GLG verdict

[Woodruff]

Yes, you all [who?] know he cheated. In fact you decided that from the onset. Too bad it seems to be impossible for any of you to come up with an explanation of what exactly he did that was "cheating".

So now you're stooping to outright lies? This is your method for debating the issue?

Whether or not you believe GLG is a cheat, you must consider the methods used to try to curb the unwanted practices that he was implementing. This should have been dealt with in a different manner rather than try to wrap rules around a specific player. Whether or not he was searching out players with little experience in his preferred game, the simple facts remain that talking to a player beforehand is not wrong. Neither is asking for a game, whatever the setting. Setting up private games is not illegal. He was not seeking out NRs nor was he even targeting low ranks. Just because your opponent does not know a particular map or setting is not grounds for 'abuse'. I am not aware of any way to coerce a player on this site to play a game so obviously the game is consensual. The fact remains that a player can choose the games he/she wishes to play, and there are no regulations regarding having to play public games. The simple fact that the mods are suggesting that it is possible for any of these actions that are not against the rules are punishable is ludicrous. These are actions taken everyday by the various members of this website.

Quite right.

At least jghost7 has a reasonable approach to the issue. You might try it.

[Mr Changsha]

This thread has reminded me of the old battles regarding farming. How we argued over extending the farming limits to cooks, and then low ranks...looking back it is clear I lost every one of those arguments.

Yet here we are in 2012 and the battle lines are still drawn exactly as before. Some of us argue for 'responsibility', as in that everyone here (no matter their rank) must be responsible for the game selections they make. Others argue for 'responsibility' as in it is the responsibility of the elite to avoid exploiting the lower-ranked.

Sadly, the latter definition of responsibility is more enticing those who are points-hungry themselves. Those who are naturally jealous of those with more and better. And so now we are here in the absolutely ridiculous position of suggesting players with hundreds of games here don't know what they are playing and need to be 'protected'. Of course this is simply a convenient argument to cover the blatant, small-minded envy of a vocal, yet one must admit, successful minority.

You guys won the argument.

Yet it stinks just as much now (as we find officers are apparently incapable of taking responsibility for their gaming choices) as it did when cooks were deemed 'insufficiently intelligent'. But let no one be fooled...this and other rulings have always had everything to do with jealousy, and nothing to do with fairness.

As this thread inspired me to look back, I selected a post to farangdemon explaining why cooks must be responsible for themselves (back in early 2009). I think it is even more pertinent today.

Farangdemon's ideas remind me a lot of New Labour's social policies. Just as the poor (in New Labour's world) cannot be trusted to buy their own council house, or find their own job, or choose where their children go to school, or which hospital they want to be treated in; so our own poor (cooks) cannot be trusted to make their own gaming decisions here on CC. They need to be protected from their own incompetence, protected from the maxatstuy's and King H's of our world for their own good. Heaven forbid we ask our poor to stand on their own two feet! Luckily, Lack obviously has more sense with regards to the lower classes in his world. Here they have every right to get absolutely raped( ) time and time again by some unscrupulous high-ranker if they so desire. Just as the poor man in our societies has the right to throw his benefit check away in a casino week after week after week, so our cooks have the right to throw their points away (the horror!) in game after game on formats they don't slightly understand, or even want to understand. This is the nature of liberty, farangdemon. The liberty to completely waste your life without being sent to re-education camps (cook school), the right to idiotically hand over your wage to bookies because you can't be bothered to think about how to use the money more productively (point inflation), the liberty to quit job after job and therefore sink to the lowest socio-economic status (deadbeat).

Of course, you are merely following the path I said you would. Your social-engineering sort will never be content. You will continue to attempt to corrupt the liberties and freedoms of the people in your endless quest to remake a society in your own image. It is rank egoism. Once farming had been declared 'against the good of society' - which in your mind seems to roughly equate to the landlords exploiting the peasants - we now move on to cooks. But remember that once the landlords were liquidated in China (and I use the term correctly) it was replaced by collectivisation, mass poverty and starvation.

The trouble with the farangdemon's of this world has always been that on the surface they seem so virtuous, honest and good. They want equality, fairness and, most of all, order. Yet one must never be fooled. For every social-engineer is as selfish as any rank capitalist as well as being markedly less honest. He will demand equality in an effort to raise himself beyond the masses, preach fairness as he rigs the system as thoroughly as any fat cat CEO.

