More "proof" that the scoring system is rigged

[jpliberty]

Now how did this digress to a callout thread. lol

I don't think the post has digressed. I think some are quite properly trying to prove me wrong in saying that higher ranked people don't play enough unique opponents.

Of course, I was and remain correct, but I do respect their fervor

[Fruitcake]

Put a team together Libby old chap, pm me with the names, I will put a team together that matches on points gained/lost and will gladly play you best of 3/5/7/9 games....standard triples, no cards, classic map, chained forts. In my opinion, for what it is worth, this shows the least 'luck' and the most strategic skill. I already have open games of this nature up on the board, but for you I am happy to go 'private'.

Not seeming to be a bore about this Libs old boy, but you talk the talk, I have offered you a straight chance to walk the walk, yet you seem to be avoiding the chance.

I guess one could try to interpret your previous post as meaning you were challenging me...I assumed you were addressing someone known as Libby, since all your comments seemed directed to others rather than to the OP.

I'll try to get around to it, I've already got some games going with the estimable AAFritz whose challenge to me was plainly worded---remember, I am a low scorer, you must keep things simple so that I can follow.

If you check you'll learn that we've played exactly one game, back in 2007, which was a 4 way singles. I stomped you then, without any mercy. From the meager number of points I received for giving you that whupping, I would guess that was way back when you were what, some lowly corporal...not that there is anything wrong with that

When I get some time I'll pore over your fairly obtusely worded "challenge" and let you know.

I did check that game, and yes, it seems you were senior to me as my points loss was 18 in that game...how time has moved on along with ourselves eh libby, I was, as you point out, but a Corporal at the time . I will await your picking up of the gauntlet after this run of single games you are presntly enjoying with Fitz. Then you can try your hand at team games.

[jpliberty]

Put a team together Libby old chap, pm me with the names, I will put a team together that matches on points gained/lost and will gladly play you best of 3/5/7/9 games....standard triples, no cards, classic map, chained forts. In my opinion, for what it is worth, this shows the least 'luck' and the most strategic skill. I already have open games of this nature up on the board, but for you I am happy to go 'private'.

Not seeming to be a bore about this Libs old boy, but you talk the talk, I have offered you a straight chance to walk the walk, yet you seem to be avoiding the chance.

I guess one could try to interpret your previous post as meaning you were challenging me...I assumed you were addressing someone known as Libby, since all your comments seemed directed to others rather than to the OP.

I'll try to get around to it, I've already got some games going with the estimable AAFritz whose challenge to me was plainly worded---remember, I am a low scorer, you must keep things simple so that I can follow.

If you check you'll learn that we've played exactly one game, back in 2007, which was a 4 way singles. I stomped you then, without any mercy. From the meager number of points I received for giving you that whupping, I would guess that was way back when you were what, some lowly corporal...not that there is anything wrong with that

When I get some time I'll pore over your fairly obtusely worded "challenge" and let you know.

I did check that game, and yes, it seems you were senior to me as my points loss was 18 in that game...how time has moved on along with ourselves eh libby, I was, as you point out, but a Corporal at the time . I will await your picking up of the gauntlet after this run of single games you are presntly enjoying with Fitz. Then you can try your hand at team games.

Sure thing. And I'm sure you understand that since your crushing defeat at my hands you have been preening with your new high rank buddies while I have remained close to the masses!

I've never played trips, and might even have a question or two. I have no problem with no card games. I have no clue if I can amass a team worthy of this critical mission, but I see no reason not to give it a go, what with my perfect record against you and in order to defend the honor of the little people everywhere. I have no problem with team games except that like all games one bad or uncommunicative player can spoil the game, and interrupt my perfect record

[jpliberty]

...

p.s.-can you guys post the game numbers so we can check in? thanks!!

I'm sure you want to look in on the games so as to provide me with a cheering section...but I ask that you mute your cheers because AAFritz will need to concentrate.

Here are the game numbers (it might be you find one I haven't yet joined, if so, please pm to let me know the number.

