King Achilles, Can you explain why it is point dumping?

[owenshooter]

He has been deadbeating out of games since at least 2011 (Game 10289293). Those games don't list what someone's starting score was, but he was relatively close in rank to ICQ!. If, instead, you consider Game 14031916 to be the start, then yes he was a cook at the time.

I think you need to go back to those games in 2011.

so, you are saying he hasn't taken one turn since 2011 in any game he has created or joined?-Jésus noir

[iAmCaffeine]

He has been deadbeating out of games since at least 2011 (Game 10289293). Those games don't list what someone's starting score was, but he was relatively close in rank to ICQ!. If, instead, you consider Game 14031916 to be the start, then yes he was a cook at the time.

I think you need to go back to those games in 2011.

so, you are saying he hasn't taken one turn since 2011 in any game he has created or joined?-Jésus noir

+1

[thegreekdog]

He has been deadbeating out of games since at least 2011 (Game 10289293). Those games don't list what someone's starting score was, but he was relatively close in rank to ICQ!. If, instead, you consider Game 14031916 to be the start, then yes he was a cook at the time.

I think you need to go back to those games in 2011.

so, you are saying he hasn't taken one turn since 2011 in any game he has created or joined?-Jésus noir

It took almost 4 years to catch him apparently.

Hmm... you did not say the rule was "losing games on purpose" in your first post. Since you, like butters1919, are also not a moderator, should I ignore your first explanation or second explanation or both? In any event...

How does one go about "manually 'resetting' points to a lower score" without "losing games on purpose." And, no I am not a mod, but KA is and he agreed with my post above.

Regardless, we do not ban new users who deadbeat.

(a) Generally, they don't come back, so there is no point in banning them.
(b) They can only join 2 games at a time. AoG deadbeated out of 90+ games.

We don't ban experienced users who deadbeat, unless they are dumping points to someone they know.

It's a matter of scale. If someone deadbeats out of one or two games, that's not good. But, 90+ is a problem.

So my question is whether there would be a net positive result or a net negative result from banning AoG?

I think it's a net positive. AoG is a better player than that and if/when he decides to come back he is going to mess up people's scores for a while until he gets back to the right score. It also tells other people that they can't participate in that form of activity. If you're going to play, just play. If you're going to deadbeat, just go to the forums and leave the games for someone else.

Apparently, I cannot emphasize this enough, but I'll keep trying - IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER HE INTENTIONALLY MANUALLY RESET HIS POINTS. That's not what the rule says. Maybe that's what the rule should say and maybe that's what you want the rule to say, but that's not what it says. What it says is that he must INTENTIONALLY CAUSE CHAOS by doing (a), (b), or (c). I contend that he did not intentionally cause chaos because he's a frigging cook and because he didn't throw games to give other players an advantage.

Remember when KH used to send pms to newish users asking "Want to play a fun speeder?" Let's say I was a corporal at the time and I played the fun speeder and I lost. And let's say I continued to play KH 20 or 30 times, losing every time. And KH was conqueror or close to it at the time. THAT has more of a negative effect on the scoreboard than anything AoG did, but it would still not be a rule violation because the corporal didn't do it intentionally.

[DoomYoshi]

Nice creationist argument. "The book is written in this linguistically ambiguous way therefore the only interpretation is my interpretation".

[thegreekdog]

Nice creationist argument. "The book is written in this linguistically ambiguous way therefore the only interpretation is my interpretation".

What? Strawman much?

It's not written ambiguously. It's pretty clear that two elements are needed for a rule violation. (1) Intent to cause chaos and (2) one of three acts (one of which is reducing one's score). This is a pretty clear case of statutory construction.

[jghost7]

Nice creationist argument. "The book is written in this linguistically ambiguous way therefore the only interpretation is my interpretation".

What? Strawman much?

It's not written ambiguously. It's pretty clear that two elements are needed for a rule violation. (1) Intent to cause chaos and (2) one of three acts (one of which is reducing one's score). This is a pretty clear case of statutory construction.

