Great-Ollie

[Fruitcake]

All the old dice patches dissapeared after Optimus Prime retired sadly. I think Mr Changsha still has some off the shelf numbers, but he got them cheap from what I recall. maybe PM him and see what he can do for you?

[GoranZ]

It all comes down to the dice stats. If they are within the norm then this thing is busted and done like dinner. And yes, you don't just look at your own games with a guy. Believe it or not, this game is actually won by skill and not dice. If there is a significant difference in skill levels, the dice will never save you.

Lol, really so I better not beat a General then..their skill will beat my dice everytime

No, you might beat General(s) but they should do that much more frequently then you, otherwise you points will go up

[jltile1]

Sure, he exploited something that CC said was acceptable. They'll probably change their minds and call it "gross abuse," but I digress.

G-O is still a worthy opponent. I'm not sure why people get so butthurt about the latest Conqueror drama.

I have no problem with people doing what they need to do to become conqueror; I do however have a problem with people that flip-flop between decisions, that's all.

Not sure how they can deem this type of play "gross abuse" when it is totally within the rules; no missed turns, no hostage taking etc. a person has 24 hours to make a move, period!

I saw someone say that GO would never do such thing before this happened, that he was "classier" than that. I ve never seen ollie say such thing though. Not sure he s responsible of what people think he will/won t do.

These were the words Ollie said. I was a little shocked my self to seem him pull this, right after he said it. Still think he is one the best all around players.


Well codeblue1018 i could not agree more. I have always wanted to try and be conqueror, but i will not resort to this action to get there. I will continue to play what i want, when i want it. If i get there great, if not no big deal. If i can get to top i want to be there the way i always have played, not this little loophole way. I do agree there is nothing against the rules here, and i feel if a player wants to do this, they have every right.

[codeblue1018]

Sure, he exploited something that CC said was acceptable. They'll probably change their minds and call it "gross abuse," but I digress.

G-O is still a worthy opponent. I'm not sure why people get so butthurt about the latest Conqueror drama.

I have no problem with people doing what they need to do to become conqueror; I do however have a problem with people that flip-flop between decisions, that's all.

Not sure how they can deem this type of play "gross abuse" when it is totally within the rules; no missed turns, no hostage taking etc. a person has 24 hours to make a move, period!

I saw someone say that GO would never do such thing before this happened, that he was "classier" than that. I ve never seen ollie say such thing though. Not sure he s responsible of what people think he will/won t do.

He did say that he wouldn't resort to these tactics to achieve conqueror in a post that he quoted me on. I'll have to see if I can find it.

[Great-Ollie]

Sure, he exploited something that CC said was acceptable. They'll probably change their minds and call it "gross abuse," but I digress.

G-O is still a worthy opponent. I'm not sure why people get so butthurt about the latest Conqueror drama.

I have no problem with people doing what they need to do to become conqueror; I do however have a problem with people that flip-flop between decisions, that's all.

Not sure how they can deem this type of play "gross abuse" when it is totally within the rules; no missed turns, no hostage taking etc. a person has 24 hours to make a move, period!

I saw someone say that GO would never do such thing before this happened, that he was "classier" than that. I ve never seen ollie say such thing though. Not sure he s responsible of what people think he will/won t do.

He did say that he wouldn't resort to these tactics to achieve conqueror in a post that he quoted me on. I'll have to see if I can find it.

It was in the should we call it a josko.ri thread. I did however at the end of the thread publicly announce what i was going to do. I really think you guys need to concentrate on more important things in life rather then finding things to dis credit me. Personally i don't give a crap, I'm just sayin. All the mud slinging going around about me since a spiked my score to achieve conqueror is ridiculous. I did not break any site rules so why do you not give it a rest people. I think that on any given day anyone who set's their mind to it can beat anyone else on this site. I do not consider myself a super player, but i do consider myself well versed in all game styles, types, ect. As for my dice, they are just like everyone else who plays on this site, unpredictable. I did go 9 for 10 against DJBandit, but also went 2 for 9 against BRADDY. So i guess all my good dice rolls where against DJ and bad one's against BRADDY? lol

[codeblue1018]

Sure, he exploited something that CC said was acceptable. They'll probably change their minds and call it "gross abuse," but I digress.

