Conquer Club

SirSebstar wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:I didn't know getting stripped of your premium is considered light... or getting website bans.

Peruse the C&A forums, you'll see the argument made.

Anyway, medal stripping seems like a good secondary punishment.

We could also tell their mom, or boss...
I fail to see how removing medals unrelated to the cheating action can be construed as anything but spite?!

IF someone would cheat to gain a particular medal, having obtained said medal, and then buying back after being found a multi, yes THEN I can see a direct lick and it could be worth it.
However is someone is simply, (for one reason or another) a cheating idiot, then i fail to see its relevance.

also, although I am opposed, can you elaborate....?! Do you want player to loose all posibilities of them having/gaining medals, or do you want to remove the count of the medals. or... well your goal/ means is unclear to me.

Medals are rewards for achievement, if someone cheated in their process of gaining those rewards they should be stripped of their rewards. An Olympic drug cheat would be stripped of their medals if caught. Court-marshalled soldiers are often stripped of their medals.

I hope that you don't see either of those actions as spiteful or irrelevant.

Symmetry wrote:

jefjef wrote:From the OPs posted suggestion:

there's a fair amount of consensus that the punishments are kind of light for premium players who cheat.

So was this sugg created out of disdain for premium players? Huh.

That's a fair criticism, and I hope that my position has been clearly altered from the OP that asked for discussion of the topic. I do think the punishments tend to be light for premium players, but then they've paid for a lighter punishment. This suggestion seems more like an equal punishment, if that makes sense.

Medals earned unfairly, regardless of premium or freemium, would be stripped equally from cheaters.

I don't recall anyone avoiding punishment due to being premium and even if their being premium was taken into consideration what would be wrong with that? A business should and needs to consider those who provide them profit.

As for this sugg it's obvious from your response that you are specifically targeting premium players. You could edit the qualifying "premium" out of your sugg...

jefjef wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

jefjef wrote:From the OPs posted suggestion:

there's a fair amount of consensus that the punishments are kind of light for premium players who cheat.

So was this sugg created out of disdain for premium players? Huh.

That's a fair criticism, and I hope that my position has been clearly altered from the OP that asked for discussion of the topic. I do think the punishments tend to be light for premium players, but then they've paid for a lighter punishment. This suggestion seems more like an equal punishment, if that makes sense.

Medals earned unfairly, regardless of premium or freemium, would be stripped equally from cheaters.

I don't recall anyone avoiding punishment due to being premium and even if their being premium was taken into consideration what would be wrong with that? A business should and needs to consider those who provide them profit.

As for this sugg it's obvious from your response that you are specifically targeting premium players. You could edit the qualifying "premium" out of your sugg...

Not really my policy- I consider the OP as the original post, asking for discussion and input. If I just wanted yes or no answers, I wouldn't have submitted it as a suggestion.

I kind of like that people can take the original suggestion, modify it, interpret it, change it, criticise it...

I won't edit my OP, as there's plenty of give and take based on it by other posters. Some stuff I've accepted, some rejected, some others have taken on board, or rejected in their own ways.

The discussion is as it stands, and I won't modify its history.

SirSebstar wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:I didn't know getting stripped of your premium is considered light... or getting website bans.

Peruse the C&A forums, you'll see the argument made.

Anyway, medal stripping seems like a good secondary punishment.

We could also tell their mom, or boss...
I fail to see how removing medals unrelated to the cheating action can be construed as anything but spite?!

IF someone would cheat to gain a particular medal, having obtained said medal, and then buying back after being found a multi, yes THEN I can see a direct lick and it could be worth it.
However is someone is simply, (for one reason or another) a cheating idiot, then i fail to see its relevance.

also, although I am opposed, can you elaborate....?! Do you want player to loose all posibilities of them having/gaining medals, or do you want to remove the count of the medals. or... well your goal/ means is unclear to me.

Good point, Sebster. I would agree with you that only medals that were gained/pertain to the particular cheating action would make the most sense...but is that something that the C&A mods would be able to/have time to determine? Would it be worth that effort?

jefjef wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

jefjef wrote:From the OPs posted suggestion:

there's a fair amount of consensus that the punishments are kind of light for premium players who cheat.

So was this sugg created out of disdain for premium players? Huh.

That's a fair criticism, and I hope that my position has been clearly altered from the OP that asked for discussion of the topic. I do think the punishments tend to be light for premium players, but then they've paid for a lighter punishment. This suggestion seems more like an equal punishment, if that makes sense.

Medals earned unfairly, regardless of premium or freemium, would be stripped equally from cheaters.

I don't recall anyone avoiding punishment due to being premium and even if their being premium was taken into consideration what would be wrong with that? A business should and needs to consider those who provide them profit.

