in case anyone wonders how gen.lee gets away with farming...

[Master Bush]

here's the answer:

myself and Gen.lee had a chat in the live chat room, which lead to this PM he sent to KA:

The last line is the one of interest:

King Achilles,

I hate to bother you with all this, but again. . .your rules. I just had a 10 min PM discussion with Master Bush. Please note:

16:01:00 ‹Master Bush› whatever man. i'm sure i have a vaction coming my way, but it's worth it to let someone who i think cheats the system know just how i feel. but when i return, i'll make sure to leave you alone.

It shows:
-he KNOWS he was wrong and violated the Trolling/Baiting/Flaming rules
-he EXPECTS a vaca from CC
-he said that he'd leave me alone

Lots said +/- in the PM (I have it screen shotted). An interesting closing comments was:

16:02:03 ‹Master Bush› the last thing i'll say to you is, i hope you are not proud of the leaderboard, because most of the people who play here are shamed to see your name there. have a good one

to which I think he's totally wrong, again exaggerating:
-most of his FRIENDS and some similar thinkers might be shamed
-I posted 20 polite thank-you's from opponents on last C&A
-MANY people posted congrats on my wall, PM's and Forum -- as many or more than the negatives

Again, supposedly the site wants a friendly around the camp-fire environment. I'm sure I provide that:
-I contact people: some played 300 games and NO prior interaction on CC
-most Social people find my comments and antics funny (lol, etc.)
-I created 13 mini tourneys in 2.5 months
-the strongest clan on CC invited me to join them* -- appreciating certain skills I have (not Farming). THey are NICE and very good players, recommending that I focus more on Team games. *at least 2 others invited me directly, a few others approached me as well.
-I help your mods, etc. in their personal lives.

Thanks again,

GLG

So if you, like me, have been wondering how gen.leegettinhed gets away with his farming, now you know.

I expect a little vacation to come from all this, but whatever. I've been playing this game of risk since i was a young kid, and I love it. I think it deserves to be treated with honor and respect, and people who cheat/multi/farm are not treating it as such. This site does a pretty good job at punishing those who do cheat it, but some are allowed to slip through the cracks for whatever reason, and thats what I have a problem with. Nobody should be above the rules, no matter how well liked they are, or if they help you with things outside of the site.

[lord of the frys]

hey I farm......but the tomatoes came up like shit this yr.....

[Evolution299]

Dude, I don't like how GLG gets his points either, but you have to let it go MB. It is border line obsessive now.

[DiM]

he's not the first farmer/abuser who reaches conqueror rank and he surely won't be the last. so what's the big deal?
suck it up, cupcake.

[natty dread]

OH MY GOGGLES this is getting repetitive.

GLG is breaking no rules. Maybe he's breaking what you'd want the rules to be, but not the actual rules. And that's fine. You can be of whatever opinion you want about GLG:s playing style, and the morality of his game choices. Maybe it is cowardly, maybe it is taking the easy way to get easy points, but it's not cheating.

Lots of other people (oh, just about everyone on the first half of the first page of the scoreboard) play only game types they know well, on maps they know well, and practically have very small chance of losing. Is it cowardly? Perhaps. Is it against the rules? No, and it shouldn't be. Everyone should be free to play the types of games they want, against whoever they want.

New recruit farming is against the rules, and that's enough for restrictions. Even those should be loosened a bit, from some aspects. If we start placing more restrictions on who you can or can't play against, it will seriously destroy CC. C&A will be flooded with accusations. No one will be able to get a game against higher ranked players, as they will be too afraid to play lower ranks: either they lose a lot of points, or they win and get banned for farming.

Bush: If you want to campaign for something, campaign for a scoring system reform. Maybe something where different game types are scored on separate boards. But seriously, get off your high horse and stop this constant crusade against GLG. It's getting old, fast. We get it already, you don't like the way he plays the game. How about concentrating on your own games for a chance instead of spending all your time stalking others?

Oh, and inb4 "you're a wannabe-mod". That seems to be your go-to retort to everything, amirite?

[DiM]

If you want to campaign for something, campaign for a scoring system reform.

damn right. campaign for my dynamic scoring formula. if it gets implemented then scores will reflect actual knowledge of the game and not how good you're at farming and abusing. all farmers will be gone, nobody will abuse settings.

