Conquer Club

C'mon we have all done it at some point.

Most players when they start out here, and for the first time in their life see those sabers you hold as a major within reach, may delay a few losing games and play more fast on winning games to try and jump a bit higher than you would else have done. or at most other levels, when you are within reach of a level you have never been at before. Very few players have never done that. I know I did.

Josko of course did the same when his rating got high, and just tried to aim a little higher than he had been before. Like everyone else.

Working together with a lot of other people to try to manipulate is another story, but if all you can find are 3 games with Moonchild that are questionable, you hardly have a case.

I personally would draw the line where others did.....if you ask someone to deliberately play slower, that is over the line. Crown crossed that line. Josko did not. But whatever order you choose to play your own games, that is up to you. Even if you do it for 200+ games. Thats a lot of effort to get a little higher, and it's like peeing in your pants...warms a little to begin with, but quickly gets cold and you are worse of than to begin with.

If others think that is a fun thing to do, to shoot up the ranks for just a week. Go ahead. Overall they will just be losing points and they won't really hurt anyone.

It seems some hypocrites are posting in this thread. Why?

* For all evidences and timestamps, I used Map Rank tool and GMT+8 timezone.

CASE 1: Chariot of Fire
I will use quotes from last post of Chariot of Fire, and present some of his past games, on the time when he was on personal high score.

His personal high score was achieved on December 11th 2010.
Winning streaks around the date of high score were as follows:

From Nov 26 to 30: losing streak of 2-5, enough to put score properly down in order that he gets more points from upcoming wins.
From Dec 1 to Dec 11/14: winning streak of 13-0 (shorter streak) and 16-1 (longer streak) leading to personal high score.
From Dec 15 to 17: losing streak of 0-4

At first sight this of course looks very suspicious. How low are probabilities to have 12 consecutive days with only 13 wins and no losses (or extended to 15 consecutive days with 16-1 score), surrounded by 4 consecutive days before and 4 consecutive days after the streak in which his total score was 2-9 without manipulation of speed of his own turns? This logical question made me eager to research deeper and look at timestamps of those games.

So, at first, I have looked at the losing game of this 16-1 winning streak which lead to high score and which have ended between Dec 1 and Dec 14 2010 and I was looking at speed of his own turns. then, I was looked at how fast were turns in winning games.

(1a) Losing games: Game which ended his winning streak of 16-1 is Game 7878934 but in that game he was eliminated several days before the game ended, so he could not really haste or slow his turns. More important game which proves that he slowed down his turns is the game which ended after his 11-0 streak, and therefore made his running streak for high score imperfect.

The game in question, and basis for my argument is Game 8032896 which lasted for 12 rounds, and I will write here timing of CoF's turns. Important to notice are fast turns by CoF (excluding one day when he was absent and missed turn in every his game) before the game was decided and long turns after the game was decided (bold, underlined). As a reference point when game was decided, I will highlight this comment by CoF from chat:
2010-12-08 01:06:36 - Chariot of Fire: lol, joke dice

CoF: 22/9/11/24(miss)/3/9//0/18/19/23/22 hours

(1b) Winning games: Now, let's see how fast were CoF's turns in other games played during those days (turns played from Dec 1 to Dec 14) from the 16 winning games from the winning streak. Notice, some of those games are team games, so I am comparing some team games (where sometimes waiting for teammate's input happens) with singles game from example (1) where waiting is not needed at all, unless the waiting is deliberate.
Game 8032943 4/0/24(miss)/0/0/5
Game 8032971 0/3/0/0/3/1/0
Game 8032997 6/0/3/0/6
Game 8013156 0/8/3/1/0/0/15/1
Game 8008327 9/2/0
Game 7997358 0/5/9/1/5/0
Game 7966787 2/13/8
Game 7966784 0/23/1
Game 7940753 1/24(miss)/0/3/0/1
Game 7940749 1/8/15/1/9/0/0/1/3
Game 7878931 1/1/3/6

So, from all quoted games which are part of his 17 games winning streak (some others were excluded because only one or two turns in them were played after Dec 1) only 1 of 58 played turns lasted longer than 15 hours yet in Game 8032896, which was played at the same time like winning games, last 4 turns lasted in range from 18 to 23 hours.

However, I have no problem with what he is doing. Finally, I was doing the same in my games and I consider that one of strategies which everyone uses when he/she wants to touch personal high score.
The reason why I post this here is because in his opinion this is bad fair play, yet when it came to him and his own touching personal high score, then he did not hesitate to use that strategy in the only game which he was losing at the time.