G-O is still a worthy opponent. I'm not sure why people get so butthurt about the latest Conqueror drama.

I have no problem with people doing what they need to do to become conqueror; I do however have a problem with people that flip-flop between decisions, that's all.

Not sure how they can deem this type of play "gross abuse" when it is totally within the rules; no missed turns, no hostage taking etc. a person has 24 hours to make a move, period!

I saw someone say that GO would never do such thing before this happened, that he was "classier" than that. I ve never seen ollie say such thing though. Not sure he s responsible of what people think he will/won t do.

He did say that he wouldn't resort to these tactics to achieve conqueror in a post that he quoted me on. I'll have to see if I can find it.

It was in the should we call it a josko.ri thread. I did however at the end of the thread publicly announce what i was going to do. I really think you guys need to concentrate on more important things in life rather then finding things to dis credit me. Personally i don't give a crap, I'm just sayin. All the mud slinging going around about me since a spiked my score to achieve conqueror is ridiculous. I did not break any site rules so why do you not give it a rest people. I think that on any given day anyone who set's their mind to it can beat anyone else on this site. I do not consider myself a super player, but i do consider myself well versed in all game styles, types, ect. As for my dice, they are just like everyone else who plays on this site, unpredictable. I did go 9 for 10 against DJBandit, but also went 2 for 9 against BRADDY. So i guess all my good dice rolls where against DJ and bad one's against BRADDY? lol

Don't flatter yourself Ollie; no one gives a shit whether you were conqueror or not. That particular status means absolutely nothing anymore; it's meaningless. You've received the same muds sligging as anyone else that got to the top in the fashion you did; I have no problem with it as I've said all along. When you say one thing and do another is when I laugh and discredit you, not that you care of course, but nonetheless. Obviously, this particular status means the world to you, so enjoy the medal pal

[rhp 1]

Sure, he exploited something that CC said was acceptable. They'll probably change their minds and call it "gross abuse," but I digress.

G-O is still a worthy opponent. I'm not sure why people get so butthurt about the latest Conqueror drama.

I have no problem with people doing what they need to do to become conqueror; I do however have a problem with people that flip-flop between decisions, that's all.

Not sure how they can deem this type of play "gross abuse" when it is totally within the rules; no missed turns, no hostage taking etc. a person has 24 hours to make a move, period!

I saw someone say that GO would never do such thing before this happened, that he was "classier" than that. I ve never seen ollie say such thing though. Not sure he s responsible of what people think he will/won t do.

He did say that he wouldn't resort to these tactics to achieve conqueror in a post that he quoted me on. I'll have to see if I can find it.

It was in the should we call it a josko.ri thread. I did however at the end of the thread publicly announce what i was going to do. I really think you guys need to concentrate on more important things in life rather then finding things to dis credit me. Personally i don't give a crap, I'm just sayin. All the mud slinging going around about me since a spiked my score to achieve conqueror is ridiculous. I did not break any site rules so why do you not give it a rest people. I think that on any given day anyone who set's their mind to it can beat anyone else on this site. I do not consider myself a super player, but i do consider myself well versed in all game styles, types, ect. As for my dice, they are just like everyone else who plays on this site, unpredictable. I did go 9 for 10 against DJBandit, but also went 2 for 9 against BRADDY. So i guess all my good dice rolls where against DJ and bad one's against BRADDY? lol

Don't flatter yourself Ollie; no one gives a shit whether you were conqueror or not. That particular status means absolutely nothing anymore; it's meaningless. You've received the same muds sligging as anyone else that got to the top in the fashion you did; I have no problem with it as I've said all along. When you say one thing and do another is when I laugh and discredit you, not that you care of course, but nonetheless. Obviously, this particular status means the world to you, so enjoy the medal pal

Why.... sooo..... serious? Pretty much anyone who cares who became conquerer and why is a nerd of epic proportions to begin with... not that its bad to be a nerd, hell... I work for one... but jesus.. who fkn cares...