[spoiler=dynamic scoring formula]here's the formula we have now:

(LS/WS)*20 = X <= 100

where:
LS = loser's score
WS = winner's score
X = points gained/lost by the winner/loser

now here's my formula:

[LS*(LEM-LPM)*(LES-LPS)]/[WS*(WEM-WPM)*(WES-WPS)]*20 = X <= 100

where:
LS = loser's score
WS = winner's score
LEM = loser's experience with map (has value from 2 to 3)
LPM = loser's performance with map (has value from 1 to 0)
LES = loser's experience with settings (has value from 2 to 3)
LPS = loser's performance with settings (has value from 1 to 0)
WEM = winner's experience with map (has value from 2 to 3)
WPM = winner's performance with map (has value from 1 to 0)
WES = winner's experience with settings (has value from 2 to 3)
WPS = winner's performance with settings (has value from 1 to 0)
X = points gained/lost by the winner/loser

let's test this formula for 2 new recruits facing eachother in a 1v1 game. their first game. so all the variables are at the base value.

[1000*(2-1)*(2-1)]/[1000*(2-1)*(2-1)]*20 = 20

so just like the current formula the winner will get 20 points.

now let's test this for a 1v1 game a new recruit's first game vs a colonel.
the colonel has played this map and these settings exactly 1000 times and has won 75% of the games. so his variables will change as follows:

score: 3000
WEM = instead of 2 (the base value) it has increased to 2.4
WPM = instead of 1 (the base value) it has dropped to 0.8
WES = instead of 2 (the base value) it has increased to 2.4
WPS = instead of 0 (the base value) it has dropped to 0.8

let's say the colonel wins this game and we have the formula like this:

[1000*(2-1)*(2-1)]/[3000*(2.4-0.8 )*(2.4-0.8 )]*20 =

= [1000 / (3000*1.6*1.6)] *20 =
= (1000/7680)*20 = 2.6 points rounded to 3 points.

with the normal formula we have now it is 1000/3000 * 20 = 6.6 = 7 points.

now let's assume the same game but the new recruit wins
and we get 7680/1000 * 20 = 153.6 rounded down to 100 the max limit.

and with the current formula we have 3000/1000 * 20 = 60 points

so you see, the colonel that abuses that type of game to bash new recruits will gain just 3 points instead of 7 and lose 100 instead of 60 thus making him to stop abusing because he would have to win 34 games for every loss just to break even instead of winning 7.5 games for every loss with the old formula. this will force the abuser to try new types of games. and if he tries a new map with new settings vs a new recruit he will gain 7 points like the current formula because his variables for the new map and new setting will be at the base value.

i hope this helps understanding the formula and that it helps demonstrating it's not as hard as you guys think.[/spoiler]

[Master Bush]

How about concentrating on your own games for a chance

thanks for the advice, but my score is approaching 1700, which is the highest it's been in like 5 years.

also, today is the last mention of gen.lee and his "tactics" from me.

[Master Bush]

If you want to campaign for something, campaign for a scoring system reform.

damn right. campaign for my dynamic scoring formula. if it gets implemented then scores will reflect actual knowledge of the game and not how good you're at farming and abusing. all farmers will be gone, nobody will abuse settings.

[spoiler=dynamic scoring formula]here's the formula we have now:

(LS/WS)*20 = X <= 100

where:
LS = loser's score
WS = winner's score
X = points gained/lost by the winner/loser

now here's my formula:

[LS*(LEM-LPM)*(LES-LPS)]/[WS*(WEM-WPM)*(WES-WPS)]*20 = X <= 100

where:
LS = loser's score
WS = winner's score
LEM = loser's experience with map (has value from 2 to 3)
LPM = loser's performance with map (has value from 1 to 0)
LES = loser's experience with settings (has value from 2 to 3)
LPS = loser's performance with settings (has value from 1 to 0)
WEM = winner's experience with map (has value from 2 to 3)
WPM = winner's performance with map (has value from 1 to 0)
WES = winner's experience with settings (has value from 2 to 3)
WPS = winner's performance with settings (has value from 1 to 0)
X = points gained/lost by the winner/loser

let's test this formula for 2 new recruits facing eachother in a 1v1 game. their first game. so all the variables are at the base value.

