be viewed as point dumping. Now, however, we're talking about game throwing and it is clear to me that that was done.

[danryan]

I went through (threw?) those games and basically reached the same conclusion. A couple of clear thrown games, the rest inconclusive. That combined with a statement of intent are enough to draw scrutiny. The player committing the offense is really irrelevant - the name doesn't matter at all, nor does the rank (except as a possible mitigating factor if the player losing the games just isn't very good).

The whole case smacks of baiting the C&A staff which have a pretty thankless job to begin with.

[ljex]

This possibly,

"Soon after the last of my quads oasis games start and finish im going to play a bunch of 1 vs 1 games and let my rank slide as low as it can while i still try to win every game. Im guessing if i play really simple maps 1 vs 1 and a bunch of assdoodles i can get down to 1500 or so..."

nd i took most turns, maybe missed a few when I couldn't get them and gave sitters short notice during the middle of the night when I went out and then went back to my friends instead of my house.

You do realize there were more reasons that i "point dumped" than just for the commander thing.

All quotes.

The problem is for ijex - he admits it. Ijex - if you'd simply have said you were going to "expand your game / stop chasing pts / playing games for fun..etc" You'd have been fine - anyway it was a mere warning.

But you set yourself a target of 1500, then your score dropped like a stone, then you missed turns, honestly, what did you think would happen next?

I totally understand your reasoning but....reality happens - how could C@A geezers possibly stand by and watch this? When there is a rule in place, it's their job.

This is why i called you childish, you got a warning, so what! You did well!

i admit to intentionally losing points never intentionally losing games...that is the difference i think is critical everyone needs to understand

[ljex]

Game 9117000 - I can't view dice, but I notice you started round 2 with UK, More Russia and Australia. The other guy had Africa bonus and the best place to attempt a break from seemed to be UK, but you dropped Australia. It's even more weird that China was neutral. Besides, a manual freestyle on Doodle means you need to have extreme awareness so you get to attack the opponent's stack before he attacks yours. Considering you're regarded as a great freestyle player and all of those have tools such as speed turns, a 42-second delay in starting your turn (round 2) is almost unforgivable. It's also unforgivable that you joined the game and allowed him to deploy his armies on round 1 ("manual round") first. This game was thrown.

dont have speed turns actually so you might want to check your facts and i joined the game and he was offline so i didnt want to waste my time waiting there for him. i am a highly regarded speed freestyle player i actually suck at casual freestyle aside from oasis. Beyond that he had something like 7 troops left after the stack attack so there was no way i could win. As i was playing about 70 games at that time...way too much for me i would just deploy and end in any game which i had already lost to save time and make the game go faster.
Game 9085510 - I don't have MH tools to make a conclusion here. As a regular user that can only see the game log, I'd have to consider you innocent due to lack of evidence.


Game 9085720 - Green takes 2 bonuses on the west and ljex doesn't use his Archosia stack to go directly there: he rather prefers to kill unnecessary places like Caspian Sea, Babylonia and Assyria (neutral). This game was thrown. you realize i should have had enough to break the bonuses anyway i attacked because it shouldnt have matter and i should have won but i lost miserably...i dont play conservative i play aggressive sometimes it bites me in the ass...take this game as an example.

Game 9108521 - I don't have MH tools to make a conclusion here. As a regular user that can only see the game log, I'd have to consider you innocent due to lack of evidence. I must say, though, that the log looks suspicious with your opponent taking Nairobi from Johannesburg on round 1: either he won a 3v3 attack (2 dices vs. 2 dices) or you previously suicided to make that a 3v1. I have similar suspicions on how Mexico City took Havana, but lacking MH tools I'd still be forced to consider you innocent.

didnt ever attack any 3 vs 3's so that would have been him or it would have been i had already lost so i was attacking out which i did when the game was over and i was goign to lose but it would take many rounds.

Game 9108506 - you did the right thing in deploying Dakar on round 1, but killing 3 neutrals clearly show you suicided. From Jakarta you attacked Perth, a neutral, and not Port Moresby, a green? This game was thrown.

i tried to break and failed...because we were playing rt games and once it ended we would start another. As a result i just attacked out after i lost the key battle. By my next turn i would have been receiving 3 troops and would have been sure to lose. I dont see a point playing games out when i am going to lose.

Game 9108494 - this one actually looks legit. Innocent.

I'm changing my vote on the thread. I originally had "no" as I think it's ok to try to play games that will statistically make you lose points as long as you try to win them all, so that shouldn't be viewed as point dumping. Now, however, we're talking about game throwing and it is clear to me that that was done.

you can say what you want but i really didnt intentionally lose a single game of all that i have ever played on this site...