As for this sugg it's obvious from your response that you are specifically targeting premium players. You could edit the qualifying "premium" out of your sugg...

I am of the opinion that this suggestion actually targets freemiums more than premiums. Currently, freemiums aren't going to "lose their premium" if caught cheating, whereas premiums are. So this would actually find a punishment that also affects freemiums.

It's good that people can see this working in both directions. And that this is a discussion and suggestion that goes a little bit beyond the OP.

Probably should have done this awhile ago. I'm gonna Sticky this.

patrickaa317 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:This is my thought:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=170171&start=60#p3785163

Ok, I think we've dealt with that one then.

Woody gave input, noone else

OK, seeing as how I've spent a fair amount of time obtaining medals, and not just lots won by hosting a tournament medals like you i'll chime in. Your idea of giving someone a medal that indicates they have been cheating is nowhere near a deterrent as losing all that you've worked hard to achieve.

I support the cheater losing all medals idea and reject your cheating medal awarded idea.

I must have missed it, but someone suggested "awarding" a medal for cheating? Are you referring to the asterisk put near their name/medals as the "medal" for cheating? I thought that whole thing was said tongue-in-cheek. I don't like the idea of an asterisk, I've been convinced that the point reset is a bad idea.

I still like the ideas of a point penalty and the specific targeting of certain related medals for removal if they were gained while cheating.

agentcom wrote:I must have missed it, but someone suggested "awarding" a medal for cheating? Are you referring to the asterisk put near their name/medals as the "medal" for cheating? I thought that whole thing was said tongue-in-cheek. I don't like the idea of an asterisk, I've been convinced that the point reset is a bad idea.

I still like the ideas of a point penalty and the specific targeting of certain related medals for removal if they were gained while cheating.

It was a suggestion earlier in the thread, and I think it was intended tongue-in-cheek. I'm generally pretty much with you on the rest- I don't think the asterisk is a good idea- it's just not applicable here.

Points reset seems a bit harsh, and point penalties might be popular, but neither seem easy to implement fairly. Stripping of medals seems like a point of honour. A good player who cheated will earn them back fairly if they want to.

agentcom wrote:I must have missed it, but someone suggested "awarding" a medal for cheating? Are you referring to the asterisk put near their name/medals as the "medal" for cheating? I thought that whole thing was said tongue-in-cheek.

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't said tongue-in-cheek, based on the ferocity used in defending it.

Woodruff wrote:

agentcom wrote:I must have missed it, but someone suggested "awarding" a medal for cheating? Are you referring to the asterisk put near their name/medals as the "medal" for cheating? I thought that whole thing was said tongue-in-cheek.

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't said tongue-in-cheek, based on the ferocity used in defending it.

In either case, I'm not really for branding people.

Symmetry wrote:
Points reset seems a bit harsh, and point penalties might be popular, but neither seem easy to implement fairly. Stripping of medals seems like a point of honour. A good player who cheated will earn them back fairly if they want to.

I don't think point resets are harsh, I just think that it was rightly pointed out that this punishes future opponents. Most of these people have some skill even if not all of their points were rightly earned. I shouldn't have to follow C&A to know which privates not to join games with cuz they're as good as colonels, but I'm gonna lose monster points if I play with them.

I think point penalties are actually a pretty good solution. It could be a flat rate or a percentage or the amount of the point difference between whatever rank you're at and the next lowers (i.e. 500 for a major who is caught cheating). It kind of takes the unearned points away from these people and (assuming they change their ways) won't punish the next opponent because those people are now playing different types of games where they don't have the unfair advantages. And if they are good enough, they will earn the lost points back within the rules.

Basically, I agree with your point on medal stripping, but see no difference between that and points. Earn what you get fairly or lose what you get unfairly. I don't have that big of a problem in taking away a few points or medals from someone.

BUT I feel this way mostly about multis, freestyle turn sitting abuse, and the most egregious forms of farming only. It wouldn't be appropriate to use this for forum abuse. And I'm not sure if the rules are clear enough to hand out these types of punishment for "ranching" which is as hard to define as it is to tell if its a rule violation.

agentcom wrote:BUT I feel this way mostly about multis, freestyle turn sitting abuse, and the most egregious forms of farming only. It wouldn't be appropriate to use this for forum abuse. And I'm not sure if the rules are clear enough to hand out these types of punishment for "ranching" which is as hard to define as it is to tell if its a rule violation.

Eh, forum abuse is already handled far more harshly than cheating abuse anyway.

agentcom wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

agentcom wrote:I must have missed it, but someone suggested "awarding" a medal for cheating? Are you referring to the asterisk put near their name/medals as the "medal" for cheating? I thought that whole thing was said tongue-in-cheek.