[1000*(2-1)*(2-1)]/[1000*(2-1)*(2-1)]*20 = 20

so just like the current formula the winner will get 20 points.

now let's test this for a 1v1 game a new recruit's first game vs a colonel.
the colonel has played this map and these settings exactly 1000 times and has won 75% of the games. so his variables will change as follows:

score: 3000
WEM = instead of 2 (the base value) it has increased to 2.4
WPM = instead of 1 (the base value) it has dropped to 0.8
WES = instead of 2 (the base value) it has increased to 2.4
WPS = instead of 0 (the base value) it has dropped to 0.8

let's say the colonel wins this game and we have the formula like this:

[1000*(2-1)*(2-1)]/[3000*(2.4-0.8 )*(2.4-0.8 )]*20 =

= [1000 / (3000*1.6*1.6)] *20 =
= (1000/7680)*20 = 2.6 points rounded to 3 points.

with the normal formula we have now it is 1000/3000 * 20 = 6.6 = 7 points.

now let's assume the same game but the new recruit wins
and we get 7680/1000 * 20 = 153.6 rounded down to 100 the max limit.

and with the current formula we have 3000/1000 * 20 = 60 points

so you see, the colonel that abuses that type of game to bash new recruits will gain just 3 points instead of 7 and lose 100 instead of 60 thus making him to stop abusing because he would have to win 34 games for every loss just to break even instead of winning 7.5 games for every loss with the old formula. this will force the abuser to try new types of games. and if he tries a new map with new settings vs a new recruit he will gain 7 points like the current formula because his variables for the new map and new setting will be at the base value.

i hope this helps understanding the formula and that it helps demonstrating it's not as hard as you guys think.[/spoiler]

Is there a thread in the Suggestion forum for this?

[jefjef]

The only farming that is forbidden is new recruits. ?

No one really respects his achievement with the methods/games he plays. Except for him I spose. But if he is within the rules and having the fun that he paid to have why bother repeatedly making an issue of it?

[betiko]

dude, I don't know if KA forwarded you this, but I don't think it's very smart to post it. people will know KA forwards his PMs and you will be known for making confidential PMs forwarded to you go public. all for what, telling us again something repeated dozens of times? like natty is saying, campaign against a change of the rules, not against GLG. like it or not, he is following the rules as they are established today. I'm pretty sure he knows he is not the best and most complete CC player; but he went for the challenge of being number 1 on the scoreboard with his stenghts (speed in FS and good knowledge of some more complicated maps). that's it.

[Bones2484]

You are quickly becoming more pathetic than GLG. Congratulations.

[Master Bush]

The only farming that is forbidden is new recruits. ?

No one really respects his achievement with the methods/games he plays. Except for him I spose. But if he is within the rules and having the fun that he paid to have why bother repeatedly making an issue of it?

I think it's the "within the rules" part I have issue with it. Why is it deemed within the rules by the mods? The fact that he seems to help them in their personal lives, as he stated, makes this whole thing extremely fishy. Does he mean he helps them financially? What does "I help your mods, etc. in their personal lives." mean? Am i the only one who sees the problem here? He admits to helping mods in their personal lives, and in the meantime, he seems to get away with a farming rule.

[Master Bush]

dude, I don't know if KA forwarded you this, but I don't think it's very smart to post it. people will know KA forwards his PMs and you will be known for making confidential PMs forwarded to you go public. all for what, telling us again something repeated dozens of times? like natty is saying, campaign against a change of the rules, not against GLG. like it or not, he is following the rules as they are established today. I'm pretty sure he knows he is not the best and most complete CC player; but he went for the challenge of being number 1 on the scoreboard with his stenghts (speed in FS and good knowledge of some more complicated maps). that's it.

No, these are PM's Gen.Lee sent to KA. He also felt the need to forward them to me as well, I guess to let me know that he is reporting them to KA.

[Symmetry]

If you want to campaign for something, campaign for a scoring system reform.

damn right. campaign for my dynamic scoring formula. if it gets implemented then scores will reflect actual knowledge of the game and not how good you're at farming and abusing. all farmers will be gone, nobody will abuse settings.

[spoiler=dynamic scoring formula]here's the formula we have now:

(LS/WS)*20 = X <= 100

where:
LS = loser's score
WS = winner's score
X = points gained/lost by the winner/loser

now here's my formula:

[LS*(LEM-LPM)*(LES-LPS)]/[WS*(WEM-WPM)*(WES-WPS)]*20 = X <= 100

where:
LS = loser's score
WS = winner's score
LEM = loser's experience with map (has value from 2 to 3)
LPM = loser's performance with map (has value from 1 to 0)
LES = loser's experience with settings (has value from 2 to 3)
LPS = loser's performance with settings (has value from 1 to 0)
WEM = winner's experience with map (has value from 2 to 3)
WPM = winner's performance with map (has value from 1 to 0)
WES = winner's experience with settings (has value from 2 to 3)
WPS = winner's performance with settings (has value from 1 to 0)
X = points gained/lost by the winner/loser

let's test this formula for 2 new recruits facing eachother in a 1v1 game. their first game. so all the variables are at the base value.

