Conquer Club

Chariot of Fire wrote:

What a 'farmer'. Only plays speed/freestyle city mogul against low ranks. Introduced my mate to the game back in 2009 and he'd played a few games so had a rank. He comes back 2 years later and about 5 minutes after he'd logged on he had a PM from this guy asking if he wanted to play one of his free speed games.

Needless to say I told him to ignore it. This is bad for the site

This, in a nutshell.

Do we as a community want what is good for the site, or do we sit idly back not saying a word whilst some guy screws the system? Sure it's fine for those established players who aren't directly affected by GLG's games (though it does make a mockery of the scoreboard) and it will be those people you see writing 'Congrats' on his wall or in this thread. You won't however be witnessing any "Fair play to you" comments from the dozens of inexperienced players this charlatan has alienated from the site.

Why can't people see this? Why doesn't everyone see the fraud for who he is and point a finger at him? His code of conduct is indefensible as far as I'm concerned, and "It's not against CC Rules" frankly doesn't cut any mustard with me. It's not against the law for me to spit in my guests' food at the dinner table, yet I wouldn't even consider such behaviour.

GLG, formerly the member known as---, has oft quoted in his defence [to paraphrase] "Oh I've done a lot for the site, teaching noobs how to play properly and setting up many tournaments". Yeah right! Sorry to sound cynical but these quick 1v1 tourneys (for sergeant ranks and lower) would be a great way to find fresh meat to farm. Something tells me our 'Conqueror' is not the most altruistic person on the site.

I come on here, as I expect the majority do, to enjoy a game on a level playing field. Why entertain/applaud/reward the efforts of someone who is obviously hell-bent on personal gain so that he may stand atop a pedestal and say "Look at me!" Throw tomatoes at the scoundrel I say.

To quote sjnap:

It needs discipline and great skills to get there

It should, but unfortunately in Gettinhed's case it once again proves that it doesn't.

To all his supporters - you are either blind, foolish, or you condone the use of such tactics (maybe because in part you'd do the same).

To all his detractors - I raise my glass. Happy New Year, to making CC a better place in 2012 and beyond.

CoF

• Glibness and Superficial Charm
  
• Manipulative and Conning
  They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims. (this one just says it all...)
  
• Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
  Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities
  
• Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
  Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily. (GLG/DH name change)
  
• Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
• Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim

sdh wrote:Why would KORT want him?

(all well sought after requirements for any clan... )

Evolution299 wrote:I dont think anyone would even give 2 sh*ts about GLG or his tactics if he didnt invite them to games. If all he did was open games and let anyone pay him this would be a non issue.
Yes, the players have the ability to say no, but the map he uses in his games looks easy to new players because it is visually appealing and GLG has the charm of a used car salesman. It's a bad combo.

Evolution299 wrote:I dont think anyone would even give 2 sh*ts about GLG or his tactics if he didnt invite them to games. If all he did was open games and let anyone pay him this would be a non issue.
Yes, the players have the ability to say no, but the map he uses in his games looks easy to new players because it is visually appealing and GLG has the charm of a used car salesman. It's a bad combo.

natty_dread wrote:So you're saying the low ranks have to be protected from making their own choices?

(Why do you keep dodging this question?)

Master Bush wrote:

natty_dread wrote:So you're saying the low ranks have to be protected from making their own choices?

(Why do you keep dodging this question?)

because the question is designed to take blame off of glg, and onto the low ranked players. thats what you're trying to do here, right?

Master Bush wrote:low ranks are new to the site. It a giant site, with a huge forum, and tons of maps/game styles. it can be overwhelming to new players. so of course, when a high ranked player invites them to a game, that they probably go into it thinking they at least have a chance to win, they are gonna play it. and glg does his nice guy act with them, and when they are done getting raped in the game, of course they are gonna walk away saying nice things, because glg is a nice guy to them. but he is still taking advantage of them.

stop acting like you dont know what he's doing here natty. it's clear as day.

sdh wrote:Why would KORT want him?

Master Bush wrote:because the question is designed to take blame off of glg and onto the low ranked players. thats what you're trying to do here, right?

Master Bush wrote:I'm gonna continue to dodge your leading question.

demonfork wrote:

Master Bush wrote:I'm gonna continue to dodge your leading question.

Translation....."I'm going to ignore this sound logic so that I can continue to perpetuate my own delusions....do you have any idea how much mood stabilizers cost these days?"

natty_dread wrote:

Master Bush wrote:because the question is designed to take blame off of glg and onto the low ranked players. thats what you're trying to do here, right?

Oh, wow. It's all about blaming someone to you, isn't it?

However, that has nothing to do with my question, which you dodged once again. So allow me to reiterate. I'll try to make this as simple as possible:

Are you saying that low ranked players have to be protected from making their own choices?

It's not that difficult. There's two choices here. Either it's:

a) - Yes: low ranked players are not capable of deciding for themselves what kind of games they can play or who they can play against. We need to protect them from making bad decisions because they don't know what's good for them.

or b) - No: low ranked players are capable of deciding for themselves what kind of games they can play or who they can play against. We don't need to restrict their freedom just because some people are afraid someone may benefit from playing against them.