[chang50]

Wow changsha you pretty much nailed it there with your analysis of the motives of the self righteous hypocrites who have fatuously appointed themselves moral guardians of cc.

[GoranZ]

Some people are butthurt because GLG is gaining points in a way they don't approve. But it's not GLG:s fault, it's the fault of a flawed scoring system, a flawed site interface, etc. that allows him to benefit from it. Punishing individual players is just a bandage solution, and this whole GLG thing is just a witch hunt.

As I said before using flaws in the system to get something is cheating... it is cheating everywhere, not only in CC. And CC has rule for it, gross abuse of the game. If 20K players play by the rules and 1 play using flaws you don't change the system, you just ban the "smart" one. Simple, and the flaws you mentioned are temporary fixed.

GLG will get permanent ban regardless what you say or do... get use to it

There isn't "20k player play by the rules", there's 14.5k players and a lot more than 1 of those are "cheating" by your definition... there's plenty of players who game the system to get points. What's the difference with what GLG does, and for example, starting public team games with an established team on a difficult/unpopular map and waiting for noobs to join up - it's the same thing. Pretty much anyone over colonel rank has to be gaming the system in some way to maintain that rank.

So the funny thing is, you're as much a cheater as GLG is. You manipulate the system as much as he does, you're just not as good at it.

Can you spell hypocrite?

The scoring system has one great feature... If someone cheat once the income from that cheating will fade away over time, so in order to sustain the income there is a need for constant cheating, and exactly that is GLG doing.

lol I don not manipulate anything The games I create are open for everyone to join for weeks(even for GLG or you, but you two are too afraid and do not join lol)
IF I wanted to exploit bugs from the game I had a chance but instead of exploiting the bug in the game I reported it(only 6 games were affected until it was fixed) ... Even your Antarctica map would have had the bug if it wasn't fixed then

Once again...

GLG will get permanent ban regardless what you say or do... get use to it

[Woodruff]

Wow changsha you pretty much nailed it there with your analysis of the motives of the self righteous hypocrites who have fatuously appointed themselves moral guardians of cc.

I'm a pretty self-righteous guy, I'll admit...but I don't believe I'm being hypocritical at all here.

[chang50]

Wow changsha you pretty much nailed it there with your analysis of the motives of the self righteous hypocrites who have fatuously appointed themselves moral guardians of cc.

I'm a pretty self-righteous guy, I'll admit...but I don't believe I'm being hypocritical at all here.

I don't suppose you were part of the campaign to have glg banned either,I see you merely support the decision.However there are others whose motives are should we say less noble.

[Johnny Rockets]

Less noble than what?

It's a difference of opinion on the perspective of the law.

In one camp you have a party (that includes you...) that everyone must stand on their own, defend themselves and suffer exploitation to the limits of their abilities.

In the other camp, we have those who believe the overall community should be minimally guarded against those who selfishly exploit rules and other members for their personal gain.

Camp two does not like predators, camp one protects them out of fear of sliding into a nanny state .

Have a little faith in the ability of the site to establish reasonable boundaries withing the scope of it's own authority. There isn't a group of high ranking members being targeted here, it's just one idiot who's perseverance towards purposefully engaging in an activity that the membership and admins do not want in the gaming environment.

Witch hunt.
Pretty shitty hunt. Only one witch.


But hey, that bitch floated like a boss.


Johnny Rockets

[eddie2]

natty read the warning...

king achilles wrote:I would like to connect this past report to this current report that we have right now, as it was stated there that he was/is "point harvesting" through private games:

viewtopic.php?f=239&t=166533

Although the pm's mentioned here could have been suggested/influenced or filtered to produce a certain view of the case, it is still undeniable that the past report above indicated that private games are being set up to unsuspecting players numerous times. This shows that Gen.LeeGettinhed is systematically soliciting/inviting certain players for the purpose of ranching.

Private 1 vs 1 games are as follows:
Game 10811352Watch game
Game 10789117Watch game
Game 10768654Watch game
Game 10763820Watch game
Game 10742454Watch game
Game 10741441Watch game
Game 10587777Watch game
Game 10548678Watch game
Game 10547675Watch game
Game 10536422Watch game
Game 10529562Watch game
Game 10502745Watch game
Game 10476064Watch game
Game 10471798Watch game
Game 10455367Watch game
Game 10440127Watch game
Game 10434598Watch game
Game 10421836Watch game
Game 10421706Watch game
Game 10410510Watch game
Game 10410225Watch game
Game 10392172Watch game
Game 10381247Watch game
Game 10371639Watch game
Game 10362805Watch game
Game 10336493Watch game

and the list goes on...