[1000*(2-1)*(2-1)]/[1000*(2-1)*(2-1)]*20 = 20

so just like the current formula the winner will get 20 points.

now let's test this for a 1v1 game a new recruit's first game vs a colonel.
the colonel has played this map and these settings exactly 1000 times and has won 75% of the games. so his variables will change as follows:

score: 3000
WEM = instead of 2 (the base value) it has increased to 2.4
WPM = instead of 1 (the base value) it has dropped to 0.8
WES = instead of 2 (the base value) it has increased to 2.4
WPS = instead of 0 (the base value) it has dropped to 0.8

let's say the colonel wins this game and we have the formula like this:

[1000*(2-1)*(2-1)]/[3000*(2.4-0.8 )*(2.4-0.8 )]*20 =

= [1000 / (3000*1.6*1.6)] *20 =
= (1000/7680)*20 = 2.6 points rounded to 3 points.

with the normal formula we have now it is 1000/3000 * 20 = 6.6 = 7 points.

now let's assume the same game but the new recruit wins
and we get 7680/1000 * 20 = 153.6 rounded down to 100 the max limit.

and with the current formula we have 3000/1000 * 20 = 60 points

so you see, the colonel that abuses that type of game to bash new recruits will gain just 3 points instead of 7 and lose 100 instead of 60 thus making him to stop abusing because he would have to win 34 games for every loss just to break even instead of winning 7.5 games for every loss with the old formula. this will force the abuser to try new types of games. and if he tries a new map with new settings vs a new recruit he will gain 7 points like the current formula because his variables for the new map and new setting will be at the base value.

i hope this helps understanding the formula and that it helps demonstrating it's not as hard as you guys think.[/spoiler]

Is there a thread in the Suggestion forum for this?

Yes, Here

[Master Bush]

If you want to campaign for something, campaign for a scoring system reform.

damn right. campaign for my dynamic scoring formula. if it gets implemented then scores will reflect actual knowledge of the game and not how good you're at farming and abusing. all farmers will be gone, nobody will abuse settings.

[spoiler=dynamic scoring formula]here's the formula we have now:

(LS/WS)*20 = X <= 100

where:
LS = loser's score
WS = winner's score
X = points gained/lost by the winner/loser

now here's my formula:

[LS*(LEM-LPM)*(LES-LPS)]/[WS*(WEM-WPM)*(WES-WPS)]*20 = X <= 100

where:
LS = loser's score
WS = winner's score
LEM = loser's experience with map (has value from 2 to 3)
LPM = loser's performance with map (has value from 1 to 0)
LES = loser's experience with settings (has value from 2 to 3)
LPS = loser's performance with settings (has value from 1 to 0)
WEM = winner's experience with map (has value from 2 to 3)
WPM = winner's performance with map (has value from 1 to 0)
WES = winner's experience with settings (has value from 2 to 3)
WPS = winner's performance with settings (has value from 1 to 0)
X = points gained/lost by the winner/loser

let's test this formula for 2 new recruits facing eachother in a 1v1 game. their first game. so all the variables are at the base value.

[1000*(2-1)*(2-1)]/[1000*(2-1)*(2-1)]*20 = 20

so just like the current formula the winner will get 20 points.

now let's test this for a 1v1 game a new recruit's first game vs a colonel.
the colonel has played this map and these settings exactly 1000 times and has won 75% of the games. so his variables will change as follows:

score: 3000
WEM = instead of 2 (the base value) it has increased to 2.4
WPM = instead of 1 (the base value) it has dropped to 0.8
WES = instead of 2 (the base value) it has increased to 2.4
WPS = instead of 0 (the base value) it has dropped to 0.8

let's say the colonel wins this game and we have the formula like this:

[1000*(2-1)*(2-1)]/[3000*(2.4-0.8 )*(2.4-0.8 )]*20 =

= [1000 / (3000*1.6*1.6)] *20 =
= (1000/7680)*20 = 2.6 points rounded to 3 points.