[Foxglove]

Don't flatter yourself Ollie; no one gives a shit whether you were conqueror or not. That particular status means absolutely nothing anymore; it's meaningless.

Not true! It means exactly what it always has: Conqueror means that the person who holds that title has the most points of all active players.

It doesn't mean that the person is the best player of the game ever or the best overall player.
It doesn't mean that the person is a CC role model or a CC villian.
It doesn't mean that the person is honorable or a cheater.

It never has.

[codeblue1018]

Don't flatter yourself Ollie; no one gives a shit whether you were conqueror or not. That particular status means absolutely nothing anymore; it's meaningless.

Not true! It means exactly what it always has: Conqueror means that the person who holds that title has the most points of all active players.

It doesn't mean that the person is the best player of the game ever or the best overall player.
It doesn't mean that the person is a CC role model or a CC villian.
It doesn't mean that the person is honorable or a cheater.

It never has.

Not true Foxy; Not to relive the past, but there was a time when a conqueror meant a few things: most points of course, a great overall player/strategist and most importantly, an honorable and clean player. These charactoristics have been diminished over the years unfortunately, however.

[Great-Ollie]

Don't flatter yourself Ollie; no one gives a shit whether you were conqueror or not. That particular status means absolutely nothing anymore; it's meaningless.

Not true! It means exactly what it always has: Conqueror means that the person who holds that title has the most points of all active players.

It doesn't mean that the person is the best player of the game ever or the best overall player.
It doesn't mean that the person is a CC role model or a CC villian.
It doesn't mean that the person is honorable or a cheater.

It never has.

Not true Foxy; Not to relive the past, but there was a time when a conqueror meant a few things: most points of course, a great overall player/strategist and most importantly, an honorable and clean player. These charactoristics have been diminished over the years unfortunately, however.

This all coming from a player with a 3.3 rating, and known troublemaker.

[rhp 1]

Don't flatter yourself Ollie; no one gives a shit whether you were conqueror or not. That particular status means absolutely nothing anymore; it's meaningless.

Not true! It means exactly what it always has: Conqueror means that the person who holds that title has the most points of all active players.

It doesn't mean that the person is the best player of the game ever or the best overall player.
It doesn't mean that the person is a CC role model or a CC villian.
It doesn't mean that the person is honorable or a cheater.

It never has.

Not true Foxy; Not to relive the past, but there was a time when a conqueror meant a few things: most points of course, a great overall player/strategist and most importantly, an honorable and clean player. These charactoristics have been diminished over the years unfortunately, however.

when was this time? not to sound sarcastic, but I think I missed it... most every conquerer has had some kind of issue in the past (I'm sure there are some rare exceptions).. have they been issues in proportion to what is going on now? no.. ofc not.. but a list of so called "honorable and clean" conquerers would be cool if you have a second... I'm sure with a little research, you could call into question the legitimacy of most of the conquerers.. maybe not gross abuse, or a point ponzi issue, but lesser offenses ie.. controling games/maps/settings etc.. fs farmers, "inviters"... etc, etc, etc.. I point this out, not because it's of any importance to me, just that it will be the case...

and btw.. even former conquerers with "issues" imo, aren't lesser players simply due to the fact that they might have manipulated their score in some way... I would still give anyone props for being conquerer.. whether it's strictly skill, or score manipulation (in whatever guise) + skill, is not relevant (to me at least) as they still did it... and if they didn't break a rule(s), then there really isn't anything else to argue about.. unless you're just bored.... in which case? by all means, carry on

[codeblue1018]

Don't flatter yourself Ollie; no one gives a shit whether you were conqueror or not. That particular status means absolutely nothing anymore; it's meaningless.

Not true! It means exactly what it always has: Conqueror means that the person who holds that title has the most points of all active players.