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't said tongue-in-cheek, based on the ferocity used in defending it.

In either case, I'm not really for branding people.

Symmetry wrote:
Points reset seems a bit harsh, and point penalties might be popular, but neither seem easy to implement fairly. Stripping of medals seems like a point of honour. A good player who cheated will earn them back fairly if they want to.

I don't think point resets are harsh, I just think that it was rightly pointed out that this punishes future opponents. Most of these people have some skill even if not all of their points were rightly earned. I shouldn't have to follow C&A to know which privates not to join games with cuz they're as good as colonels, but I'm gonna lose monster points if I play with them.

I think point penalties are actually a pretty good solution. It could be a flat rate or a percentage or the amount of the point difference between whatever rank you're at and the next lowers (i.e. 500 for a major who is caught cheating). It kind of takes the unearned points away from these people and (assuming they change their ways) won't punish the next opponent because those people are now playing different types of games where they don't have the unfair advantages. And if they are good enough, they will earn the lost points back within the rules.

Basically, I agree with your point on medal stripping, but see no difference between that and points. Earn what you get fairly or lose what you get unfairly. I don't have that big of a problem in taking away a few points or medals from someone.

BUT I feel this way mostly about multis, freestyle turn sitting abuse, and the most egregious forms of farming only. It wouldn't be appropriate to use this for forum abuse. And I'm not sure if the rules are clear enough to hand out these types of punishment for "ranching" which is as hard to define as it is to tell if its a rule violation.

That's fair comment. I guess I'm trying to keep the suggestion as narrowly focussed as possible on medals. Point stripping seems like a separate suggestion, although many of the arguments employed here could serve double duty. I'm a little wary of this becoming a thread that no longer debates the merits of the suggestion, and although I'm happy if other suggestions get generated from it, the further away from the basic suggestion, the less likely the basic point of principle is to be implemented.

Symmetry wrote:

agentcom wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

agentcom wrote:I must have missed it, but someone suggested "awarding" a medal for cheating? Are you referring to the asterisk put near their name/medals as the "medal" for cheating? I thought that whole thing was said tongue-in-cheek.

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't said tongue-in-cheek, based on the ferocity used in defending it.

In either case, I'm not really for branding people.

Symmetry wrote:
Points reset seems a bit harsh, and point penalties might be popular, but neither seem easy to implement fairly. Stripping of medals seems like a point of honour. A good player who cheated will earn them back fairly if they want to.

I don't think point resets are harsh, I just think that it was rightly pointed out that this punishes future opponents. Most of these people have some skill even if not all of their points were rightly earned. I shouldn't have to follow C&A to know which privates not to join games with cuz they're as good as colonels, but I'm gonna lose monster points if I play with them.

I think point penalties are actually a pretty good solution. It could be a flat rate or a percentage or the amount of the point difference between whatever rank you're at and the next lowers (i.e. 500 for a major who is caught cheating). It kind of takes the unearned points away from these people and (assuming they change their ways) won't punish the next opponent because those people are now playing different types of games where they don't have the unfair advantages. And if they are good enough, they will earn the lost points back within the rules.

Basically, I agree with your point on medal stripping, but see no difference between that and points. Earn what you get fairly or lose what you get unfairly. I don't have that big of a problem in taking away a few points or medals from someone.

BUT I feel this way mostly about multis, freestyle turn sitting abuse, and the most egregious forms of farming only. It wouldn't be appropriate to use this for forum abuse. And I'm not sure if the rules are clear enough to hand out these types of punishment for "ranching" which is as hard to define as it is to tell if its a rule violation.

That's fair comment. I guess I'm trying to keep the suggestion as narrowly focussed as possible on medals. Point stripping seems like a separate suggestion, although many of the arguments employed here could serve double duty. I'm a little wary of this becoming a thread that no longer debates the merits of the suggestion, and although I'm happy if other suggestions get generated from it, the further away from the basic suggestion, the less likely the basic point of principle is to be implemented.

Yes, let's keep this one on topic towards Medals being stripped. If you want to start your own thread, go right on head.

Symmetry wrote:the further away from the basic suggestion, the less likely the basic point of principle is to be implemented.

That's so cute.

Pedronicus wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:This is my thought:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=170171&start=60#p3785163

Ok, I think we've dealt with that one then.

Woody gave input, noone else

OK, seeing as how I've spent a fair amount of time obtaining medals, and not just lots won by hosting a tournament medals like you i'll chime in. Your idea of giving someone a medal that indicates they have been cheating is nowhere near a deterrent as losing all that you've worked hard to achieve.