This is what I am concerned about. If it had been concluded that he was guilty of Intentional Deadbeating with the charge and evidence provided, I would have been able to understand, however it was escalated, concluded and locked with a poor explanation which did nothing to explain the leap taken to escalate the charge and apply the indefinite ban. (for which KA has yet to address)

I am especially concerned that charges and penalties are continually adapted and/or created to fit certain individuals, even going as far as applying a new rule/penalty to a charge that occurred before it was written. It is a slippery slope that the site continues to fly down.


Thanks,

J

[owenshooter]

He has been deadbeating out of games since at least 2011 (Game 10289293). Those games don't list what someone's starting score was, but he was relatively close in rank to ICQ!. If, instead, you consider Game 14031916 to be the start, then yes he was a cook at the time.

I think you need to go back to those games in 2011.

so, you are saying he hasn't taken one turn since 2011 in any game he has created or joined?-Jésus noir

+1

wait... if i understand, he has not taken a turn since 2011 and continued to do so until caught... maybe i'm taking a leap...

This is what I am concerned about. If it had been concluded that he was guilty of Intentional Deadbeating with the charge and evidence provided, I would have been able to understand, however it was escalated, concluded and locked with a poor explanation which did nothing to explain the leap taken to escalate the charge and apply the indefinite ban. (for which KA has yet to address)

I am especially concerned that charges and penalties are continually adapted and/or created to fit certain individuals, even going as far as applying a new rule/penalty to a charge that occurred before it was written. It is a slippery slope that the site continues to fly down.


Thanks,

J

so, if he hasn't taken a turn in 4 years, how can you question the site ban? that is BEYOND intentional dead beating... if he was only on here for the forums, no need to play games... i spent aalmost a year in the forums, once, without ever taking a turn in a game (because i didn't start or join any)... i'm sorry, but if he hasn't taken a turn in over 4 years, while joining games, etc, that is beyond dead beating and a clear gross abuse of dead beating... was his intent to get to zero? if that is the case, that is still a violation of the rules. i don't understand the defense here... i like AoG, too... but you can't really defend this in any way...-Jésus noir

p.s.-what is the reason behind it? can someone find out from aog? the people mounting a defense for him aren't really helping, unless a perry mason moment is coming...

[thegreekdog]

the people mounting a defense for him aren't really helping, unless a perry mason moment is coming...

To be fair, the prosecution won't engage adquately and they also operate as judge and jury, so... what did you expect exactly?

By the way, you better make an edit. I saw no black jesus signature!

[owenshooter]

the people mounting a defense for him aren't really helping, unless a perry mason moment is coming...

To be fair, the prosecution won't engage adquately and they also operate as judge and jury, so... what did you expect exactly?

By the way, you better make an edit. I saw no black jesus signature!

that was on the PS>.. i never sign a post script... and again, i may not be understanding this. so, he is banned for not taking a turn for the past 4 years? yet he isn't guested, so i am confused. i just don't get it at all, even after all the threads in here and in C&A... can someone break it down in a linear line like, 1-2-3-4-5-6? i feel like i am missing something...-Jésus noir

[jghost7]

I would not say that I would defend AoG. I really think its about how the c&a is run. It is also exacerbated by the fact that they don't like to explain clearly what is done and why. They like to lock topics up quick, when it would be better to have explanations in the current C&A topic for later reference. While I would not criticize the majority of the rulings done there, but the minority that may be worthy of some deeper questioning are often locked and further questionings even sometimes ignored. That can be really frustrating for people when discontinuities can be found between the posted rules and the actual rulings.

Admittedly, I have no knowledge of AoGs past number of infractions. So I don't know if he had other infractions that would have pushed him to have an indefinite ban pressed upon him by this ruling. But if he did not, then should they not follow the ladder?

I just went and looked, and there were no overt infractions listed.(noting that the search function is not exact and some cases are not published)

Anyways, this is just one example, and am wanting the C&A function to be fair and clear about its implementation. It has shown some inclinations in the past not to be, and so needs to be continually questioned.