Basically, in these 1 vs 1 games, the opponent does not have an idea of how to play the map or how to engage in the settings of the game that was made. It's like you constructed a way to make a player become like a "new recruit", because you made a game that he will play for the first time in which you have played countless times already. Regularly doing this to different (unsuspecting) players is a systematic way of ranching points for yourself. These games exhibits a pattern of how someone can methodically target specific ranks or players that have no idea on how to play the map for the purpose of ranching. It's not fair to regularly do this. We will classify this as a gross abuse of the game.

Since we have always seen him as someone who just prefers to play against low ranked players in the past, re-checking his private games with certain settings has shed some light that this practice is more malicious than it seems. This does not mean that no one is allowed anymore to invite low ranks or unfamiliar players to private games. You can play any ranks publicly or privately but make sure that this practice is not done in extreme numbers to the point that you are already doing this regularly, seeking out specific ranks or players in order to ranch some points.

As this is Gen.LeeGettinhed's first major infraction, he is officially warned to stop setting up private games to lure unsuspecting players from now on.

the warning did not mention what rank he was playing the warning was for how he found opponants. at present it has been put under ranching (but due to no rule formally being made of yet surronding ranching, it falls under gross abuse rule.)

facts

glg was warned for ranching and how he found opponants to stop doing it.
glg played 5 clan games only.
glg then started using the same as his warning to get 1 v 1 games again...

[natty dread]

due to no rule formally being made of yet surronding ranching

Wait wait wait

didn't that one guy just recently say ranching is now against the rules? Yet now it's there's no actual rule against it? Make up your mind, guys.

In one camp you have a party (that includes you...) that everyone must stand on their own, defend themselves and suffer exploitation to the limits of their abilities.

Do you know what a "strawman argument" is? No one needs to suffer "exploitation". If someone chooses to join a game of their own free will, and loses fairly (ie. the other party doesn't use any cheats), that's not "exploitation".

Face it, you don't want to protect the low ranks, you just want to lash out at people who have more points than you.

lol I don not manipulate anything The games I create are open for everyone to join for weeks

That doesn't exclude you from being a cheater. You manipulate the scoring system by way of game selection. You create public team games with established teams, hoping that noobs join up - how much chance does that random team of 3 noobs realistically have against your pre-established, experienced triples team? You're doing the exact same thing as GLG, only your methods are different.

I guess it's convenient for you to specify arbitrary qualifications for "cheating", as long as they exclude you from the definition...

According to your arguement glg is not a cheater, how can then all the top rankers be cheaters.

Apparently you have some trouble understanding what you read. I did specify "under your definition of cheater". If GLG is a cheater, then most of the top ranks are as well. Is that so hard to understand?

[jgordon1111]

Wow changsha you pretty much nailed it there with your analysis of the motives of the self righteous hypocrites who have fatuously appointed themselves moral guardians of cc.

I'm a pretty self-righteous guy, I'll admit...but I don't believe I'm being hypocritical at all here.

I don't suppose you were part of the campaign to have glg banned either,I see you merely support the decision.However there are others whose motives are should we say less noble.

chang50 you talk alot and seem to read less,Not everyone who was in favor of this ban have ulterior motives(some may have)but probably not the majority.

[jgordon1111]

due to no rule formally being made of yet surronding ranching

Wait wait wait

didn't that one guy just recently say ranching is now against the rules? Yet now it's there's no actual rule against it? Make up your mind, guys.

In one camp you have a party (that includes you...) that everyone must stand on their own, defend themselves and suffer exploitation to the limits of their abilities.

Do you know what a "strawman argument" is? No one needs to suffer "exploitation". If someone chooses to join a game of their own free will, and loses fairly (ie. the other party doesn't use any cheats), that's not "exploitation".

Face it, you don't want to protect the low ranks, you just want to lash out at people who have more points than you.

lol I don not manipulate anything The games I create are open for everyone to join for weeks

That doesn't exclude you from being a cheater. You manipulate the scoring system by way of game selection. You create public team games with established teams, hoping that noobs join up - how much chance does that random team of 3 noobs realistically have against your pre-established, experienced triples team? You're doing the exact same thing as GLG, only your methods are different.