[King_Herpes]

Hey CC.

ljex isn't one of the more popular persona's here at CC yet I see many well known people, some of whom are often on the other side of ljex, in here questioning this absurd ruling. The attached poll also reflects overwhelming opinion against the ruling.

How about THIS case also get a re-do just like the blitz case that was re-looked at due to public out cry.

Awwe man you should take a look at yourself, you just pissed your pants.

Hey CC.

Come look at Mr. Piss pants!

[Dako]

Game 9117000 - I can't view dice, but I notice you started round 2 with UK, More Russia and Australia. The other guy had Africa bonus and the best place to attempt a break from seemed to be UK, but you dropped Australia. It's even more weird that China was neutral. Besides, a manual freestyle on Doodle means you need to have extreme awareness so you get to attack the opponent's stack before he attacks yours. Considering you're regarded as a great freestyle player and all of those have tools such as speed turns, a 42-second delay in starting your turn (round 2) is almost unforgivable. It's also unforgivable that you joined the game and allowed him to deploy his armies on round 1 ("manual round") first. This game was thrown.

Game 9085510 - I don't have MH tools to make a conclusion here. As a regular user that can only see the game log, I'd have to consider you innocent due to lack of evidence.


Game 9085720 - Green takes 2 bonuses on the west and ljex doesn't use his Archosia stack to go directly there: he rather prefers to kill unnecessary places like Caspian Sea, Babylonia and Assyria (neutral). This game was thrown.

Game 9108521 - I don't have MH tools to make a conclusion here. As a regular user that can only see the game log, I'd have to consider you innocent due to lack of evidence. I must say, though, that the log looks suspicious with your opponent taking Nairobi from Johannesburg on round 1: either he won a 3v3 attack (2 dices vs. 2 dices) or you previously suicided to make that a 3v1. I have similar suspicions on how Mexico City took Havana, but lacking MH tools I'd still be forced to consider you innocent.

Game 9108506 - you did the right thing in deploying Dakar on round 1, but killing 3 neutrals clearly show you suicided. From Jakarta you attacked Perth, a neutral, and not Port Moresby, a green? This game was thrown.

Game 9108494 - this one actually looks legit. Innocent.

I'm changing my vote on the thread. I originally had "no" as I think it's ok to try to play games that will statistically make you lose points as long as you try to win them all, so that shouldn't be viewed as point dumping. Now, however, we're talking about game throwing and it is clear to me that that was done.

So we have a policy to warn for 3 throwed games?

Game 9108506 - I disagree with you. Oppo might have suicided from Port Moresby to the neutral and he took it to boost his terr count. We don't have dice tools so we cannot say, but it is a possibility. I think that game is not thrown.

[Evil Semp]

So we have a policy to warn for 3 throwed games?

Game 9108506 - I disagree with you. Oppo might have suicided from Port Moresby to the neutral and he took it to boost his terr count. We don't have dice tools so we cannot say, but it is a possibility. I think that game is not thrown.

Dako these are ljex attacks for round 1. The game was auto deploy. No attacks after round one.

2011-05-22 03:16:03 - ljex received 4 troops for 13 regions
2011-05-22 03:16:05 - ljex deployed 4 troops on Dakar
2011-05-22 03:16:19 - ljex assaulted Delhi from Astana and conquered it from bigpoppa821
2011-05-22 03:16:36 - ljex assaulted Perth from Jakarta and conquered it from neutral player
2011-05-22 03:16:56 - ljex assaulted Bangkok from Hong Kong and conquered it from neutral player
2011-05-22 03:17:01 - ljex assaulted Berlin from Istanbul and conquered it from bigpoppa821
2011-05-22 03:17:09 - ljex assaulted Dubai from Moscow and conquered it from neutral player
2011-05-22 03:17:22 - ljex ended the turn and got spoils

My first question is why attack 3 neutrals on the first turn. Yeah he had good dice.
Why attack perth from Jakarta when his opponent had Port Moresby?
If the goal is to take Aussie why not attack your opponent before you go after the neutral?

So we have a policy to warn for 3 throwed games?

How many games do you think someone should be able to throw? Someone will get a warning with one instance for secret diplomacy.

[Rodion]

So we have a policy to warn for 3 throwed games?

Non sequitur, Dako.

The poll questions is "Based on the 6 games provided in KAs post (link located in first post) do you think I threw games?". I analysed and concluded that yes, ljex threw games.