2973924
2973926
2973930
2973932
2973937
2973938
2973939
2973942
2973943
2973946

Private Game
Game 2971345Drop Game Standard
Sequential World 2.1
World 2.1 Escalating
Unlimited Yes

* AAFitz 4.9
* -empty-

Private Game
Game 2971348Drop Game Standard
Sequential World 2.1
World 2.1 Escalating
Unlimited Yes

* AAFitz 4.9
* -empty-

Private Game
Game 2971350

Unlimited Yes

* AAFitz 4.9
* -empty-

Private Game
Game 2971353Drop Game Standard
Sequential World 2.1
World 2.1 Escalating
Unlimited Yes

* AAFitz 4.9
* -empty-

Private Game
Game 2971359Drop Game

2971359Drop Game Standard
Sequential World 2.1
World 2.1 Escalating
Unlimited Yes

* AAFitz 4.9
* -empty-

Private Game
2973769Drop Game Standard
Sequential World 2.1
World 2.1 Escalating
Unlimited No

* AAFitz 4.9
* -empty-

Private Game
2973772Drop Game Standard
Sequential World 2.1
World 2.1 Escalating
Unlimited Yes

* AAFitz 4.9
* -empty-

Private Game
2973773Drop Game Standard
Sequential World 2.1
World 2.1 Escalating
Unlimited Yes

* AAFitz 4.9
* -empty-

Private Game
2973777

[dividedbyzero]

Of course, I was and remain correct, but I do respect their fervor

I think we need to create a subforum in GD with three categories.

1) The Dice are Unfair(tm)
2) High ranked people only play other high ranks.
3) High ranked people only hunt noobs.

Over the last few months, with the exception of some clan challenge games and my latest wins over H2SY, I played in very few private games and quite a number of public games. The public games were teamed mostly with people either of equivalent or higher ranks and were open to anyone. There were a whole lot of unique opponents in there...at least a hundred unique opponents in the last few weeks alone.

Do you go through the open games ? I see lots of open games with colonels, majors, captains and even some Brigadiers...lots of these were on the first 2 pages alone. Anyone can join...so the opportunity for many unique opponents is there. They have no control over who actually joins (with the exception of the foe list).

So, I just don't understand the gripe, I guess.

[jpliberty]

Of course, I was and remain correct, but I do respect their fervor

I think we need to create a subforum in GD with three categories.

1) The Dice are Unfair(tm)
2) High ranked people only play other high ranks.
3) High ranked people only hunt noobs.

Over the last few months, with the exception of some clan challenge games and my latest wins over H2SY, I played in very few private games and quite a number of public games. The public games were teamed mostly with people either of equivalent or higher ranks and were open to anyone. There were a whole lot of unique opponents in there...at least a hundred unique opponents in the last few weeks alone.

Do you go through the open games ? I see lots of open games with colonels, majors, captains and even some Brigadiers...lots of these were on the first 2 pages alone. Anyone can join...so the opportunity for many unique opponents is there. They have no control over who actually joins (with the exception of the foe list).

So, I just don't understand the gripe, I guess.

If what I am saying can be termed a gripe it is that many high ranking players do not play a significant number of unique opponents. If one's defeats represent less than 1% of all active players, how is it that any rank could be considered representative of skill in the community? Of course, the converse is true, and it doesn't mean they have no or little skill. It just cannot be determined when they have played against such a small universe of opponents. It is one reason the scoring system is skewed, worthless, etc.

[dividedbyzero]

If what I am saying can be termed a gripe it is that many high ranking players do not play a significant number of unique opponents. If one's defeats represent less than 1% of all active players, how is it that any rank could be considered representative of skill in the community? Of course, the converse is true, and it doesn't mean they have no or little skill. It just cannot be determined when they have played against such a small universe of opponents. It is one reason the scoring system is skewed, worthless, etc.

I haven't gone through the scoreboard yet, but say out of the top 25 players, have you researched the unique defeats ? If so, can you post it up (I'm too lazy to do it...and frankly, I'm not buying your argument, anyway) ? That data might be interesting support to your claim.