Thanks,

J

[owenshooter]

sorry, but the punishment for point dumping is a site ban. there is no ladder. that is how it is and how it has always been. i just want to know if it is a fact that he has not taken a turn in 4 or 5 years. i also want to know why he is not guested and still appears to be a regular members. i am so confused.-Jésus noir

I would not say that I would defend AoG. I really think its about how the c&a is run. It is also exacerbated by the fact that they don't like to explain clearly what is done and why. They like to lock topics up quick, when it would be better to have explanations in the current C&A topic for later reference. While I would not criticize the majority of the rulings done there, but the minority that may be worthy of some deeper questioning are often locked and further questionings even sometimes ignored. That can be really frustrating for people when discontinuities can be found between the posted rules and the actual rulings.

Admittedly, I have no knowledge of AoGs past number of infractions. So I don't know if he had other infractions that would have pushed him to have an indefinite ban pressed upon him by this ruling. But if he did not, then should they not follow the ladder?

I just went and looked, and there were no overt infractions listed.(noting that the search function is not exact and some cases are not published)

Anyways, this is just one example, and am wanting the C&A function to be fair and clear about its implementation. It has shown some inclinations in the past not to be, and so needs to be continually questioned.

Thanks,

J

[jghost7]

sorry, but the punishment for point dumping is a site ban. there is no ladder. that is how it is and how it has always been. i just want to know if it is a fact that he has not taken a turn in 4 or 5 years. i also want to know why he is not guested and still appears to be a regular members. i am so confused.-Jésus noir

Actually, while it is a significantly smaller ladder, there still is a ladder.

Point Dumping
If you are found guilty of Point Dumping, that is, the intentional losing of games via any means, with the intention of causing chaos in the form of griefing, passing points to other people, or manually "resetting" points to a lower score.

Note: Because of the nature of Point Dumping, your account will be suspended upon discovery, and will remain suspended to protect the account and the website during the investigation. The Investigative Suspension is not factored into Disciplinary Time Served.

Point Dumping Infraction disciplinary levels are as follows:
- 1 Month Website Vacation
- Permanent Website Vacation
Note: Users retain the right to rebuttal via E-tickets as with any Infraction.

Thanks,

J

[owenshooter]

sorry, but the punishment for point dumping is a site ban. there is no ladder. that is how it is and how it has always been. i just want to know if it is a fact that he has not taken a turn in 4 or 5 years. i also want to know why he is not guested and still appears to be a regular members. i am so confused.-Jésus noir

Actually, while it is a significantly smaller ladder, there still is a ladder.

Point Dumping
If you are found guilty of Point Dumping, that is, the intentional losing of games via any means, with the intention of causing chaos in the form of griefing, passing points to other people, or manually "resetting" points to a lower score.

Note: Because of the nature of Point Dumping, your account will be suspended upon discovery, and will remain suspended to protect the account and the website during the investigation. The Investigative Suspension is not factored into Disciplinary Time Served.

Point Dumping Infraction disciplinary levels are as follows:
- 1 Month Website Vacation
- Permanent Website Vacation
Note: Users retain the right to rebuttal via E-tickets as with any Infraction.

Thanks,

J

see... there is point dumping and then there is joining and not taking any turns since 2011... my guess is, that would be considered the utmost extreme and merit a site ban... that is just my thinking... a one month ban isn't really punishment for someone that has been doing it for 4 years now, is it? i feel like i just don't know the whole story and people are leaving details out..-Jn

[thegreekdog]

Owen - You're making a judgment call now. This is one of my points. Sometimes it seems people are in favor of allowing moderators/administrators to make judgment calls depending on the particular user and violation and situation. Other times it seems people are not in favor of anyone making judgment calls ("If you do X, automatic Y, regardless of other factors.")

I'd like it to be the former, for whatever that's worth. I know my opinion counts for very little since I haven't played a game in almost a year.

[owenshooter]

Owen - You're making a judgment call now. This is one of my points. Sometimes it seems people are in favor of allowing moderators/administrators to make judgment calls depending on the particular user and violation and situation. Other times it seems people are not in favor of anyone making judgment calls ("If you do X, automatic Y, regardless of other factors.")