I did not say "ljex deserved a punishment for throwing games as per the C&A procedural guidelines" (which I don't have access too). That opinion I will keep to myself (unless the poll question changes again and leads me to having a vote in something I don't believe - by the way, Sug. Mods, poll changes should reset their votes, no?).

[Dako]

Dako these are ljex attacks for round 1. The game was auto deploy. No attacks after round one.

2011-05-22 03:16:03 - ljex received 4 troops for 13 regions
2011-05-22 03:16:05 - ljex deployed 4 troops on Dakar
2011-05-22 03:16:19 - ljex assaulted Delhi from Astana and conquered it from bigpoppa821
2011-05-22 03:16:36 - ljex assaulted Perth from Jakarta and conquered it from neutral player
2011-05-22 03:16:56 - ljex assaulted Bangkok from Hong Kong and conquered it from neutral player
2011-05-22 03:17:01 - ljex assaulted Berlin from Istanbul and conquered it from bigpoppa821
2011-05-22 03:17:09 - ljex assaulted Dubai from Moscow and conquered it from neutral player
2011-05-22 03:17:22 - ljex ended the turn and got spoils

My first question is why attack 3 neutrals on the first turn. Yeah he had good dice.
Why attack perth from Jakarta when his opponent had Port Moresby?
If the goal is to take Aussie why not attack your opponent before you go after the neutral?

Do you know if green attempted an attack at Perth and Dubai or not? If ljex took them - well, I can see an intention behind that - get up in the territories (he took 5 terrs which brought him to 18 and probably +5 next turn). Great move. And if green tried 3v3 and rolled 2-0 and 0-1 both times (which is possible, considering his rank) - it is understandable why ljex went after neutral 1 rather than to attack enemies 2 which is harder to get. So maybe the goal was not to take Aussie but increase your own terr count (smart play, by the way). Why deploy Astana? Because green took SA and secured it tightly, taking all the other regions connecting it. On that moment ljex decided that the game was already lost (and I think it was a true judgment). After that, to help his opponent finish the game faster, he deployed all on his 1st territory in his dropdown list (Astana) without any attacks to quicken game ending. Logical move one cannot call throwing a game. He was being kind and polite in that decision!
I do not know what they rolled on each attack and what dice was in Dakar vs SA. If you know that - it answers every question. If he deployed and didn't attack - yes, thrown game. Otherwise too much of the things are tied together and are presumed, looks like you want him to be guilty.

How many games do you think someone should be able to throw? Someone will get a warning with one instance for secret diplomacy.

More than 10. Or at least 5. I know we do not have a strict count, but that is just my perception.

So we have a policy to warn for 3 throwed games?

Non sequitur, Dako.

The poll questions is "Based on the 6 games provided in KAs post (link located in first post) do you think I threw games?". I analysed and concluded that yes, ljex threw games.

Well, I have to disagree with you. If you want (or other people) I can provide analysis of every move in those 6 games, why it was made and why they were not "throwing a game" type of moves. I haven't studied it in-depth, but I replayed all the games and already had a talk with KA on those games. I believe he is not guilty, so I can spend 2 hours on those games and post it here so everyone can see the other point of view. Not to undermine your work, but to help the community to make the right choice. If I were to find his moves were dubious in all 6 games - I will be one of the first to call him a thrower.

[Rodion]

I don't "want", but if you'd like to do share your results I would read them. Of course, lacking official dice tools (or several snapshots) there's always the possibility that the moves he made were "good" - there could always be a doubt. On 3 of those 6 games, though, my opinion is that there was no "reasonable doubt" (although I can think of remote scenarios in which ljex's actions would have been good moves).

[ljex]

Dako these are ljex attacks for round 1. The game was auto deploy. No attacks after round one.

2011-05-22 03:16:03 - ljex received 4 troops for 13 regions
2011-05-22 03:16:05 - ljex deployed 4 troops on Dakar
2011-05-22 03:16:19 - ljex assaulted Delhi from Astana and conquered it from bigpoppa821
2011-05-22 03:16:36 - ljex assaulted Perth from Jakarta and conquered it from neutral player
2011-05-22 03:16:56 - ljex assaulted Bangkok from Hong Kong and conquered it from neutral player
2011-05-22 03:17:01 - ljex assaulted Berlin from Istanbul and conquered it from bigpoppa821
2011-05-22 03:17:09 - ljex assaulted Dubai from Moscow and conquered it from neutral player
2011-05-22 03:17:22 - ljex ended the turn and got spoils

My first question is why attack 3 neutrals on the first turn. Yeah he had good dice.
Why attack perth from Jakarta when his opponent had Port Moresby?
If the goal is to take Aussie why not attack your opponent before you go after the neutral?