Now when it is proven that he also did the same like me when he was on personal high score, I will repeat his quotes about that before it will (possibly) being edited by him. CoF, It is easy to act seemingly like you are higher ground than others when nobody investigate you yet there is nothing wonder in your pointing fingers in others and then being caught to do the same or worse thing than others. If we learn from past experiences, CoF has already done it and got both warning and for repeated cheating one month ban for sitting abuse for which he was accusing me of wrongdoing.

So now, CoF's quotes are applying for CoF's case described above:

Chariot of Fire wrote:Was it orchestrated to manipulate the scoreboard? Yes

So occasionally it's not as black and white as "Did Player X breach the rules?". Akin to the law, intent alone (mens rea) will suffice to warrant prosecution.

Should CoF be punished? No, I don't think so. Should his actions be criticized and deemed not to have been in the spirit of fair play on this site? Yes, most definitely, for then the administrators may use this example, in conjunction with TheCrown's case, to outlaw such deliberate manipulation in future.

CASE 2: Chapcrap

Chapcrap was on personal high score several days ago. For him, I did not make deeper investigation in games, so here is just brief investigation showing his winning streaks before and after he touched his high score on Jan 29 2014:

From Jan 18 to 19: winning streak of 18-2
From Jan 19 to 23: losing streak of 4-18
From Jan 23 to 23: winning streak of 12-0
From Jan 23 to 24: losing streak of 0-4 (shorter streak) and 2-6 (longer streak)
From Jan 24 to 25: winning streak of 18-1
From Jan 25 to 25: losing streak of 2-5
From Jan 25 to 25: winning streak of 7-0
From Jan 25 to 26: losing streak of 0-3
From Jan 26 to 28: winning streak of 30-1 (shorter streak) and 39-4 (longer streak), and touching high score at the end of this streak.
From Jan 29 to 30: 0-3 (shorter streak) and 2-6 (longer streak)
From Jan 30 to 30: 5-0 winning streak (shorter streak) and 7-1 (longer streak)
From Jan 31 to 31: 0-3 losing streak
From Jan 31 to Feb 1: 7-0 winning streak
From Feb 1 to 3: 0-6 losing streak

So, in his ending games record there is strongly present big winning and losing streaks which are very hard separated from each other. Imagine how low probability is that this happens if he does not slow or haste his turns depending on their winning or losing outcome? How low is probability that someone will have 30-1 (39-4) winning streak surrounded by 0-3/2-6 losing streak around it, as presented in the underlined evidence? How low is probability that someone will have streaks in this order: 18-2/4-18/12-0/2-6/18-1/2-5/7-0/0-3/39-4/2-6/7-1/0-3/7-0/0-6? For anyone who understands mathematical logic behind laws of probabilities, having such big and such strong separated winning and losing streaks will be enough indicator to conclude that there need to be some kind of manipulation behind those numbers.

CASE 3: josko.ri

On the same way like I expressed chapcrap's and CoF' weird and unusual winning/losing streaks on the time when they were on their personal high score, now I will make analysis and explanation of my winning/losing streaks during recent period:

Starting score: 4998 @ Dec 8 2013
Dec 8 to Jan 7: 52-0 winning streak, done mostly by playing speed public polymorphic games (in speed games it is not possible to make my turns longer) which anyone could join as I have not foes, and the streak was ended when I was first time beaten in the series of speed games on score of 5516
Jan 7 to 8: 2-5 losing streak, some 24 hour games which I have played longer turns in previous period have ended
Jan 8 to 13: 7-2 winning streak
Jan 13 to 15: 16-0 winning streak
Jan 15 to 20: 15-6 winning streak, in this period I was finishing games which looked like they will be finished soon, as well as games versus freemiums because I did not want to hold freemiums in my longer turns. Example of those games are Game 13881032 and Game 13831791 which are both games which I could legally play longer turns and make them end after my upcoming winning streak yet because of freemium status of my opponents I did not want to do it
Jan 20 to 26: 93-0 winning streak, which started with score of 5470 and finished with high score of 6428. My average score in that period was 5949 so my average point increase per one game was (6428-5470)/93 = 10.30 points, which means that rank of my average opponent was 10.30*5949/20 = 3064 which means I had pretty strong opponents
Jan 26 to 30: 9-64 losing streak, which finished with score of 4365
Jan 30 to Feb 3: 45-15 winning streak, which is more or less normal winning/losing rate for someone on 4400 score who is playing mostly polymorphic or standard 1v1 games

