Conquer Club

A few points to outline my position before I go onto my questions:

1. The bribing someone with a years membership was wrong.

2. I think he has a good case he just went about the solution the wrong way.

3. Urm, I guess that is it.

However, the reasons for doing it, IMHO, were correct:

1. The scoring system is broken.

2. Blitz, and many like him, exploit that system very well. Just so you know I have nothing against Blitz, this is just an observation I have made against the system.

So here are my questions:

1. Dugcarr seemed to have 'bent the law' in several ways. Would this warrant the action that was taken?

2. I think that there is more involved here than meets the eye. Concerning Dugcarr's all-games-cancelled-and-deleted-thingy: Was there anything more that I or 'we' do not know about?

3. This is damaging to many CC players, including myself, who think that the scoring system is broken. Does this damage our cause beyond repair?

MG.

I've heard a few people claim "it's broken." Can someone please explain to me in a succinct, readable post why you think that?

I think what they mean is that the system does not represent a players skill level...dug would always say that before he was a general

[/quote]I've heard a few people claim "it's broken." Can someone please explain to me in a succinct, readable post why you think that?[quote]

Frankly I find that hard to believe. Here is a link to my own post about it, yes I was wrong about Blitz at the time, but the rest of the points are still valid. This is just my post, there are many like it from other players. Its just my grammar was better than their's!

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... ht=#239594

MG. (Who hopes the link works properly for everyone).

These were the posts I was talking about when I said we should support the mods, Lack, and their decision 100%.

I am sick of people complaining about the scoring system! I am sick of people, "Arguing" Dug's case for him! The deleted games were out of a desire to make the site MORE fair.

There is more behind these decisions then just the rules. It is the principle behind the rules. Dug clearly violated the principles of sportsmanship and moral conduct. We as a society shouldn't tolerate that kind of behavior! We all have a "law within us". How can we argue over justifying or condemning one's moral code. We have a natural human moral system that should govern ourselves, even when the "rules" don't expressly go against a certain action.

Has our society become SO forced to tolerate, that we allow immoral actions, because that person's moral code may be different then ours? Injustice is one thin, intolerance is another.

The lines seem to be blurred to some of you. It is upsetting, as a human being, to see others defend his actions and see it as a fight against the system. There is a way to approach matters in life, and the way Dug chose was wrong. No matter if you think his punishment was too harsh, you must admit that his actions were clearly out of line.

You aren't the judge. You don't know all the details. Don't make rash comments supporting Dug and his activities unless you are prepared to argue the validity of his actions, and openly debate the issue in an adult like manner.

No more name calling. No more Annoying spam posts. Action was taken. Action was deserved. Fin.

You do realize high ranked players get like 10 points or less for a doubles win? You do realize they lose like 40-50 points for a loss right? Now I just glanced at a few of these doubles games with Blitz paired with a low ranked player, so the numbers are a bit vague. I would be curious to see if anyone actually looked at Blitz's stats over time to prove your alleged "broken system" point?

I learned how to play RISK with secret alliances, deception, & tricks encouraged, & it was fair play. It is not a moral issue it is just how we learned & accepted to play the game. However I knew I could not have any secret alliances when I came to this site because it is clearly stated in the Rules section. Whereas dugcarr could have a different way he learned the game in his head. However restrictions to these rules were never stated in the rules. My point in this is that you shouldn't jump all over someone, because it is obvious that dugcarr didn't think he was doing anything wrong by his previous posts. I think that dugcarr's punishments would not have been strict enough if he had known he couldn't do it. So I would have given him a very strict warning saying not do it again or else you will be permanantly banned from CC. So although the mods did what they thought was right...they covered all the elements thoroughly & responsibly but they missed one which is understanding

These were the posts I was talking about when I said we should support the mods, Lack, and their decision 100%.

I question things. Are you not human and merely a sheep?

I am sick of people complaining about the scoring system! I am sick of people, "Arguing" Dug's case for him! The deleted games were out of a desire to make the site MORE fair.

I am not complaining about the scoring system. I think the scoring system can and should be changed to the better. I am not arguing dugcarr's case for him.

There is more behind these decisions then just the rules. It is the principle behind the rules. Dug clearly violated the principles of sportsmanship and moral conduct. We as a society shouldn't tolerate that kind of behavior! We all have a "law within us". How can we argue over justifying or condemning one's moral code. We have a natural human moral system that should govern ourselves, even when the "rules" don't expressly go against a certain action.

This is not a society, this is an online game where dugcarr was likely wrong, but I want to help get some of the system changed to the better. I hope to do this by posting (hopefully) intelligent reasoned posts on the forum. I thought I mentioned I did not support dugcarr, or was that not clear?

Has our society become SO forced to tolerate, that we allow immoral actions, because that person's moral code may be different then ours? Injustice is one thin, intolerance is another.

See my previous answer. Are you questioning my morals?

The lines seem to be blurred to some of you. It is upsetting, as a human being, to see others defend his actions and see it as a fight against the system. There is a way to approach matters in life, and the way Dug chose was wrong. No matter if you think his punishment was too harsh, you must admit that his actions were clearly out of line.