I support the cheater losing all medals idea and reject your cheating medal awarded idea.

Fair enough, I guess I viewed this as more of a scarlet letter type thing than a reward where it would be a constant reminder to them and everyone else that they are cheaters.

By the way in regards to your initial sentence, I don't host tournaments just for the medal, I just enjoy organizing tournaments in a style that I find fun and unique; or on some maps that I enjoy some good competition. If I did do it for the medal I would have had simple 8 team single elimination brackets; if you look at the majority of my tournaments, this is not the case.

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:the further away from the basic suggestion, the less likely the basic point of principle is to be implemented.

That's so cute.

Aye well, the basic point stands- I see a general amount of agreement on this, and I'm glad it finally got stickied. I don't see too much disagreement on the general point. Some fair citicism on how I originally made it (although, like I said, I was up for discussion), and some fair points on what constitutes cheating, but I think we're at a stage where most people agree that cheaters should be stripped of their medals.

Further conversation on other subjects is fine, but I do hope the thread doesn't just burn out because everyone agrees with it, and has said so, and then the suggestion gets dissolved in a sea of irrelevant arguments.

No, I don't think you can say a general amount of agreement here. Your suggestion must be fleshed out and then further discussed in order to even coming close to being considered for implementation. Your OP is so vague and the response lukewarm and very conditional. Some people say ok, but under this or that circumstance. IMO, the further thought I give it the less it makes sense. There is no good way for this to be done fairly and with the loose nature of the interpretation of the rules it will just lead to more complicated issues and debates. It solves nothing and does not work to fix the problems that needs to be addressed.

Thanks,

J



just in case you missed it sym,

show

jghost7 wrote:No, I don't think you can say a general amount of agreement here. Your suggestion must be fleshed out and then further discussed in order to even coming close to being considered for implementation. Your OP is so vague and the response lukewarm and very conditional. Some people say ok, but under this or that circumstance. IMO, the further thought I give it the less it makes sense. There is no good way for this to be done fairly and with the loose nature of the interpretation of the rules it will just lead to more complicated issues and debates. It solves nothing and does not work to fix the problems that needs to be addressed.

Thanks,

J



just in case you missed it sym,

show

I'm sorry that you feel that your issues haven't been properly acknowledged in the discussion, there will always be people who disagree, but there does seem to be a degree of consensus.

Several of the issues that you put in spoilers have been addressed and discussed, and sometimes the criticisms have gone further than the bits you quoted.

I don't want to "be that guy", but have a look through what some of the other folk have said, see if they addressed the criticism, and have a think. What are your main issues with the suggestion, if you had to be concise?

Wait, why is this punishment only applied to premiums? Why not apply this to freemiums? What's the problem with that?

cheaters should be stripped of their clothes

Army of GOD wrote:cheaters should be stripped of their clothes

Sweet merciful crap, I came to post in this thread with that exact sentence.

Symmetry wrote:

jghost7 wrote:No, I don't think you can say a general amount of agreement here. Your suggestion must be fleshed out and then further discussed in order to even coming close to being considered for implementation. Your OP is so vague and the response lukewarm and very conditional. Some people say ok, but under this or that circumstance. IMO, the further thought I give it the less it makes sense. There is no good way for this to be done fairly and with the loose nature of the interpretation of the rules it will just lead to more complicated issues and debates. It solves nothing and does not work to fix the problems that needs to be addressed.

Thanks,

J



just in case you missed it sym,

show

I'm sorry that you feel that your issues haven't been properly acknowledged in the discussion, there will always be people who disagree, but there does seem to be a degree of consensus.

Several of the issues that you put in spoilers have been addressed and discussed, and sometimes the criticisms have gone further than the bits you quoted.

I don't want to "be that guy", but have a look through what some of the other folk have said, see if they addressed the criticism, and have a think. What are your main issues with the suggestion, if you had to be concise?

Uhhh, yeah, next time actually read it instead of just casually saying it has been addressed. The majority of my points still stand. None of them have really been addressed at all. If you would like to take a shot, go for it, but don't dismiss it without sufficient efforts to clear up its gaping flaws.


You also have no record of where it stands. You refuse to edit the OP and so no one can actually see or understand what is currently up for suggestion. Even if you want to keep the OP original, you should have what the actual suggestion is up front including what the evolved form is. I would suggest quoting the 'original' OP and putting it in a spoiler, and stating the suggestion in its evolved form so that everyone can see where it stands. Or as an alternate suggestion, you could at intermittent periods update the OP at the end of the thread since you called it part of a history.

Thanks,

J

I think there should be an instant ban for anybody using the expression cheater(s). The correct word for a person who cheats is cheat , the plural is cheats !
Thank you.