(4): Conclusions about slowing/rushing your own turns

Many players was slowing or rushing their turns on the time when they were on their lifetime high score. Someone did it in smaller scale which is logical because not lot of players can afford to play a lot of games at a time and still be properly focused and achieve high win rate in all of them, but as CoF said and I agree with him that "Akin to the law, intent alone (mens rea) will suffice to warrant prosecution" there should not be difference in scale of one's doing as long as his abusive intention is proven. However, for this case I do not think intention to slow down my own turns is abusive in any way, and on the same way like it was shown in this post for two the most vocal players CoF and chapcrap, I believe it can be found very similar scenario of winning and losing streaks for almost every player who reached high personal score. In fact, many players told in this and in the other thread in general discussion that majority of players are doing this from time to time when they want to get higher score.
Therefore, if slowing my own turns alone is abuse, then I guess we have many players on this site guilty for the same thing.

(5): Conclusions about collision between players

In previous chapter, I have spoken about rushing turns and justification of that. However, the strongest argument that I am accused in this thread is collision between me and Moonchild, so here I will justify that.
(5a) Why I even played versus Moonchild?
At first, I need to explain why I have played with many of my friends from clan, including Moonchild. I have challenged practically everyone with 3000+ score on map that he/she has decent past experience (before sending an invite I have checked past games of the player on the map). Therefore, I practically gave to everyone chance to play a game in which they can lose 10~15 points and earn 30~40 points. Therefore, if I gave the very favorable point wise opportunity to people that I do not know, then my friends would be handicapped because players surrounding them on scoreboard would get the chance to take a lot of points from me while my friends would not get that chance. For example, If I played vs everyone from top 10 of scoreboard but did not play vs my friend [player]random21[/player] then random21 would be handicapped to not get a chance to earn a lot of points and lose low points, while all players surrounding him on scoreboard would get that chance, what would not be fair to him at all. Therefore, to give everyone equal shot at me, I gave opportunity to play vs me to everyone over 300 points, as well as to some my old buddies or players who have challenged me, regardless of their rank.
(5b) Were we in collision?
Here is clear answer that we were not in collision. Before I have started with my run for high score, I have contacted bigWham and king achilles describing to them what I am planning to do and asking them whether that is against rules or not. I did not want to manipulate over loopholes in rules and therefore I was transparent from the beginning and have double checked with officials whether it is allowed practice or not. After I have explained in which parts are my plans essentially different than from what TheCrown did, I got an answer that basically I am allowed to play my turns whenever I want yet if I miss some of turn(s) in losing games while being fully active in other games during the 24 hour period then I can be accused of deliberately missing turn. Knowing my rights, and knowing that core part of TheCrown's abuse was collision between him and his opponents in what he was doing, I was sure I will never make collision with anyone to help me. What I will do on my turns is my right and what will my opponents do on their turns is their right, unless me or them are breaking rules with what we are doing.
(5c) Proof(s) that collision did not exist
To additionally support my statement that I was not involved in any collision about speed of my opponent's turns, here are games versus my friends/clan mates who also had winning games versus me yet they have played their turns very fast:
Game 13884539 [player]sjnap[/player], his turns were played after 0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/2/2/1/0/0 hours yet I have played 3 turns longer than 20 hours in order to make the game long
Game 13884017 [player]italianipastido[/player], his turns were played after 0/9/0/0/0/0/0/0/3/4/1/0/3/3/4/7/6 hours yet I have played 7 turns longer than 20 hours
Game 13924355 [player]hmsps[/player], his turns were played after 0/0/0/0/5/2/10/0/0/4 hours yet I have played 7 turns longer than 20 hours
There are also many other examples from games with my friends but those two are the most significant in order to support my statement that there was not collision between me and my friends but every of them had their free choice what to do with their turns whatever they want. Did they chose 24 hour turns, it was of course fine with me, but request for that did not come from my side but was their good will and not any type of collision. In fact, from games with Moonchild I have earned only 7 points during my run for high score and have lost 98 points afterwards, so playing games with him in any way was not beneficial for me, or at least did not have significant influence in the whole streak.