Do you know if green attempted an attack at Perth and Dubai or not? If ljex took them - well, I can see an intention behind that - get up in the territories (he took 5 terrs which brought him to 18 and probably +5 next turn). Great move. And if green tried 3v3 and rolled 2-0 and 0-1 both times (which is possible, considering his rank) - it is understandable why ljex went after neutral 1 rather than to attack enemies 2 which is harder to get. So maybe the goal was not to take Aussie but increase your own terr count (smart play, by the way). Why deploy Astana? Because green took SA and secured it tightly, taking all the other regions connecting it. On that moment ljex decided that the game was already lost (and I think it was a true judgment). After that, to help his opponent finish the game faster, he deployed all on his 1st territory in his dropdown list (Astana) without any attacks to quicken game ending. Logical move one cannot call throwing a game. He was being kind and polite in that decision!
I do not know what they rolled on each attack and what dice was in Dakar vs SA. If you know that - it answers every question. If he deployed and didn't attack - yes, thrown game. Otherwise too much of the things are tied together and are presumed, looks like you want him to be guilty.

in this one i rolled from dakar to sa and lost, at that point i had 13 regions to his 15/16 and was likely to see 3 troops next round with him having a bonus i couldnt break. You could look and say that i will win that game like 1% of the time if i get really lucky but at the time we were playing those games rt and generally only playing 1 at a time...i figured the game was lost and i would make it easy. I guess i could have waited one more round to see if he got really bad dice or i got really good dice...but at the time it didnt seem worth it so i assaulted to ones so we could start the next game or finish that one if it was the last one. That game was vs my real life friend and i was at his house playing with him. I had just introduced him to the site a few days before but we have played real life risk a lot together so he pretty decent when it comes to 1 vs 1 on the classic map.

[AAFitz]

Farming is quite different than joining games that one will probably lose.

I disagree, because both issues are related to our freedom to play what we want within the current rules of the site. You may personally believe the rules should be changed with regards to farming (while I of course don't), but I have always been of the opinion that one can't pick and choose about these things...farmers and farming symbolises our right to play as we want: rank restrictions and restrictions about dropping points would both infringe upon those rights.

Some see dumping as somehow distasteful (I frankly don't...unless in the scenario incandenza illustrated above) others see farming as the height of poor play. But I have always been of the belief that to campaign against one, as you Fitz have done so against farming, puts at risk our overall freedom to play as we want. It is the old slippery slope argument that I am of course employing: most people have some element of the gaming on this site they would like to restrict (as another example generals employing stripers in quads teams for point benefit), but once one is reformed, say the latter argument, then the cries for change in another would become overwhelming "If CC changed that then why won't they change this", thus the only thing to do is leave well alone entirely.

So...if you believe high ranks should be free to drop their scores (as you are), then you must also advocate farming, point manipulation and every other devious means of boosting score because they are all interconnected: the right to play the game how you want.

No, they are fundamentally different. Farming only applies to brand new players who have played under 5 games and deserve to be protected.

Its not the games that are the problem, its the fact that it preys on brand new players.

If you need an analogy. You can have as much sex as you want with whomever you want, as long as they are of a certain age.
Its not the sex that is being stopped, its the protection of the minors that simply results in sex being stopped.

If you can find a way to play games and not have new recruits join, you are welcome to play whatever game you want, and no one will ever complain(well, someone will always complain) but that is the critical difference between choosing games that might lose points and games that specifically targets new recruits. Farming is a protection that results in a restriction of game choice almost accidentally. Choosing games that you will probably lose points on is just playing games.

Restricting games that might result in lost points protects absolutely no one, and is simply an infringement on ones right to choose games.

So Mr. C, as you can see, there is absolutely a difference, you missed it on a fundamental level, and you are simply and completely wrong, and I as absolutely usual, am completely correct.

[ljex]

If you had just told everyone that you were going to change the types of games that you played going for medals you wouldn't have raised any eyebrows. But you said you were going to "legally point dump" and then there were games that look like you tanked.

I really don't like to disclose the content of PM's but this was part of the response i received from a member of the C&A team. They are welcome to come forward if they wish, but i will not be disclosing that information.

To me this is very telling of the situation i find myself in, because i said i was going to "legally point dump" (because people don't seem to understand what this means to me, i define this as playing games that you know you will lose points playing in the long run) instead of saying i was going to just switch the types of games i was playing, I was given this warning.