I'd like it to be the former, for whatever that's worth. I know my opinion counts for very little since I haven't played a game in almost a year.

i'm asking questions that have not been answered. first and foremost, is it true he has not taken a turn in 4 years?!! nobody seems to answer that... second, if he has a site ban, why is he not guested? third, if it is for point dumping, why would he get a month ban and not a site ban, if it has been going on for four years?! i for one am well versed in moderators/admins making erroneous bans and not having to explain or answer for them. this just really seems like something is missing from this story that nobody is willing to tell. i mean, missing turns for 4 years? really? nobody noticed? and if that is true, why? what was his end goal? zero? i can see how this isn't malicious, i can see how a site ban is very harsh, considering how active AoG is... but it just seems like something is missing from the story. nobody has laid it out 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 for me or anyone.... i am just trying to figure out what this is all about..-Jn

[jghost7]

Owen - You're making a judgment call now. This is one of my points. Sometimes it seems people are in favor of allowing moderators/administrators to make judgment calls depending on the particular user and violation and situation. Other times it seems people are not in favor of anyone making judgment calls ("If you do X, automatic Y, regardless of other factors.")

I'd like it to be the former, for whatever that's worth. I know my opinion counts for very little since I haven't played a game in almost a year.

i'm asking questions that have not been answered. first and foremost, is it true he has not taken a turn in 4 years?!! nobody seems to answer that... second, if he has a site ban, why is he not guested? third, if it is for point dumping, why would he get a month ban and not a site ban, if it has been going on for four years?! i for one am well versed in moderators/admins making erroneous bans and not having to explain or answer for them. this just really seems like something is missing from this story that nobody is willing to tell. i mean, missing turns for 4 years? really? nobody noticed? and if that is true, why? what was his end goal? zero? i can see how this isn't malicious, i can see how a site ban is very harsh, considering how active AoG is... but it just seems like something is missing from the story. nobody has laid it out 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 for me or anyone.... i am just trying to figure out what this is all about..-Jn

I don't know either, although at the minimum he has taken a few turns during the middle of 2013.
As for the second, I originally thought that if he had no priors then the first step would apply, however you seem to believe that it was a judgement call from the start. I would agree with you that there is a bunch of info missing, and am doubtful that many of them will be answered. I would like to know as well.

Thanks,

J

[DoomYoshi]

Nice creationist argument. "The book is written in this linguistically ambiguous way therefore the only interpretation is my interpretation".

What? Strawman much?

It's not written ambiguously. It's pretty clear that two elements are needed for a rule violation. (1) Intent to cause chaos and (2) one of three acts (one of which is reducing one's score). This is a pretty clear case of statutory construction.

Wrong interpretation is wrong.

To make it unambiguous it would need a colon after intent to cause chaos by. Since that colon is not there, and the colon is instead in the guise of tgd, it's a pure creationist argument.

[notyou2]

The application of rules and regulations has always been arbitrary here, as has the implementation of punishment.

It is very clear that the site moderators and enforcers practice favouritism as well as ignore legitimate questions and concerns of the populous, yet they wonder why their site is losing patrons. Well DUH!!!!

You wrote the rules so fuckin live by them. You can't change them to suit different circumstances. If a hole has been exposed fix it, but don't take it out on the person that exposed it. Warn them is about all you can do.

AoG is not point dumping in the traditional sense that the rule was developed for. Therefere, THE RULE DOES NOT APPLY!!!!!! Make a new rule that actually fits whatever you feel is wrong in this case and publish it. Then you can punish violators. You have arbitrarily applied a rule to the situation that does not fit the situation, and then your punishment for breaking a non-existent rule grossly exceeds what you feel he did wrong.

WHAT THE FUK IS THE MATTER WITH YOU PEOPLE???????

Get off your high horses and wake up. Admit your mistake and remedy the situation instead of grossly over reacting. Fuckin' morons.