Also, look at this additional evidence that any type of collision between me and opponents did not exist:
On the day when I made my high score, [player]kjg21[/player] sent me this pm (I have gotten permission from kjg21 to share these pms):

kjg21 wrote:Sent: Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:09 am
From: kjg21
To: josko.ri

do you want me to delay taking the objective? you seem to be stalling the game. are you trying to set a new high score?

And my reply was:

josko.ri wrote:Sent: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:07 pm
From: josko.ri
To: kjg21

Later today my first losses after long winning streak will come, so I try to delay winning games a bit in order to set up personal high score.

However, that is story about my turns only. About your turns, it is your choice what you will do.

However, if you want to play some real time standard games today, like classic map but can be other also, let me know and I will send you invite. If game will go bad for me, I will start to play long turns.

He was speaking about Game 13874844 where he had objective so he only needed to press start button to win the game. Later on, he has played the game with after only 5 hours, and he was the first one to beat me when I was on my high score of 6428.

What is point of using this private messages as an argument?

Point is to prove that, even when other player first contacted me and asked if I wish that he delays his winning turn, I told him it is not on me to tell him what he will do on his turns. I clearly told him what I am doing on my turns, but there was not any request about his turns. So, how then anyone can say that I was in collision with other players to delay their turns, if I did not even take the offer when it was clearly offered to me by my opponent through private message, like in this example?

(6) Differences between collision types

In previous chapter it was proven by many other examples that I did not conduct any collisions.
However, in this chapter I would like to compare type of collision to which I am accused with type of collision which TheCrown did.
I am accused that I was in collision with Moonchild that he plays 24 hour turns in winning games.
TheCrown was declared guilty for being in collision with other players to deliberately not end their game when they could do it in one turn.
Core difference between two collisions, if we assume that collision between Moonchild and me existed (which is not true, once again) is that collision to make his turns 24 hour is collision to make something which is not against rules, because Moonchild has legal right to play 24 hour turns. However, collision to deliberately not end the game when it can be ended in one turn is against rules because deliberately not ending a game is against rules and players have no legal right to do that.

Collision to do something which by itself does not break any rule (play 24 hour turns) cannot be the same like collision to do something which by itself is against rules (deliberately not ending a game when the game can be ended).

holy cow......

josko.ri wrote:It seems some hypocrites are posting in this thread. Why?

* For all evidences and timestamps, I used Map Rank tool and GMT+8 timezone.

CASE 1: Chariot of Fire
I will use quotes from last post of Chariot of Fire, and present some of his past games, on the time when he was on personal high score.

His personal high score was achieved on December 11th 2010.
Winning streaks around the date of high score were as follows:

From Nov 26 to 30: losing streak of 2-5, enough to put score properly down in order that he gets more points from upcoming wins.
From Dec 1 to Dec 11/14: winning streak of 13-0 (shorter streak) and 16-1 (longer streak) leading to personal high score.
From Dec 15 to 17: losing streak of 0-4

At first sight this of course looks very suspicious. How low are probabilities to have 12 consecutive days with only 13 wins and no losses (or extended to 15 consecutive days with 16-1 score), surrounded by 4 consecutive days before and 4 consecutive days after the streak in which his total score was 2-9 without manipulation of speed of his own turns? This logical question made me eager to research deeper and look at timestamps of those games.

So, at first, I have looked at the losing game of this 16-1 winning streak which lead to high score and which have ended between Dec 1 and Dec 14 2010 and I was looking at speed of his own turns. then, I was looked at how fast were turns in winning games.

(1a) Losing games: Game which ended his winning streak of 16-1 is Game 7878934 but in that game he was eliminated several days before the game ended, so he could not really haste or slow his turns. More important game which proves that he slowed down his turns is the game which ended after his 11-0 streak, and therefore made his running streak for high score imperfect.

The game in question, and basis for my argument is Game 8032896 which lasted for 12 rounds, and I will write here timing of CoF's turns. Important to notice are fast turns by CoF (excluding one day when he was absent and missed turn in every his game) before the game was decided and long turns after the game was decided (bold, underlined). As a reference point when game was decided, I will highlight this comment by CoF from chat:
2010-12-08 01:06:36 - Chariot of Fire: lol, joke dice