I guess it's convenient for you to specify arbitrary qualifications for "cheating", as long as they exclude you from the definition...

According to your arguement glg is not a cheater, how can then all the top rankers be cheaters.

Apparently you have some trouble understanding what you read. I did specify "under your definition of cheater". If GLG is a cheater, then most of the top ranks are as well. Is that so hard to understand?

Apparently natty you have forgotten your own argument,that glg didnt break any rules.What rule did he break you asked i.e, he didnt cheat.

now you say glg and all top rankers are cheaters

[chang50]

due to no rule formally being made of yet surronding ranching

Wait wait wait

didn't that one guy just recently say ranching is now against the rules? Yet now it's there's no actual rule against it? Make up your mind, guys.

In one camp you have a party (that includes you...) that everyone must stand on their own, defend themselves and suffer exploitation to the limits of their abilities.

Do you know what a "strawman argument" is? No one needs to suffer "exploitation". If someone chooses to join a game of their own free will, and loses fairly (ie. the other party doesn't use any cheats), that's not "exploitation".

Face it, you don't want to protect the low ranks, you just want to lash out at people who have more points than you.

lol I don not manipulate anything The games I create are open for everyone to join for weeks

That doesn't exclude you from being a cheater. You manipulate the scoring system by way of game selection. You create public team games with established teams, hoping that noobs join up - how much chance does that random team of 3 noobs realistically have against your pre-established, experienced triples team? You're doing the exact same thing as GLG, only your methods are different.

I guess it's convenient for you to specify arbitrary qualifications for "cheating", as long as they exclude you from the definition...

According to your arguement glg is not a cheater, how can then all the top rankers be cheaters.

Apparently you have some trouble understanding what you read. I did specify "under your definition of cheater". If GLG is a cheater, then most of the top ranks are as well. Is that so hard to understand?

Apparently natty you have forgotten your own argument,that glg didnt break any rules.What rule did he break you asked i.e, he didnt cheat.

now you say glg and all top rankers are cheaters

You accuse me of talking a lot and not reading yet you have totally misunderstood natty's point,he argued that by YOUR DEFINITION of cheating as applied to glg then many top rankers are also cheaters.Go back and read it again carefully its all there in black and white.

[eddie2]

due to no rule formally being made of yet surronding ranching

Wait wait wait

didn't that one guy just recently say ranching is now against the rules? Yet now it's there's no actual rule against it? Make up your mind, guys.

In one camp you have a party (that includes you...) that everyone must stand on their own, defend themselves and suffer exploitation to the limits of their abilities.

Do you know what a "strawman argument" is? No one needs to suffer "exploitation". If someone chooses to join a game of their own free will, and loses fairly (ie. the other party doesn't use any cheats), that's not "exploitation".

Face it, you don't want to protect the low ranks, you just want to lash out at people who have more points than you.

lol I don not manipulate anything The games I create are open for everyone to join for weeks

That doesn't exclude you from being a cheater. You manipulate the scoring system by way of game selection. You create public team games with established teams, hoping that noobs join up - how much chance does that random team of 3 noobs realistically have against your pre-established, experienced triples team? You're doing the exact same thing as GLG, only your methods are different.

I guess it's convenient for you to specify arbitrary qualifications for "cheating", as long as they exclude you from the definition...

According to your arguement glg is not a cheater, how can then all the top rankers be cheaters.

Apparently you have some trouble understanding what you read. I did specify "under your definition of cheater". If GLG is a cheater, then most of the top ranks are as well. Is that so hard to understand?

Apparently natty you have forgotten your own argument,that glg didnt break any rules.What rule did he break you asked i.e, he didnt cheat.

now you say glg and all top rankers are cheaters

even better natty no no rule has been formally put in place for ranching but go read

1)lacks comment in that thread or the other one that was open at that time.
2)the jolly ranchers user group he tried to open (king achilles post)
3) the warning that said after further looking at how he does it they are going to class it as gross abuse of the game and warned him not to do it again.
4) his very next singles games he done it again
5)he did not listen to his warning to stop the carry on..

ps i just spent 2 mins looking at your posts


Re: 7239410

Postby natty dread on Sun Aug 22, 2010 10:58 pm
lol @ that game.

David H... what a loser. So concerned with virtual points that he's trying to trick the guy into losing by giving him bullshit advice about the map.

