New ignorees...

[beav77]

Lukejoppa14 and Son of a Bix. Go ahead and put 'em on ur ignore list. They aren't "technically" cheating, so I didnt put this in cheating and abuse reports, but they have an announced alliance every game so basically it's bending the rules to cheat. Check it out:

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=305861

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=290261

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=288962

Just a heads up.

[Kugelblitz22]

This is very interesting...Not technically cheating but definitely garbage.

[podge]

A right pair of arseholes. On my ignore list too

[autoload]

Yup.

[Genghis Khan CA]

Thanks for the heads up beav77... they just made my list

[tahitiwahini]

Thanks beav77 for the heads up.

A couple of poster boys for poor sportsmanship. One could infer that they have a standing agreement to team in each standard game they play together. Judging for the positive feedback they have left for each other, they have every intention of making this a career.

I would like to know what's wrong with the other players in these games. To date Lukejoppa14 and "Son of a Bix" have no negative feedback.

In the first and third game they had "teamed" before the beginning of round 4.

In the second game they had "teamed" before the second round.

Obviously these are not alliances that are intended to reign in the dominant player, because pretty much unless someone is flopped a continent (which didn't happen in any of the games) it's not possible to be dominant after one round.

The players in the second game should have all left these two negative feedback.

Thank you for letting us know. These two go on my ignore-list, which up to this point had been empty.

By the way I'm a defender of alliances in certain circumstances. Most alliances are matters of survival and are usually entered into by the weaker players to reign in the dominant player. These two entered into an alliance so they could be a "team" in a standard game. It's unacceptable and since they don't seem to understand that, they go on my ignore-list.

[Windparson]

I have only left 2 negative feedbacks and for 1 of them I got a retaliatory negative. I believe that's why a lot of people don't leave a negative.

I pm'ed Wicked and hopefully the negative I received will be removed.

Windparson

Game 297724

Player Samdwich84

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=297724#gmtop

[Coleman]

The problem with giving people negative feedback (why I never do it) is because of revenge feedback which usually gets ignored and sticks with people forever. I have seen many blatant revenge feedbacks on upstanding players...

[perchorin]

that's some good work there beav

[beav77]

The problem with giving people negative feedback (why I never do it) is because of revenge feedback which usually gets ignored and sticks with people forever. I have seen many blatant revenge feedbacks on upstanding players...

lol well i figured posting in the forum would do better than negative feedback anyways, which seems to have worked

[b.k. barunt]

I looked at the game logs, and i don't understand when you say they weren't "technically" cheating. 2 people enter a game, with the deliberate intention of cheating (i.e. undeclared alliance), and yet they are not "technically" cheating. Would someone please explain "technically" to me?

[beav77]

They announce their alliance, so it's not an unannounced alliance. They just make it appear to be unplanned, but nevertheless it's announced.

[Wisse]

mb or fp can you block them for playing with eachoter?

[joeyjordison]

I looked at the game logs, and i don't understand when you say they weren't "technically" cheating. 2 people enter a game, with the deliberate intention of cheating (i.e. undeclared alliance), and yet they are not "technically" cheating. Would someone please explain "technically" to me?

you are right. if people join a singles game with a pre-meditated agreement to have an alliance then its a secret alliance because they have to about it before.

bust em

[podge]

I looked at the game logs, and i don't understand when you say they weren't "technically" cheating. 2 people enter a game, with the deliberate intention of cheating (i.e. undeclared alliance), and yet they are not "technically" cheating. Would someone please explain "technically" to me?

you are right. if people join a singles game with a pre-meditated agreement to have an alliance then its a secret alliance because they have to about it before.

bust em

Maybe not. You can't be busted for having a secret alliance in a game that doesn't exist, and if you declare an alliance at the very star of the game then it's not secret. Even if halfway through the game an alliance is formed, provided no prior communication has taken part between the players then that can't be called secret. A very shitty way to play I agree but could they be busted for it.... I don't know.

[SAHM]

What I found particularly interesting is that when Son of a Bix called for an alliance, he referred to Lukejoppa14 as 'joppa'. In games where I don't know the people, I refer to them by their whole name, or the beginning of their name or their color in the game. NEVER have I addressed someone as a name pulled from the middle of their character name.

Since the first game they played together didn't have any indication by lukejoppa14 that he goes by 'joppa' I would venture to guess they obviously know each other out of game - or in the least, knew each other prior to the first game.

My 2 cents.

[MeDeFe]

idk, I might refer to other players in more or less any way (except by colour, that's kind of rude), but a part of the name is fine and should by understood by everybody.


Anyway, two more names to my ignore list.

[detlef]

At the end of the day, I don't think this sort of thing needs to be protected by some strict interpretation of the rules because it's not like playing on CC is not some inalienable right that one should have to show overwhelming evidence to deprive someone of.

It's a freaking game and a place where a lot of us enjoy coming to engage in fair battle. These two jerk-offs obviously don't give a crap about fair battle and I think there is plenty of evidence to support this, enough that they should be banned.

As I have argued before, simply exposing people like this in the forums is not enough because there are plenty of people who don't bother with the forum. I had likely logged about 50 or more games before I donned my geek hat and ventured into here. I think the admins should err on the side of protecting some random and casual player from entering a game where they have little chance from the outset because of guys like this.

In fact, it is in CC's best interest. Had my first game been with these guys, I may not have been sucked in and perhaps not become a premium member. The ease of cheating plagues many on-line games, in fact, it's borderline insanity to engage in on-line poker. I knew of guys who all sat in the same room with their laptops and fleeced outsiders because they all knew each other's hands.

Just my .02 but this is not a court of law and these pricks needn't be shown the courtesy of the benefit of the doubt.