It doesn't mean that the person is the best player of the game ever or the best overall player.
It doesn't mean that the person is a CC role model or a CC villian.
It doesn't mean that the person is honorable or a cheater.

It never has.

Not true Foxy; Not to relive the past, but there was a time when a conqueror meant a few things: most points of course, a great overall player/strategist and most importantly, an honorable and clean player. These charactoristics have been diminished over the years unfortunately, however.

This all coming from a player with a 3.3 rating, and known troublemaker.

Wow, original Ollie - it was a 2.5, get it right; you are correct, it's a 3.3 now. Kinda like your gpa in school; you know, as bad as it was and when you decided to get better grades it took longer to rise. A lot easier to go low and a lot harder to bring it up. See my rating will continue to rise while your reputation will continue to decline, it's all relative I guess eh? Nonetheless, since you decided to sling mud, right back at ya. As far as my reputation? Lol. Live in the present pal, not the past; this way you'll have a clue about your current predictament. I'd much rather have my "reputation" than a two faced, multi clown as yourself.

[codeblue1018]

Don't flatter yourself Ollie; no one gives a shit whether you were conqueror or not. That particular status means absolutely nothing anymore; it's meaningless.

Not true! It means exactly what it always has: Conqueror means that the person who holds that title has the most points of all active players.

It doesn't mean that the person is the best player of the game ever or the best overall player.
It doesn't mean that the person is a CC role model or a CC villian.
It doesn't mean that the person is honorable or a cheater.

It never has.

Not true Foxy; Not to relive the past, but there was a time when a conqueror meant a few things: most points of course, a great overall player/strategist and most importantly, an honorable and clean player. These charactoristics have been diminished over the years unfortunately, however.

when was this time? not to sound sarcastic, but I think I missed it... most every conquerer has had some kind of issue in the past (I'm sure there are some rare exceptions).. have they been issues in proportion to what is going on now? no.. ofc not.. but a list of so called "honorable and clean" conquerers would be cool if you have a second... I'm sure with a little research, you could call into question the legitimacy of most of the conquerers.. maybe not gross abuse, or a point ponzi issue, but lesser offenses ie.. controling games/maps/settings etc.. fs farmers, "inviters"... etc, etc, etc.. I point this out, not because it's of any importance to me, just that it will be the case...

and btw.. even former conquerers with "issues" imo, aren't lesser players simply due to the fact that they might have manipulated their score in some way... I would still give anyone props for being conquerer.. whether it's strictly skill, or score manipulation (in whatever guise) + skill, is not relevant (to me at least) as they still did it... and if they didn't break a rule(s), then there really isn't anything else to argue about.. unless you're just bored.... in which case? by all means, carry on

Look at the conquerors since they kept tract of them or even some before;

Sjnap
Poo-Maker
Jork
Scott-Land

These players played anyone on whatever map; this was before the days of invites. They all had their home map like most of us do but played the game without the gimmicks, clickies and the likes. Not saying there were an abundance of "clean" conquerors; these players just stand out and I'm sure there are more than I listed. I just remember the #1 player at one point since early 2007 that were respected in all facets and played high competition and won religiously. My high score was 3160; at that time it was 22nd overall. 22nd now is prolly 36-3700 give or take. Point being is, te inflation is so much higher today yet these players managed 5-6k + way back then. Pretty impressive if you ask me without all the immanent attacks that come with anyone reaching conqueror today - that's all I'm saying. There was a respect with that title at one point here.

[Dukasaur]

This topic made me curious, so I decided to have a look at some of the disciplinary records here. Don't ask me to name names or provide any evidence, since I'm looking at stuff that is in many cases confidential, but speaking just as a disinterested archivist, I find the following statistics:

30 Conquerors

Completely clean
13
Numerous minor offenses such as chat abuse but no real cheating
2


Busted Multi, with or without multiple instances of SD
6
Busted for account hijacking or turn-sitting abuse
3
At least one known case of SD
6

So, we have an almost perfect 50/50 split of cheaters and non-cheaters.