I guess his farming backfired...

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=124912&p=2743233&hilit=farming#p2743233
this guy had played 75 games so was not new to the site. and had been onsite more than 1 month so at that point you classed it as farming but now you say it isn't make up your mind man

[jgordon1111]

due to no rule formally being made of yet surronding ranching

Wait wait wait

didn't that one guy just recently say ranching is now against the rules? Yet now it's there's no actual rule against it? Make up your mind, guys.

In one camp you have a party (that includes you...) that everyone must stand on their own, defend themselves and suffer exploitation to the limits of their abilities.

Do you know what a "strawman argument" is? No one needs to suffer "exploitation". If someone chooses to join a game of their own free will, and loses fairly (ie. the other party doesn't use any cheats), that's not "exploitation".

Face it, you don't want to protect the low ranks, you just want to lash out at people who have more points than you.

lol I don not manipulate anything The games I create are open for everyone to join for weeks

That doesn't exclude you from being a cheater. You manipulate the scoring system by way of game selection. You create public team games with established teams, hoping that noobs join up - how much chance does that random team of 3 noobs realistically have against your pre-established, experienced triples team? You're doing the exact same thing as GLG, only your methods are different.

I guess it's convenient for you to specify arbitrary qualifications for "cheating", as long as they exclude you from the definition...

According to your arguement glg is not a cheater, how can then all the top rankers be cheaters.

Apparently you have some trouble understanding what you read. I did specify "under your definition of cheater". If GLG is a cheater, then most of the top ranks are as well. Is that so hard to understand?

Apparently natty you have forgotten your own argument,that glg didnt break any rules.What rule did he break you asked i.e, he didnt cheat.

now you say glg and all top rankers are cheaters

even better natty no no rule has been formally put in place for ranching but go read

1)lacks comment in that thread or the other one that was open at that time.
2)the jolly ranchers user group he tried to open (king achilles post)
3) the warning that said after further looking at how he does it they are going to class it as gross abuse of the game and warned him not to do it again.
4) his very next singles games he done it again
5)he did not listen to his warning to stop the carry on..

ps i just spent 2 mins looking at your posts


Re: 7239410

Postby natty dread on Sun Aug 22, 2010 10:58 pm
lol @ that game.

David H... what a loser. So concerned with virtual points that he's trying to trick the guy into losing by giving him bullshit advice about the map.

I guess his farming backfired...

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=124912&p=2743233&hilit=farming#p2743233
this guy had played 75 games so was not new to the site. and had been onsite more than 1 month so at that point you classed it as farming but now you say it isn't make up your mind man

LOL +1

[Woodruff]

Less noble than what?

I presume he's referring to those who either are after GLG because they just don't like him and those who are supported GLG because he's a buddy. There have been some of both sides in the discussion, unfortunately. But I don't believe the majority are.

[GoranZ]

lol I don not manipulate anything The games I create are open for everyone to join for weeks

That doesn't exclude you from being a cheater. You manipulate the scoring system by way of game selection. You create public team games with established teams, hoping that noobs join up - how much chance does that random team of 3 noobs realistically have against your pre-established, experienced triples team? You're doing the exact same thing as GLG, only your methods are different.

I guess it's convenient for you to specify arbitrary qualifications for "cheating", as long as they exclude you from the definition...

lol you really have serous problems with your definicions of fair play...

1. I make public games, not private.
2. Eveyone can join games I make, players that know the map, players that do not, experts on it... literaly everyone, including you or GLG(its not my problem that you or GLG are afraid )
3. I do not hope for noobs to join my games, I take more points from established teams
4. Is eveyone that has diferent opinion from you a cheater? If thats the case you should visit a Doctor... they are profesionals they can help you.

[natty dread]

ps i just spent 2 mins looking at your posts


Re: 7239410

Postby natty dread on Sun Aug 22, 2010 10:58 pm
lol @ that game.

David H... what a loser. So concerned with virtual points that he's trying to trick the guy into losing by giving him bullshit advice about the map.

I guess his farming backfired...

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=124912&p=2743233&hilit=farming#p2743233
this guy had played 75 games so was not new to the site. and had been onsite more than 1 month so at that point you classed it as farming but now you say it isn't make up your mind man

Well I'm quite flattered that you go to the trouble of digging up my posts from 2 years ago, but it's really quite irrelevant in the context of the current discourse. There's no law saying I have to agree with everything I've said 2 years ago - heck, a lot of the time I don't agree with myself from 2 weeks ago. Past me is such an idiot sometimes.