I'm far from the top, but if I read my Map Rank correctly I've got 2300+ unique defeats. Am I reading that right ? I ran another player, much higher ranked than me, and he had 6000+ unique defeats. Hrm. I'm curious what the stat collections say.

[jpliberty]

If what I am saying can be termed a gripe it is that many high ranking players do not play a significant number of unique opponents. If one's defeats represent less than 1% of all active players, how is it that any rank could be considered representative of skill in the community? Of course, the converse is true, and it doesn't mean they have no or little skill. It just cannot be determined when they have played against such a small universe of opponents. It is one reason the scoring system is skewed, worthless, etc.

I haven't gone through the scoreboard yet, but say out of the top 25 players, have you researched the unique defeats ? If so, can you post it up (I'm too lazy to do it...and frankly, I'm not buying your argument, anyway) ? That data might be interesting support to your claim.

I'm far from the top, but if I read my Map Rank correctly I've got 2300+ unique defeats. Am I reading that right ? I ran another player, much higher ranked than me, and he had 6000+ unique defeats. Hrm. I'm curious what the stat collections say.

I've looked at the data for many of the top scorers.

Of course, much data is easily available thru Map Rank.

I will post, perhaps in this thread perhaps in a new, my own thoughts on the "value" of that data.

My central point is that Scoring/Rank are meaningless. Accordingly, I wouldn't look for any great discoveries from that data.

For example, while I strongly assert that no one should be considered highly ranked because they have repeatedly whupped the same few victims (and, quite literally, that is the story for some of the high ranking players) other players do not fit that pattern or stereotype.

There are many ways to game the system. And, as I hope is obvious, just because the system can be gamed doesn't mean everyone with a higher score is gaming the system.

The data can and should be viewed individually.

The top ranked Conquer Clubian, poo-maker is a clear case in point.

Very, very few ratings left or received (and to restate so I can be clear, I have no use for ratings, and mentioned them only because few ratings left/received is an indication of few unique opponents). In poo's case, poo has defeated comparatively few unique opponents.

However, while that could indicate far too high a rank for the achievement, in reality I oppose rank, not any individual achievement.

And, to be more clear, poo's record on the Classic Map alone should give anyone pause before you think you can roll over the poo people.

I'm not saying that poo or any other high ranked player necesarily is an overrated player.

I am questioning the concept that poo (who has defeated fewer than 1% of the players in this community) or anyone else can be heralded as the KING.

The data, at best, is inconclusive. What is not inconclusive, and what is wrong, is the assignment of rank and the related scoring system. Total BS that.

[Simon Viavant]

Obviously, the highest scoring people milk the point system till it squeals. Your point?

[jpliberty]

Obviously, the highest scoring people milk the point system till it squeals. Your point?

Eloquently asked my astute fellow Conquer Clubian. And you ask because of, what is it I could possibly add to that?

[mpjh]

If what I am saying can be termed a gripe it is that many high ranking players do not play a significant number of unique opponents. If one's defeats represent less than 1% of all active players, how is it that any rank could be considered representative of skill in the community? Of course, the converse is true, and it doesn't mean they have no or little skill. It just cannot be determined when they have played against such a small universe of opponents. It is one reason the scoring system is skewed, worthless, etc.

I haven't gone through the scoreboard yet, but say out of the top 25 players, have you researched the unique defeats ? If so, can you post it up (I'm too lazy to do it...and frankly, I'm not buying your argument, anyway) ? That data might be interesting support to your claim.

I'm far from the top, but if I read my Map Rank correctly I've got 2300+ unique defeats. Am I reading that right ? I ran another player, much higher ranked than me, and he had 6000+ unique defeats. Hrm. I'm curious what the stat collections say.

I've looked at the data for many of the top scorers.

Of course, much data is easily available thru Map Rank.


Who the hell cares, get a life. If poo wants to be king, so what. Sounds like you got the problem. It is, in the end, only a game.
I will post, perhaps in this thread perhaps in a new, my own thoughts on the "value" of that data.

My central point is that Scoring/Rank are meaningless. Accordingly, I wouldn't look for any great discoveries from that data.