[DoomYoshi]

AoG is not point dumping in the traditional sense that the rule was developed for.

Wrong. It was precisely to stop people who are trying to get a lower score.

[Metsfanmax]

AoG is not point dumping in the traditional sense that the rule was developed for.

Wrong. It was precisely to stop people who are trying to get a lower score.

Pretty sure AOG gives zero shits what his score is.

[Keefie]

Surely it matters not whether he was a Cook or a General. He's creating and joining game after game with no intention of ever playing them. That's point dumping.

[DoomYoshi]

AoG is not point dumping in the traditional sense that the rule was developed for.

Wrong. It was precisely to stop people who are trying to get a lower score.

Pretty sure AOG gives zero shits what his score is.

I'm pretty sure that I have a signed confession that he was point dumping with the intent to get to a score of 1. I am also sure that I already said that...

[owenshooter]

AoG is not point dumping in the traditional sense that the rule was developed for.

Wrong. It was precisely to stop people who are trying to get a lower score.

Pretty sure AOG gives zero shits what his score is.

then why is he joining games and not taking turns? doesn't that adversely affect the site? think of all the players he played in 4 years that unknowingly sat through a dead beated game.. that sucks... what about those of you that knew what he was doing, joined his games and took the points for free... i just don't see how this can not be point dumping... please explain it to me... if you started the games, never took a turn, intended to DUMP your score until you got to 1, how is this not point dumping? how is this not against the rules. i still feel as if i am missing something in this case...-Jésus noir

[_sabotage_]

So it's clear cut point dumping...so what?

sdh was clear cut point dumping and a mod literally had to go in and delete his games. He was online every since.

So wherein lies the rub? Because someone created a C&A? Someone not personally effected by it, not harmed, put out, who actually put himself out not to call AOG on point dumping but on deadbeating.

AOG had no point dumping accusation:
sdh had no point dumping accusation.

Mods were aware sdh was point dumping:
Mods were aware AOG was point dumping.

sdh gets no ban.
I got a six month ban for the exact same action,
AOG gets a indefinite ban.

All three cases were random point dumping. No one was intentionally being rewarded ( though some players joined like 10 of my one minute speed games, as they did for sdh).

It would be far easier for the mods to simplify the C&A process, and better for the site. But they apparently have no intention of doing so. This will just carry on until they do.

[lancehoch]

You wrote the rules so fuckin live by them. You can't change them to suit different circumstances. If a hole has been exposed fix it, but don't take it out on the person that exposed it. Warn them is about all you can do.

AoG is not point dumping in the traditional sense that the rule was developed for. Therefere, THE RULE DOES NOT APPLY!!!!!! Make a new rule that actually fits whatever you feel is wrong in this case and publish it. Then you can punish violators. You have arbitrarily applied a rule to the situation that does not fit the situation, and then your punishment for breaking a non-existent rule grossly exceeds what you feel he did wrong.

The rules do cover this situation:

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 and colluding with other players in any way to manipulate the scoring system.

Community Guidelines

Special Case Infractions
Special Case Infractions are simply those Infractions that do not fit nicely into either of the above categories [major/minor infractions], and do not usually fit the standard disciplinary scales for Minor or Major Disciplinary Action. Special Case Infractions often have their own unique disciplinary scale tailored specifically for the Infraction. This includes, but is not limited to:


Point Dumping
If you are found guilty of Point Dumping, that is, the intentional losing of games via any means, with the intention of causing chaos in the form of griefing, passing points to other people, or manually "resetting" points to a lower score.

notyou2, can you really tell me that AoG wasn't throwing games or intentionally deadbeating? Wasn't he "manually 'resetting' points to a lower score"?


Starting at Game 12149031 (December 30, 2012), here are all the games AoG played (all are 1v1 unless otherwise noted; people in the thread who played in games are noted):

show

He has only taken 34 turns in the past 2+ years/100+ games. Of those 34 turns, 18 were in games with people posting in this thread and 13 were in bot games. He took 3 turns against other people in over 2 years.

Please explain how someone who does that deserves the ability to play games?