What really interested me, however, was if there was any truth to the popular perception that cheating has gotten worse over time. In fact, I found the opposite to be true. When I broke up the list of conquerors into the old guard (achieved conq. status on or before October 25th, 2011) and the new (those who achieved conq. status since then) I found that there were only 8 non-cheaters among the 18 old-guard conquerors, whereas 7 of the last 12 have been non-cheaters.

Seems like people tend to colour the past. It's kind of like real life. We hear about horrific crimes being committed now and see ourselves living in the middle of a crime epidemic, but in actual fact the horrific crimes today are the anomalies, and horrific crimes in the past were much more common.

[Great-Ollie]

Don't flatter yourself Ollie; no one gives a shit whether you were conqueror or not. That particular status means absolutely nothing anymore; it's meaningless.

Not true! It means exactly what it always has: Conqueror means that the person who holds that title has the most points of all active players.

It doesn't mean that the person is the best player of the game ever or the best overall player.
It doesn't mean that the person is a CC role model or a CC villian.
It doesn't mean that the person is honorable or a cheater.

It never has.

Not true Foxy; Not to relive the past, but there was a time when a conqueror meant a few things: most points of course, a great overall player/strategist and most importantly, an honorable and clean player. These charactoristics have been diminished over the years unfortunately, however.

This all coming from a player with a 3.3 rating, and known troublemaker.

Wow, original Ollie - it was a 2.5, get it right; you are correct, it's a 3.3 now. Kinda like your gpa in school; you know, as bad as it was and when you decided to get better grades it took longer to rise. A lot easier to go low and a lot harder to bring it up. See my rating will continue to rise while your reputation will continue to decline, it's all relative I guess eh? Nonetheless, since you decided to sling mud, right back at ya. As far as my reputation? Lol. Live in the present pal, not the past; this way you'll have a clue about your current predictament. I'd much rather have my "reputation" than a two faced, multi clown as yourself.

Dude you are doing nothing but proving my point. We used to make fun of you in the Pack days for being such a clown. You have the 3.3 rating because you cannot keep your yap shut, hence the stupid shit you spam all over the forums. Secondly there have been 2 separate threads regarding me being a multi and both where cleared. PERIOD. I was given a vacation for account sharing, which was not my fault but i took the punishment in stride. Now please continue to troll in all threads like you do, looks good on your rating, and your reputation! I for one am very sad that TSM, a clan who i respect greatly, have such a ass clown such as yourself.

[Vace Cooper]

Wow, I've been drinken again... I'm not going to red anyting befor this. Dued. You died a good job man and i respect that. You are a good guy. I'm glad you are a conquer man. Wow thatbs hardf too Bo man!

[codeblue1018]

Don't flatter yourself Ollie; no one gives a shit whether you were conqueror or not. That particular status means absolutely nothing anymore; it's meaningless.

Not true! It means exactly what it always has: Conqueror means that the person who holds that title has the most points of all active players.

It doesn't mean that the person is the best player of the game ever or the best overall player.
It doesn't mean that the person is a CC role model or a CC villian.
It doesn't mean that the person is honorable or a cheater.

It never has.

Not true Foxy; Not to relive the past, but there was a time when a conqueror meant a few things: most points of course, a great overall player/strategist and most importantly, an honorable and clean player. These charactoristics have been diminished over the years unfortunately, however.

This all coming from a player with a 3.3 rating, and known troublemaker.

Wow, original Ollie - it was a 2.5, get it right; you are correct, it's a 3.3 now. Kinda like your gpa in school; you know, as bad as it was and when you decided to get better grades it took longer to rise. A lot easier to go low and a lot harder to bring it up. See my rating will continue to rise while your reputation will continue to decline, it's all relative I guess eh? Nonetheless, since you decided to sling mud, right back at ya. As far as my reputation? Lol. Live in the present pal, not the past; this way you'll have a clue about your current predictament. I'd much rather have my "reputation" than a two faced, multi clown as yourself.