Thats what I said. Quote: he bribing someone with a years membership was wrong.

You aren't the judge. You don't know all the details. Don't make rash comments supporting Dug and his activities unless you are prepared to argue the validity of his actions, and openly debate the issue in an adult like manner.

You are right, I do not know all the details, that is why I asked some questions. I also asked how this effects my personal opinions on the scoring system. Once again I must point out that I have not supported dugcarr's actions at any point.

No more name calling. No more Annoying spam posts. Action was taken. Action was deserved. Fin.

Congratulations upon missing the point. You come across as one of the unquestioning sheep that the people in power rely upon.

MG.[/quote]

You do realize high ranked players get like 10 points or less for a doubles win? You do realize they lose like 40-50 points for a loss right? Now I just glanced at a few of these doubles games with Blitz paired with a low ranked player, so the numbers are a bit vague. I would be curious to see if anyone actually looked at Blitz's stats over time to prove your alleged "broken system" point?

Those seem to be very vague numbers, and somewhat wrong. I posted a link to a forum post above about why I think the scoring system is broken. For convenience would it help to repost them here?

MG.

I've read your post, and I've played in team games with and against Blitz and other high scorers. You just don't win as many points in a team game. You have to win so many more team games to equal the points you can win in a single game. My numbers weren't wrong, I went and looked at some of Blitz's dubs games. Ggranted, I didn't look at them all, that's too time-consuming for me, so was wondering if someone else had.

wicked wrote:I've heard a few people claim "it's broken." Can someone please explain to me in a succinct, readable post why you think that?

Well, I believe the balance is not even when you compare singles to team games. The point of the chess-style scoring system is that you cannot go up forever, you will eventually reach a balance. For a player of equal skill in all types of games, he will reach his "balance" at a much lower score with singles than with team games.

With singles, you must assume that your "average" player has a 1 in 6 chance of winning a 6 person standard game. However, once your score is much over 2000, you must win 50% or more of your singles games. This is simply not possible, given all the random factors that can go against you, such as bad rolls, bad cards, bad starting position, or the stupidity of one player handing the game to another player (who isn't you). And even the best players get just plain outplayed sometimes. Colonel games can somewhat offset this, but at that point you're playing against all Colonels, gaining only the same points you were when you were lower ranked.

Team games, on the other hand, you can win well over 50%. My team wins around 19 out of 20 triples games. We will not reach a balance until we are winning 3 points and losing 60 points. At an average team score of around 2000, we are currently winning 9 points and losing 32 points against opponents of average score around 1000.

The problem I have with it is once I reach a score of 2500, I must make a choice. Either I can continue playing singles games, which will result in holding my score down, or I can only play triples and nothing else and eventually become a general. That is the key to why this is unfair, in my view. I don't have a problem with Blitz or any of the other generals, good for them for getting such a high score. But it does not seem fair that the scoring system here will deny me an entire game type.

This is aside from the fact that you are punished for playing challenging games. Of the best players I've encountered on this site, several of the people who take on better players in clan battles, the Callout forum or other places often dip below Colonel. Their scores do not reflect their abilities.

So there you have it, that's why it's broken.

I've read your post, and I've played in team games with and against Blitz and other high scorers. You just don't win as many points in a team game. You have to win so many more team games to equal the points you can win in a single game. My numbers weren't wrong, I went and looked at some of Blitz's dubs games. Ggranted, I didn't look at them all, that's too time-consuming for me, so was wondering if someone else had.

My post didn't say you did, my post outlined how the (broken) score system favours the teams players; Quote:

I rarely if ever play team games. I play singles and in those games sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. I win, I get lots of points, I lose then I lose only a few.

Since I lose more points the more I have of them, and gain more the less I have, then it balances out and it's a pretty good system.

Enter the team games. Blitz the 4000 points dude and a private with 500 are in a doubles game against two generals. Blitz and the private win. The private should get a shed load of points, and Blitz a lot less. But they get equal.

I understand the points in team games shouldn't be split the same as in single games, since Blitz may be at a disadvantage teamed with a private versus two generals.

However, he shouldn't get equal points either. The private afterall has defeated a team of two generals with only one general on his team.

Final conclusion: If Blitz played only standard games, would he have 4000 points? I think he would be up there certainly, but the balancing of points wouldn't let him anywhere near that figure. Why, as a standard game player should I not have a shot at the higher ranks because I prefer not to play team games?

In essense Blitz, a great CC player, plays lots of team games, and he is good at them. A standard game player, who is just as good as blitz, and plays just as many games, gets nowhere near as many points as blitz.

Take a look at the scoreboard, take a look at how many generals play mostly all standard games as opposed to mostly all team games. Then come back here and reply to me with a straight face that that has nothing to do with the scoring system.

MG.

Thanks Samus.