For example, while I strongly assert that no one should be considered highly ranked because they have repeatedly whupped the same few victims (and, quite literally, that is the story for some of the high ranking players) other players do not fit that pattern or stereotype.

There are many ways to game the system. And, as I hope is obvious, just because the system can be gamed doesn't mean everyone with a higher score is gaming the system.

The data can and should be viewed individually.

The top ranked Conquer Clubian, poo-maker is a clear case in point.

Very, very few ratings left or received (and to restate so I can be clear, I have no use for ratings, and mentioned them only because few ratings left/received is an indication of few unique opponents). In poo's case, poo has defeated comparatively few unique opponents.

However, while that could indicate far too high a rank for the achievement, in reality I oppose rank, not any individual achievement.

And, to be more clear, poo's record on the Classic Map alone should give anyone pause before you think you can roll over the poo people.

I'm not saying that poo or any other high ranked player necesarily is an overrated player.

I am questioning the concept that poo (who has defeated fewer than 1% of the players in this community) or anyone else can be heralded as the KING.

The data, at best, is inconclusive. What is not inconclusive, and what is wrong, is the assignment of rank and the related scoring system. Total BS that.

[mpjh]

Like I asked before. Who the hell cares? If you want to rant about an unfair class system, there are plenty in the real world to take seriously. This is a GAME.

[dividedbyzero]

However, while that could indicate far too high a rank for the achievement, in reality I oppose rank, not any individual achievement.

And, to be more clear, poo's record on the Classic Map alone should give anyone pause before you think you can roll over the poo people.

I'm not saying that poo or any other high ranked player necesarily is an overrated player.

I am questioning the concept that poo (who has defeated fewer than 1% of the players in this community) or anyone else can be heralded as the KING.

The data, at best, is inconclusive. What is not inconclusive, and what is wrong, is the assignment of rank and the related scoring system. Total BS that.

Okay, I'm glad you clarified some of your statements...because let me tell you, Poo-maker is one helluva a player...and a pretty decent chap on top of that. If you contend that Poo (and others like him) are not overrated, then why attack the position/rank they have achieved ? If unique defeats is your true measure, go challenge Robinette to a series of 4-6 player games on Classic. Get back to me on how that works out for you.

Anyway, before assessing that Poo's played 1% of the total population, you need to break it down further. How many truly active players are there on here ? How many are premiums ? (Premium is important because freemies will have many fewer opportunities to play...that would affect the statistical possibilities of potential opponents, I would think.) Do the players in question play primarily private games or public games ? (Again, private games will definitely limit potential opponents. No one can control who joins public games outside the foe list.) If they play public games, then it is what it is, right ?

And the more important thing for me - why is this such a burr under your saddle ? If rank means nothing to you, then you should be truly free...any opponent is a good opponent, right ? And your skill level should dictate your rise to the upper ranks, right ? Sure there are people that milk the system, but there are plenty of damn good players in those top ranks. I can guarantee that pretty much any of them will probably beat you if you played a series of games with them. Not 1v1, because the drop determines too much. This railing against points and ranking reminds me a lot of Dugcarr, only with less cursing and a bit more logic. But I digress...

One other thing...keeping points at Poo's level *has* to be a challenge. You stand to lose much more per game than you can possibly win. Should the Conqueror have to play king of the mountain and defeat every player to be on top ? It's a bit of a ludicrous notion, I think.

[jpliberty]

If what I am saying can be termed a gripe it is that many high ranking players do not play a significant number of unique opponents. If one's defeats represent less than 1% of all active players, how is it that any rank could be considered representative of skill in the community? Of course, the converse is true, and it doesn't mean they have no or little skill. It just cannot be determined when they have played against such a small universe of opponents. It is one reason the scoring system is skewed, worthless, etc.

I haven't gone through the scoreboard yet, but say out of the top 25 players, have you researched the unique defeats ? If so, can you post it up (I'm too lazy to do it...and frankly, I'm not buying your argument, anyway) ? That data might be interesting support to your claim.