Dude you are doing nothing but proving my point. We used to make fun of you in the Pack days for being such a clown. You have the 3.3 rating because you cannot keep your yap shut, hence the stupid shit you spam all over the forums. Secondly there have been 2 separate threads regarding me being a multi and both where cleared. PERIOD. I was given a vacation for account sharing, which was not my fault but i took the punishment in stride. Now please continue to troll in all threads like you do, looks good on your rating, and your reputation! I for one am very sad that TSM, a clan who i respect greatly, have such a ass clown such as yourself.

Lol, firstly pal, this is a game site, which serves the purpose of entertainment; second; as I mentioned the fact that this is a game site, I couldn't careless what YOU and Pack members had to "laugh" about, really! Third; "spam the forums", "can't keep my yap shut" lol, did I mention the fact that this is a game site? Yep! I am glad that you respect TSM as most clans do; what I can say is, I am quite certain that no one at TSM cares what you have to say or think mate, trust me. The difference between you and I is I understand that this is a game site; I understand that this site takes 10 minutes out of my day, I understand that Real Life takes precedent over CC; with 37K games in 4 years, I see where your priorities are. Your posts aren't clever, rather dull actually - so continue the journey of making yourself look foolish; we all need a good laugh.

[BigBallinStalin]

This topic made me curious, so I decided to have a look at some of the disciplinary records here. Don't ask me to name names or provide any evidence, since I'm looking at stuff that is in many cases confidential, but speaking just as a disinterested archivist, I find the following statistics:

30 Conquerors

Completely clean
13
Numerous minor offenses such as chat abuse but no real cheating
2


Busted Multi, with or without multiple instances of SD
6
Busted for account hijacking or turn-sitting abuse
3
At least one known case of SD
6

So, we have an almost perfect 50/50 split of cheaters and non-cheaters.

What really interested me, however, was if there was any truth to the popular perception that cheating has gotten worse over time. In fact, I found the opposite to be true. When I broke up the list of conquerors into the old guard (achieved conq. status on or before October 25th, 2011) and the new (those who achieved conq. status since then) I found that there were only 8 non-cheaters among the 18 old-guard conquerors, whereas 7 of the last 12 have been non-cheaters.

Seems like people tend to colour the past. It's kind of like real life. We hear about horrific crimes being committed now and see ourselves living in the middle of a crime epidemic, but in actual fact the horrific crimes today are the anomalies, and horrific crimes in the past were much more common.

You and your numbers and reason! Away with ye! Let us moan about our imagined problems!

[rhp 1]

This topic made me curious, so I decided to have a look at some of the disciplinary records here. Don't ask me to name names or provide any evidence, since I'm looking at stuff that is in many cases confidential, but speaking just as a disinterested archivist, I find the following statistics:

30 Conquerors

Completely clean
13
Numerous minor offenses such as chat abuse but no real cheating
2


Busted Multi, with or without multiple instances of SD
6
Busted for account hijacking or turn-sitting abuse
3
At least one known case of SD
6

So, we have an almost perfect 50/50 split of cheaters and non-cheaters.

What really interested me, however, was if there was any truth to the popular perception that cheating has gotten worse over time. In fact, I found the opposite to be true. When I broke up the list of conquerors into the old guard (achieved conq. status on or before October 25th, 2011) and the new (those who achieved conq. status since then) I found that there were only 8 non-cheaters among the 18 old-guard conquerors, whereas 7 of the last 12 have been non-cheaters.

Seems like people tend to colour the past. It's kind of like real life. We hear about horrific crimes being committed now and see ourselves living in the middle of a crime epidemic, but in actual fact the horrific crimes today are the anomalies, and horrific crimes in the past were much more common.

thank you for your time compiling... but guess what.... no where do you take into account conquerers who have used, let's say, questionable methods for reaching the top spot... again, i have to say, I don't care that they did, and the still get props for the endeavor... but many (or at least some) of your "clean conqueres" use score/point manipulation, map/setting control, and or inviting practices that might be deemed, ummm, well.. you get the point... just raising my hand here... carry on

[jefjef]

GO is one of the best players on this site. It is not his dice, it's his strategy.