with the normal formula we have now it is 1000/3000 * 20 = 6.6 = 7 points.

now let's assume the same game but the new recruit wins
and we get 7680/1000 * 20 = 153.6 rounded down to 100 the max limit.

and with the current formula we have 3000/1000 * 20 = 60 points

so you see, the colonel that abuses that type of game to bash new recruits will gain just 3 points instead of 7 and lose 100 instead of 60 thus making him to stop abusing because he would have to win 34 games for every loss just to break even instead of winning 7.5 games for every loss with the old formula. this will force the abuser to try new types of games. and if he tries a new map with new settings vs a new recruit he will gain 7 points like the current formula because his variables for the new map and new setting will be at the base value.

i hope this helps understanding the formula and that it helps demonstrating it's not as hard as you guys think.[/spoiler]

Is there a thread in the Suggestion forum for this?

Yes, Here

cheers mate.

[DiM]

If you want to campaign for something, campaign for a scoring system reform.

damn right. campaign for my dynamic scoring formula. if it gets implemented then scores will reflect actual knowledge of the game and not how good you're at farming and abusing. all farmers will be gone, nobody will abuse settings.

[spoiler=dynamic scoring formula]here's the formula we have now:

(LS/WS)*20 = X <= 100

where:
LS = loser's score
WS = winner's score
X = points gained/lost by the winner/loser

now here's my formula:

[LS*(LEM-LPM)*(LES-LPS)]/[WS*(WEM-WPM)*(WES-WPS)]*20 = X <= 100

where:
LS = loser's score
WS = winner's score
LEM = loser's experience with map (has value from 2 to 3)
LPM = loser's performance with map (has value from 1 to 0)
LES = loser's experience with settings (has value from 2 to 3)
LPS = loser's performance with settings (has value from 1 to 0)
WEM = winner's experience with map (has value from 2 to 3)
WPM = winner's performance with map (has value from 1 to 0)
WES = winner's experience with settings (has value from 2 to 3)
WPS = winner's performance with settings (has value from 1 to 0)
X = points gained/lost by the winner/loser

let's test this formula for 2 new recruits facing eachother in a 1v1 game. their first game. so all the variables are at the base value.

[1000*(2-1)*(2-1)]/[1000*(2-1)*(2-1)]*20 = 20

so just like the current formula the winner will get 20 points.

now let's test this for a 1v1 game a new recruit's first game vs a colonel.
the colonel has played this map and these settings exactly 1000 times and has won 75% of the games. so his variables will change as follows:

score: 3000
WEM = instead of 2 (the base value) it has increased to 2.4
WPM = instead of 1 (the base value) it has dropped to 0.8
WES = instead of 2 (the base value) it has increased to 2.4
WPS = instead of 0 (the base value) it has dropped to 0.8

let's say the colonel wins this game and we have the formula like this:

[1000*(2-1)*(2-1)]/[3000*(2.4-0.8 )*(2.4-0.8 )]*20 =

= [1000 / (3000*1.6*1.6)] *20 =
= (1000/7680)*20 = 2.6 points rounded to 3 points.

with the normal formula we have now it is 1000/3000 * 20 = 6.6 = 7 points.

now let's assume the same game but the new recruit wins
and we get 7680/1000 * 20 = 153.6 rounded down to 100 the max limit.

and with the current formula we have 3000/1000 * 20 = 60 points

so you see, the colonel that abuses that type of game to bash new recruits will gain just 3 points instead of 7 and lose 100 instead of 60 thus making him to stop abusing because he would have to win 34 games for every loss just to break even instead of winning 7.5 games for every loss with the old formula. this will force the abuser to try new types of games. and if he tries a new map with new settings vs a new recruit he will gain 7 points like the current formula because his variables for the new map and new setting will be at the base value.

i hope this helps understanding the formula and that it helps demonstrating it's not as hard as you guys think.[/spoiler]

Is there a thread in the Suggestion forum for this?