I'm far from the top, but if I read my Map Rank correctly I've got 2300+ unique defeats. Am I reading that right ? I ran another player, much higher ranked than me, and he had 6000+ unique defeats. Hrm. I'm curious what the stat collections say.

I've looked at the data for many of the top scorers.

Of course, much data is easily available thru Map Rank.


Who the hell cares, get a life. If poo wants to be king, so what. Sounds like you got the problem. It is, in the end, only a game.
I will post, perhaps in this thread perhaps in a new, my own thoughts on the "value" of that data.

My central point is that Scoring/Rank are meaningless. Accordingly, I wouldn't look for any great discoveries from that data.

For example, while I strongly assert that no one should be considered highly ranked because they have repeatedly whupped the same few victims (and, quite literally, that is the story for some of the high ranking players) other players do not fit that pattern or stereotype.

There are many ways to game the system. And, as I hope is obvious, just because the system can be gamed doesn't mean everyone with a higher score is gaming the system.

The data can and should be viewed individually.

The top ranked Conquer Clubian, poo-maker is a clear case in point.

Very, very few ratings left or received (and to restate so I can be clear, I have no use for ratings, and mentioned them only because few ratings left/received is an indication of few unique opponents). In poo's case, poo has defeated comparatively few unique opponents.

However, while that could indicate far too high a rank for the achievement, in reality I oppose rank, not any individual achievement.

And, to be more clear, poo's record on the Classic Map alone should give anyone pause before you think you can roll over the poo people.

I'm not saying that poo or any other high ranked player necesarily is an overrated player.

I am questioning the concept that poo (who has defeated fewer than 1% of the players in this community) or anyone else can be heralded as the KING.

The data, at best, is inconclusive. What is not inconclusive, and what is wrong, is the assignment of rank and the related scoring system. Total BS that.

Perhaps the next time you say you are quoting me you won't be so ignint as to insert your comments into the entirety of my post, thus making it sound like I said something which you said?

[jpliberty]

Like I asked before. Who the hell cares? If you want to rant about an unfair class system, there are plenty in the real world to take seriously. This is a GAME.

I was commenting on the game. You bring up the real world. And you never said that before, not in this post, at least not unless you include your previous bit of ignintcy, about which I already commented.

[mpjh]

I did not write that post. After the paragraph asking who cares, the rest of the post if from someone else. Somehow they got merged. My post is the last simple one about the real world vs. the game.

[SkyT]

i left like 10 ratings and got 90 something, i just dont like leaving ratings

[jpliberty]

However, while that could indicate far too high a rank for the achievement, in reality I oppose rank, not any individual achievement.

And, to be more clear, poo's record on the Classic Map alone should give anyone pause before you think you can roll over the poo people.

I'm not saying that poo or any other high ranked player necesarily is an overrated player.

I am questioning the concept that poo (who has defeated fewer than 1% of the players in this community) or anyone else can be heralded as the KING.

The data, at best, is inconclusive. What is not inconclusive, and what is wrong, is the assignment of rank and the related scoring system. Total BS that.

Okay, I'm glad you clarified some of your statements...because let me tell you, Poo-maker is one helluva a player...and a pretty decent chap on top of that. If you contend that Poo (and others like him) are not overrated, then why attack the position/rank they have achieved ? If unique defeats is your true measure, go challenge Robinette to a series of 4-6 player games on Classic. Get back to me on how that works out for you.

Anyway, before assessing that Poo's played 1% of the total population, you need to break it down further. How many truly active players are there on here ? How many are premiums ? (Premium is important because freemies will have many fewer opportunities to play...that would affect the statistical possibilities of potential opponents, I would think.) Do the players in question play primarily private games or public games ? (Again, private games will definitely limit potential opponents. No one can control who joins public games outside the foe list.) If they play public games, then it is what it is, right ?

And the more important thing for me - why is this such a burr under your saddle ? If rank means nothing to you, then you should be truly free...any opponent is a good opponent, right ? And your skill level should dictate your rise to the upper ranks, right ? Sure there are people that milk the system, but there are plenty of damn good players in those top ranks. I can guarantee that pretty much any of them will probably beat you if you played a series of games with them. Not 1v1, because the drop determines too much. This railing against points and ranking reminds me a lot of Dugcarr, only with less cursing and a bit more logic. But I digress...