I'm 9-6 vs GO. I must be an AMAZING strategist!

Thanks!

[demonfork]

This topic made me curious, so I decided to have a look at some of the disciplinary records here. Don't ask me to name names or provide any evidence, since I'm looking at stuff that is in many cases confidential, but speaking just as a disinterested archivist, I find the following statistics:

30 Conquerors

Completely clean
13
Numerous minor offenses such as chat abuse but no real cheating
2


Busted Multi, with or without multiple instances of SD
6
Busted for account hijacking or turn-sitting abuse
3
At least one known case of SD
6

So, we have an almost perfect 50/50 split of cheaters and non-cheaters.

What really interested me, however, was if there was any truth to the popular perception that cheating has gotten worse over time. In fact, I found the opposite to be true. When I broke up the list of conquerors into the old guard (achieved conq. status on or before October 25th, 2011) and the new (those who achieved conq. status since then) I found that there were only 8 non-cheaters among the 18 old-guard conquerors, whereas 7 of the last 12 have been non-cheaters.

Seems like people tend to colour the past. It's kind of like real life. We hear about horrific crimes being committed now and see ourselves living in the middle of a crime epidemic, but in actual fact the horrific crimes today are the anomalies, and horrific crimes in the past were much more common.

"numerous minor offenses such as chat abuse"

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

This topic made me curious, so I decided to have a look at some of the disciplinary records here. Don't ask me to name names or provide any evidence, since I'm looking at stuff that is in many cases confidential, but speaking just as a disinterested archivist, I find the following statistics:

30 Conquerors

Completely clean
13
Numerous minor offenses such as chat abuse but no real cheating
2


Busted Multi, with or without multiple instances of SD
6
Busted for account hijacking or turn-sitting abuse
3
At least one known case of SD
6

So, we have an almost perfect 50/50 split of cheaters and non-cheaters.

What really interested me, however, was if there was any truth to the popular perception that cheating has gotten worse over time. In fact, I found the opposite to be true. When I broke up the list of conquerors into the old guard (achieved conq. status on or before October 25th, 2011) and the new (those who achieved conq. status since then) I found that there were only 8 non-cheaters among the 18 old-guard conquerors, whereas 7 of the last 12 have been non-cheaters.

Seems like people tend to colour the past. It's kind of like real life. We hear about horrific crimes being committed now and see ourselves living in the middle of a crime epidemic, but in actual fact the horrific crimes today are the anomalies, and horrific crimes in the past were much more common.

Do you have me listed as old or new since I was conqueror prior to Oct 25 2011 and afterwards ? I just dint want to pad your stats either direction.

[Mr Changsha]

This topic made me curious, so I decided to have a look at some of the disciplinary records here. Don't ask me to name names or provide any evidence, since I'm looking at stuff that is in many cases confidential, but speaking just as a disinterested archivist, I find the following statistics:

30 Conquerors

Completely clean
13
Numerous minor offenses such as chat abuse but no real cheating
2


Busted Multi, with or without multiple instances of SD
6
Busted for account hijacking or turn-sitting abuse
3
At least one known case of SD
6

So, we have an almost perfect 50/50 split of cheaters and non-cheaters.

What really interested me, however, was if there was any truth to the popular perception that cheating has gotten worse over time. In fact, I found the opposite to be true. When I broke up the list of conquerors into the old guard (achieved conq. status on or before October 25th, 2011) and the new (those who achieved conq. status since then) I found that there were only 8 non-cheaters among the 18 old-guard conquerors, whereas 7 of the last 12 have been non-cheaters.

Seems like people tend to colour the past. It's kind of like real life. We hear about horrific crimes being committed now and see ourselves living in the middle of a crime epidemic, but in actual fact the horrific crimes today are the anomalies, and horrific crimes in the past were much more common.

Do you have me listed as old or new since I was conqueror prior to Oct 25 2011 and afterwards ? I just dint want to pad your stats either direction.

Made me chuckle...