Apparently natty you have forgotten your own argument,that glg didnt break any rules.What rule did he break you asked i.e, he didnt cheat.

now you say glg and all top rankers are cheaters

I don't know why this is so difficult for you. Perhaps you need some remedial classes?

You know what, I think I'm going to have to assign you to the "slow readers" group...

[GoranZ]

Well I'm quite flattered that you go to the trouble of digging up my posts from 2 years ago, but it's really quite irrelevant in the context of the current discourse. There's no law saying I have to agree with everything I've said 2 years ago - heck, a lot of the time I don't agree with myself from 2 weeks ago. Past me is such an idiot sometimes.

Few more days guys... and natty will change his mind about glg ... but there is a problem, everyone else will be a cheater(for 2 weeks)

[natty dread]

lol you really have serous problems with your definicions of fair play...

1. I make public games, not private.

Yes, yes, it is very convenient for you that you get to define cheating by your own terms. You just say "as long as I make public games, I'm not cheating". But GLG can also say "as long as I don't invite people, I'm not cheating". The question is, why is he guilty of gross abuse, and you aren't?

2. Eveyone can join games I make, players that know the map, players that do not, experts on it... literaly everyone, including you or GLG(its not my problem that you or GLG are afraid )

Yes, and no one has to join GLG:s games. But the fact is, that people join GLG:s games. The fact also is, that noobs who have no clue join your triples games. There's really no difference - it's just that you've chosen to draw an arbitrary line which conveniently leaves you on the non-cheater side. This way you get to keep hoarding your easy points, and you also get the satisfaction of pointing fingers at others and feeling moral superiority... it's really quite dishonest, but I guess it's ok since so many others do it too.

3. I do not hope for noobs to join my games, I take more points from established teams

I don't think there is a mens rea clause on the CC rulebook.

4. Is eveyone that has diferent opinion from you a cheater? If thats the case you should visit a Doctor... they are profesionals they can help you.

I always feel a bit guilty if I happen to poke fun of people who give an impression of being slow of wit. It seems a bit too easy... so I'm just going to let this one pass.

[Johnny Rockets]

In one camp you have a party (that includes you...) that everyone must stand on their own, defend themselves and suffer exploitation to the limits of their abilities.

Do you know what a "strawman argument" is? No one needs to suffer "exploitation". If someone chooses to join a game of their own free will, and loses fairly (ie. the other party doesn't use any cheats), that's not "exploitation".

Face it, you don't want to protect the low ranks, you just want to lash out at people who have more points than you.

I was referring to Changs post.
It's not all about you, Natty. Even though you try so hard to make it so.

Listen, you have not credibility. You change you mind and you opinions depending on what positions are left to argue. You just like the attention. You bleat and bitch tirelessly until you wear everyone else down with your persistent tangents, and if you run out of steam you just post insults.

You are a fucking horrible infantile debater and a pathetic poster. You don't make maps any more, you don't play much and you don't fiscally support the site.

So what do you fucking care one way or the other?

J

[Jippd]

I don't want to get involved in the GLG issue but I do want to again voice my opinion that the Rules section is opaque and should be more clearly defined.

[jgordon1111]

I don't want to get involved in the GLG issue but I do want to again voice my opinion that the Rules section is opaque and should be more clearly defined.

+1

[BigBallinStalin]

Which rule is that? What did he exactly do that was against the rules? And don't say gross abouse or I'll gross abuse your mom.

But that's exactly the answer. As I explained much earlier in this thread.

Ok but that's just kind of circular. Anyone can be convicted and then just said "it was gross abuse". There needs to be an explanation why it was "gross abuse", what exactly did they do that constitutes as "gross abuse". The concept of "gross abuse" has no meaning on its own.

There IS the explanation. I've posted it in this thread, and I'm far from the only one. You seem to be intentionally overlooking it. GLG was intentionally manipulating the scoring system. But that's far from it. He was also warned against doing so, and simply tried a new (yet EXCEPTIONALLY SIMILAR) method for it. He essentially took their warning about his manipulation and threw it back at them, laughing. This was not some out of the blue thing...he had plenty of opportunities to avoid it by simply having SOME of his games not be extraordinarily ranching. It wouldn't have taken much. He wouldn't do that.