One other thing...keeping points at Poo's level *has* to be a challenge. You stand to lose much more per game than you can possibly win. Should the Conqueror have to play king of the mountain and defeat every player to be on top ? It's a bit of a ludicrous notion, I think.

How can you possibly read what I wrote then conclude that I somehow regard unique defeats as the be all and end all? Amazing to me.

What I am criticizing is the very existence of the scoring system. Necessarily I must take on rank/score to do that. I am not trying to defame anyone (except, of course, for lardass High Ranking Score Whores who got that way because they are Score Whores and who need a big needle shoved right thru their eyes ).

I never have suggested the poo person is one of them. Indeed, as I thought you appreciated, I suggested quite a different scenario applies.

I will post something on that when I have time, and poo's record is something which deserves serious analysis, both for what it says about my complaints and for what others might recognize about this particular player's ability.

Hopefully you now understand that I might be one of the poo favorers, even if an anti score fan, I might well have the ability to understand achievement.

Again, just look at the record on the Classic Map. I'll have more on that, because to my mind it does prove my point, and, at the same time, "prove" the poo ability, which some might rightly suggest doesn't need to be proven.

[mpjh]

Liberty, I think you just like to read yourself in print. I think the word is "narcissistic." There is truth in your complaint, but not enough to justify this ranting thread.

[dividedbyzero]

How can you possibly read what I wrote then conclude that I somehow regard unique defeats as the be all and end all? Amazing to me.

I took what you wrote before:

If what I am saying can be termed a gripe it is that many high ranking players do not play a significant number of unique opponents. If one's defeats represent less than 1% of all active players, how is it that any rank could be considered representative of skill in the community? Of course, the converse is true, and it doesn't mean they have no or little skill. It just cannot be determined when they have played against such a small universe of opponents. It is one reason the scoring system is skewed, worthless, etc.

as a basis for you criticism of the scoring system. Did I read that wrong ? Is it not saying that unique defeats is a key measure of your displeasure with the high ranking players ?

What I am criticizing is the very existence of the scoring system. Necessarily I must take on rank/score to do that. I am not trying to defame anyone

So what would you advocate ? No scoring whatsoever ? Wouldn't that remove a big competitive element of the site ? To me it would make it feel like a new-age "we're all special" type of thing. I like to win. If there's no consequences for losing, though (i.e. losing points), would as many people even try ?

Or maybe a flat point scale ? That would actually be to the detriment of lower ranks, I'd think. Part of the difficulty of maintaining a higher rank is the risk factor or many points lost for each point gained.

Something else entirely ? I'm curious what your option would be. Perhaps it indeed would be something to go into Suggestions/Fixes. All sorts of players here have come up with good fixes/changes for the site.

I will post something on that when I have time, and poo's record is something which deserves serious analysis, both for what it says about my complaints and for what others might recognize about this particular player's ability.

I think analyzing quite a few of the top players might be in order for you...if just to see if there are trends or tricks. I recognize quite a few of them as players that can do any map, any setting, and any opponent and they'll do well no matter what. There will always be some specialists and some that abuse the system, but a goodly number of those top guys truly deserve to be right where they are. I can only speak for the ones I know and have played, though.

[jpliberty]

Liberty, I think you just like to read yourself in print. I think the word is "narcissistic." There is truth in your complaint, but not enough to justify this ranting thread.

Then why keep adding to it?

I know, some are leaders, some are sheepish followers. I require no flock. Go somewhere, do some good, away with you

[jpliberty]

I recognize quite a few of them as players that can do any map, any setting, and any opponent and they'll do well no matter what. There will always be some specialists and some that abuse the system, but a goodly number of those top guys truly deserve to be right where they are. I can only speak for the ones I know and have played, though.

Name ONE of your "quite a few".

Just name one, give me specifics on that one.

Cause I don't for a second believe it is that simple, nor have I ever suggested same.