I would like to suggest that the points, and the scoreboard, really are meaningless. I wouldn't care if the system was rigged so that I could never get more than 10 points for a win, and always lost 50 when I lost a game. I'm just here to play, and have fun, which I'm capable of doing win or lose.

wicked wrote:I've heard a few people claim "it's broken." Can someone please explain to me in a succinct, readable post why you think that?

because since a players sux, and his or her score is at 200, when they win, they get 100 points from ever player.

I would like to suggest that the points, and the scoreboard, really are meaningless. I wouldn't care if the system was rigged so that I could never get more than 10 points for a win, and always lost 50 when I lost a game. I'm just here to play, and have fun, which I'm capable of doing win or lose.

That is fair enough and I respect that. It has no meaning really.

Perhaps you see competition as meaningless. Perhaps you hope to find a life partner? Or some friends to chat with? Or maybe you like the pretty numbers?

CC games are competative in nature. You are here to play and have fun, so am I, but dont pretend that CC is fun for any other reason than competition.

So I submit to you that competition is why CC is so fun. Futhermore I would invite you to argue how the scoring system, that I shown to favour team competitors over single player competitors, makes CC more fun by favouring those few who know how to abuse as opposed to compete.

MG.

I have played at CC for over a year. I have Played singles doubles and triples.

Let me first say the points are important to me for 1 reason I earned them, And if you have ever Played me and took points from me then you HAVE EARNED THEM.

I know longer play doubles or Triples because I like to depend on my self.

I move from colonel to sargent constantly. But mostly stay around Major.

I play for fun and I play to teach, But the points system does give me something to work for.

This CC does evolve though, WE use to not get points for dead beats now we do.

If you have a better way than the point system we have then put it in the suggestion area, but do not say that I or any player have not earned their points and the the point system is broken. I earned my points

What is so wrong with being a sheep?

Generals rely on their men to follow orders w/o questioning. So subservience is not a bad quality. I look for it in men that are under me in the work place. They are trustworthy.

To adhere to governmental, family, or spiritual authoritys isn't a weakness. It is a strength as far as I am concerned and it seems to be bothering people that I belong to a clan that stands for anarchy. Maybe I ought to alleviate that?

wacicha wrote:I have played at CC for over a year. I have Played singles doubles and triples.

Let me first say the points are important to me for 1 reason I earned them, And if you have ever Played me and took points from me then you HAVE EARNED THEM.

I know longer play doubles or singles because I like to depend on my self.

I move from colonel to sargent constantly. But mostly stay around Major.

I play for fun and I play to teach, But the points system does give me something to work for.

This CC does evolve though, WE use to not get points for dead beats now we do.

If you have a better way than the point system we have then put it in the suggestion area, but do not say that I or any player have not earned their points and the the point system is broken. I earned my points

excellent point wacicha, my points to me are more important to a scoreboard position, i know ive earned my points fairly 100% of the time, and to me i know ive earned my points mostly from standard games , ive played numerous doubles with great partners , but my points are mine.

in the few games ive been involved in multis , ive been agreaved that if i lost points they were by unfair methods

if doug had of caused blitz to lose points then its the same , you might say it didnt happen it was just suggested , but come one he was willing to pay and went behind closed doors via pm to make it happen, he deserved punishment , im not saying what happened was just because i only see what i read but he was punished .

let the games continue , he was just one colourful character , there are many more ......

I've lost more than I've earned.

i do really want to say something... i dunno blitz at all but...
i am a well ranked guy with over 1900 points and i know how hard is to keep it like that.....so instead of screwing around and saying that the "score system is broken or anything.....look at it this way
1- if nobody could ever get 4000 points in CC that figure of numbers would have never been there
2-try to play dubs games if u think they r the reason of High scores and u will know they r even more difficult then standard games...coordinating with ur team mate and blablabla...etc.
3-Holding on to 3000+ for a long time means 1 thing : u r a good player
4-when u r high score as blitz u have to win 5 dubs games just to equal the number of points lost in 1 game meaning u have to win 80% of those games.......... too much right
5-dugcarr is an asshole
Thank you

chessplaya wrote:i do really want to say something... i dunno blitz at all but...
i am a well ranked guy with over 1900 points and i know how hard is to keep it like that.....so instead of screwing around and saying that the "score system is broken or anything.....look at it this way
1- if nobody could ever get 4000 points in CC that figure of numbers would have never been there
2-try to play dubs games if u think they r the reason of High scores and u will know they r even more difficult then standard games...coordinating with ur team mate and blablabla...etc.
3-Holding on to 3000+ for a long time means 1 thing : u r a good player
4-when u r high score as blitz u have to win 5 dubs games just to equal the number of points lost in 1 game meaning u have to win 80% of those games.......... too much right
5-dugcarr is an asshole
Thank you

I think you have to win more that 5 to match your 1 lose. Other than that, right on!

crazing cattle u know i am still waiting on that rematch
LOL i cant let u running away around CC holding my points

Check your inbox buddy! I have been holding on to those for far too long.

GrazingCattle wrote:Check your inbox buddy! I have been holding on to those for far too long.

youre on mate but check ur positions i am dead yet another time