It's not circular at all. As I said previously, the C&A mods have been exceptionally reticent about punishing anyone for this sort of behavior, but GLG's was so beyond the pale that they decided they needed to take action because of the severity of it.

"Manipulating the scoring system"? That's enough for a ban?

Ok, I guess we can just pretty much ban the first couple of pages of the scoreboard, then. If "manipulating the scoring system" is enough, then this is going to be an empty site pretty soon.

Also, how is it "manipulating the scoring system" when you ask someone to play a game, they agree, and you win? Isn't he getting those points exactly the way they're supposed to be got, within the boundaries of the CC scoring system?

Is there some kind of set percentage of games that need to be public? There are plenty of people who never play public games, and only play people of their choosing. The only difference is, they don't win as much, and they aren't the rank of conqueror. So why does this "rule" only apply to GLG?

Some people are butthurt because GLG is gaining points in a way they don't approve. But it's not GLG:s fault, it's the fault of a flawed scoring system, a flawed site interface, etc. that allows him to benefit from it. Punishing individual players is just a bandage solution, and this whole GLG thing is just a witch hunt.

LOL now your just being amusing,you seem to have a knack for over looking pieces of the puzzle you dont like,and ignoring the blatantly obvious.

Can you let me know where I can get some of that,it will help me at work I think.

natty's logically applying the reasons for GLG's ban consistently.

He's correct to point out that this is only a bandaid solution, the scoring system is flawed (which is a systemic and the main problem), GLG was involved in games which were voluntary and (not fraudulent), the "gross abuse" rule is applied arbitrarily, and that we should be concerned about the high level of discretion for such a rule because if all it takes is a loud minority to punish someone, then there will be more unjust punishments.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yes, you all [who?] know he cheated. In fact you decided that from the onset. Too bad it seems to be impossible for any of you to come up with an explanation of what exactly he did that was "cheating".

Would you invite SGT's and under into a game where they have 0% chance at winning on a complex map? So far as of now, he had 2 losses on City Mogul, to QoH and Rds. The rest of the people had really never played the map, and even if they has played it, only once or twice. This is ranching, coward like, and inexcusable. And the right accusation was given when he was warned.

But then, he had to stoop so low as to try and get other players who never really new the map to create the game so it would, in his eyes, technically not be violating what he was warned for... Lol. That was definitely wrong. If you would like to take me for example, I rarely invite people below under lieutenant to be AGAINST me in a game, 1v1 or Quad. I always find a public game and join it, or create my own public game and have other people join. If he would have created public games, this topic would not even exist, because anyone can join public games. Problem is he is doing this willfully, and creating private games.

He has been given a warning, then a 30 day ban. HE will more than likely foe everyone on the top 600 or major above on the scoreboard, so NO SKILLED PERSON can join his game... Lol, I laugh because he has me foed and we have never played a game.

That is the explanation.

Rules:

Cheaters and troublemakers detract from the gaming experience of all Conquer Club players, and proactive measures are employed to protect our membership. Conquer Club reserves the right to suspend accounts and cancel Premium Memberships, with or without warning, of those players who are deemed to have violated the rules.

Unwritten Rules:

Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden. This includes but is not limited to: throwing games or deliberately benefiting from thrown games, intentional deadbeating, holding players hostage, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts, systematically "farming" new recruits.

Then ban anyone who voluntarily agrees to play a game with an opponent who has very little chance of winning. GLG was banned because of the loud minority who already decided that he "abused the game grossly."

How gross was the abuse?

"Eh, well! He's guilty! It looks gross enough to me!"

So, that's how the law should be enforced?

"Yeah, whenever it looks wrong, it's wrong. Never mind the reasons! I want to be emotionally satisfied! Never mind that I'm less competitively successful!"

Wow, okay then.

[natty dread]

Listen, you have not credibility. You change you mind and you opinions depending on what positions are left to argue. You just like the attention. You bleat and bitch tirelessly until you wear everyone else down with your persistent tangents, and if you run out of steam you just post insults.

Oh. You mean kind of like you're doing right now?

You are a fucking horrible infantile debater and a pathetic poster. You don't make maps any more, you don't play much and you don't fiscally support the site.

So what do you fucking care one way or the other?

J

Well, I can see you are in need of some anger management therapy. Hey, perhaps we could ask saxitoxin to recommend some kind of mood stabilizing antidepressant for you?