Remember, I come at this with the very direct and simple statement that NO scoring system exists which is adequate. I quite bluntly state that there should be no score, no rank, heaven forbid, no medals.

And, I rank far, far higher than most in all those "estimable" attainments

Long before I ever started this thread I was on it (this thing you and several others now have prompted me to do...like I am some idiot who spoke before he looked.

I looked. Even a cursory glance at the very basic stats of only the highest scoring players would show you there are problems, serious problems

Now what are those. That gets ALOT more complicated.

So, again, who is it you know about? Really, it's alot more complicated than you make it sound.

I repeatedly have criticized the management of this site and all of their idolators, but repeeatedly I have not directly nor personally confronted the score holders...except to very bluntly state that their ranks are BS...NOT that they are BS, that their scores are BS.

See? There is a huge difference.

If one for one nanosecond believes in CC's scoring system I ask that one to explain that system to me.

NO ONE CAN!

I know what it is "based" on. Do you?

It's pure BS, but do you know what it is based upon? Again, there is "science' here...hehe.

PURE BS, but that is what CC wants you to believe. Why? MONEY.

I've received pms urging me to do what anyone actually can do which is to analyze play history for each of the "top scorers".

For many, many reasons I believe that such data as can be gleamed from Map Rank, while very useful is not, cannot be the total story here.

Some TWITS continue to construe everything I have said and will say on this subject as somehow objecting to their idealized gods.

Well, that's true. ANYONE who believes the scoring system in place at CC has any validity whatsoever is a complete moron.

I've made that point very clear.

I'ver repeatedly stated that the scoring system exists precisely and SOLELY because the administration of CC KNOWS there are morons in their midst who will give them money if they service the morons.

Some people like to get medals. Who doesn't. Voila, we have a medal system. Guess what. So many people now cry out for new medals, so what does CC do, well, it promises the creation of new medals, it solicits, from the MORONs, more "ideas" for more medals.

It's all very funny on one hand.

So, I'll get back to your statement. Just name that "quite a few". Cause, frankly, I know alot about the playing history of alot of the top scorers, and although my opposition to the scoring system itself is quite clear, my reason and knowledge tells me that no single individual's play record yet is revealing of any one trend which should lead the whole CC community to some desired communion.
Remember, there are idiots here, among us, who believe the current system is not rigged. They fervently believe that those who adamantly refuse to play more than 1% of this community are gods...and why? Because they are part of the tiny, very small universe of TWITS who play only themselves, OVER and OVER and OVER.

They like having one or several huge scores, large scorers, because that validates their own presumption, that they somehow have attained something of value.

I am the one who has and will vanquish more than 50% of the time ANY idiot who says it is otherwise. I don't think I can do so much more than 50% of the time because I KNOW this game is based, almost ENTIRELY, on luck. But, I have a hunch that anyone so STUPID as to find value in the CC system is such an idiot that I probably can win the closer games I otherwise would have lost, so almost certainly I will win slightly MORE than 50% against anyone who really and truly believes the CC scoring system has merit. I've beaten idiots before, I can do so again.

Well, I'm not one of them, but there are more of them than there are of me.

[ParadiceCity9]

jpuberty is still goin at this huh...

[jpliberty]

jpuberty is still goin at this huh...

yes, and you have yet to mention anything which shows you to have an independent, actual thinking mind. Are you capable of making any statement of your own? Must you so blatantly hide behind your own solicitations for others to attack me? Do you have no personal pride, no actual balls?

Do you have a mind? Or,do you follow. In my answer to an immediately previous post I mentioned the sheep. BAA.

[ParadiceCity9]

jpuberty is still goin at this huh...

yes, and you have yet to mention anything which shows you to have an independent, actual thinking mind. Are you capable of making any statement of your own? Must you so blatantly hide behind your own solicitations for others to attack me? Do you have no personal pride, no actual balls?

Do you have a mind? Or,do you follow. In my answer to an immediately previous post I mentioned the sheep. BAA.

I'm not posting in this thread because the original post makes, literally, no sense. Why would I waste my time on idiotic statements like that?