Yes, Here

no, that's not it.
plus, rethinking the farming rules is pointless.
why bother coming up with new rules for farming, abusing, baiting people into joining and all sorts of crappy methods used to increase the score when you can simply make it IMPOSSIBLE to farm, IMPOSSIBLE to abuse the settings?

change the way the current scoring system works and people will stop farming and abusing because farming and abusing won't bring them points.

my formula was suggested 4 years ago and despite solving all the farming and abusing issues it was turned down for the crappiest reason:
"most CC users are too stupid to understand such a complex formula, the current one is far from being perfect but any moron can understand it"

that was the official CC stance 4 years ago. i can't seem to find the original thread cause it was probably deleted/archived so if anybody wants to resuggest my formula feel free to do it. maybe the CC policy has changed and the higher powers will listen this time.

[natty dread]

I think it's the "within the rules" part I have issue with it. Why is it deemed within the rules by the mods? The fact that he seems to help them in their personal lives, as he stated, makes this whole thing extremely fishy. Does he mean he helps them financially? What does "I help your mods, etc. in their personal lives." mean? Am i the only one who sees the problem here? He admits to helping mods in their personal lives, and in the meantime, he seems to get away with a farming rule.

You're not getting it. He's not getting away with anything because he isn't breaking any rules. There's no rule against playing low-ranked players, as long as they're not new recruits.

And that's the way it should be. Imagine if they make a rule against playing games against people who are lower rank than you. Where do you draw the line then? Can a major play a private? Can a field marshal play a captain? Can a general play a colonel? And not only that, once they open that can of worms, next people will complain about something else: people who play team games with one or two low rankers in their team, people who play on a certain map and settings only... And pretty soon, all the diversity, all the different types of games are done away with, and you can only play classic 6 player no spoils against people of the exact same rank, and then NO ONE IS HAVING FUN.

Personally, I think what GLG does is kinda silly - playing games he knows he has very high chances of winning, without much challenge. I wouldn't enjoy playing like that, I'd hate to restrict my playing to certain maps or settings. Also I hate freestyle (I know, that's kind of contradictory but I don't care). But then, that's my opinion, and maybe other people have different priorities, and different tastes, and different ways of having fun in this game. I don't want to dictate how others should play this game, I'd rather concentrate on having fun with the game myself.

In other words: I disagree with the games GLG plays, but I will defend to death his right to play them.

[Crazyirishman]

but nobody really does

[HighlanderAttack]

How about concentrating on your own games for a chance

thanks for the advice, but my score is approaching 1700, which is the highest it's been in like 5 years.

also, today is the last mention of gen.lee and his "tactics" from me.

And you have been playing since you were a kid--sucks for you buddy

[Master Bush]

How about concentrating on your own games for a chance

thanks for the advice, but my score is approaching 1700, which is the highest it's been in like 5 years.

also, today is the last mention of gen.lee and his "tactics" from me.

And you have been playing since you were a kid--sucks for you buddy

WOW you took that bait! I posted that just for the purposes of some major to come along and get all score elitist on me. Congrats are your awesomely high score bra! Thanks for playing along.

[HighlanderAttack]

How about concentrating on your own games for a chance

thanks for the advice, but my score is approaching 1700, which is the highest it's been in like 5 years.

also, today is the last mention of gen.lee and his "tactics" from me.

And you have been playing since you were a kid--sucks for you buddy

WOW you took that bait! I posted that just for the purposes of some major to come along and get all score elitist on me. Congrats are your awesomely high score bra! Thanks for playing along.

very good plan bra! LOL

[Geger]

Sorry for OOT

show

[AAFitz]

How about concentrating on your own games for a chance

thanks for the advice, but my score is approaching 1700, which is the highest it's been in like 5 years.

also, today is the last mention of gen.lee and his "tactics" from me.

And you have been playing since you were a kid--sucks for you buddy

WOW you took that bait! I posted that just for the purposes of some major to come along and get all score elitist on me. Congrats are your awesomely high score bra! Thanks for playing along.

Are you pretending to be going crazy so that a lot of sane people come along and suggest that as well?

[Master Bush]

How about concentrating on your own games for a chance

thanks for the advice, but my score is approaching 1700, which is the highest it's been in like 5 years.

also, today is the last mention of gen.lee and his "tactics" from me.

And you have been playing since you were a kid--sucks for you buddy

WOW you took that bait! I posted that just for the purposes of some major to come along and get all score elitist on me. Congrats are your awesomely high score bra! Thanks for playing along.

Are you pretending to be going crazy so that a lot of sane people come along and suggest that as well?

hahahahaha

[MegasWoman]

For someone who claims he used to be a mod you sure don't understand what the rules are in this game. But I am tired of seeing your name in about every slam post there is so welcome to FAMO....