CoF: 22/9/11/24(miss)/3/9//0/18/19/23/22 hours

(1b) Winning games: Now, let's see how fast were CoF's turns in other games played during those days (turns played from Dec 1 to Dec 14) from the 16 winning games from the winning streak. Notice, some of those games are team games, so I am comparing some team games (where sometimes waiting for teammate's input happens) with singles game from example (1) where waiting is not needed at all, unless the waiting is deliberate.
Game 8032943 4/0/24(miss)/0/0/5
Game 8032971 0/3/0/0/3/1/0
Game 8032997 6/0/3/0/6
Game 8013156 0/8/3/1/0/0/15/1
Game 8008327 9/2/0
Game 7997358 0/5/9/1/5/0
Game 7966787 2/13/8
Game 7966784 0/23/1
Game 7940753 1/24(miss)/0/3/0/1
Game 7940749 1/8/15/1/9/0/0/1/3
Game 7878931 1/1/3/6

So, from all quoted games which are part of his 17 games winning streak (some others were excluded because only one or two turns in them were played after Dec 1) only 1 of 58 played turns lasted longer than 15 hours yet in Game 8032896, which was played at the same time like winning games, last 4 turns lasted in range from 18 to 23 hours.

However, I have no problem with what he is doing. Finally, I was doing the same in my games and I consider that one of strategies which everyone uses when he/she wants to touch personal high score.
The reason why I post this here is because in his opinion this is bad fair play, yet when it came to him and his own touching personal high score, then he did not hesitate to use that strategy in the only game which he was losing at the time.

Now when it is proven that he also did the same like me when he was on personal high score, I will repeat his quotes about that before it will (possibly) being edited by him. CoF, It is easy to act seemingly like you are higher ground than others when nobody investigate you yet there is nothing wonder in your pointing fingers in others and then being caught to do the same or worse thing than others. If we learn from past experiences, CoF has already done it and got both warning and for repeated cheating one month ban for sitting abuse for which he was accusing me of wrongdoing.

So now, CoF's quotes are applying for CoF's case described above:

Chariot of Fire wrote:Was it orchestrated to manipulate the scoreboard? Yes

So occasionally it's not as black and white as "Did Player X breach the rules?". Akin to the law, intent alone (mens rea) will suffice to warrant prosecution.

Should CoF be punished? No, I don't think so. Should his actions be criticized and deemed not to have been in the spirit of fair play on this site? Yes, most definitely, for then the administrators may use this example, in conjunction with TheCrown's case, to outlaw such deliberate manipulation in future.

CASE 2: Chapcrap

Chapcrap was on personal high score several days ago. For him, I did not make deeper investigation in games, so here is just brief investigation showing his winning streaks before and after he touched his high score on Jan 29 2014:

From Jan 18 to 19: winning streak of 18-2
From Jan 19 to 23: losing streak of 4-18
From Jan 23 to 23: winning streak of 12-0
From Jan 23 to 24: losing streak of 0-4 (shorter streak) and 2-6 (longer streak)
From Jan 24 to 25: winning streak of 18-1
From Jan 25 to 25: losing streak of 2-5
From Jan 25 to 25: winning streak of 7-0
From Jan 25 to 26: losing streak of 0-3
From Jan 26 to 28: winning streak of 30-1 (shorter streak) and 39-4 (longer streak), and touching high score at the end of this streak.
From Jan 29 to 30: 0-3 (shorter streak) and 2-6 (longer streak)
From Jan 30 to 30: 5-0 winning streak (shorter streak) and 7-1 (longer streak)
From Jan 31 to 31: 0-3 losing streak
From Jan 31 to Feb 1: 7-0 winning streak
From Feb 1 to 3: 0-6 losing streak

So, in his ending games record there is strongly present big winning and losing streaks which are very hard separated from each other. Imagine how low probability is that this happens if he does not slow or haste his turns depending on their winning or losing outcome? How low is probability that someone will have 30-1 (39-4) winning streak surrounded by 0-3/2-6 losing streak around it, as presented in the underlined evidence? How low is probability that someone will have streaks in this order: 18-2/4-18/12-0/2-6/18-1/2-5/7-0/0-3/39-4/2-6/7-1/0-3/7-0/0-6? For anyone who understands mathematical logic behind laws of probabilities, having such big and such strong separated winning and losing streaks will be enough indicator to conclude that there need to be some kind of manipulation behind those numbers.

CASE 3: josko.ri

On the same way like I expressed chapcrap's and CoF' weird and unusual winning/losing streaks on the time when they were on their personal high score, now I will make analysis and explanation of my winning/losing streaks during recent period:

Starting score: 4998 @ Dec 8 2013
Dec 8 to Jan 7: 52-0 winning streak, done mostly by playing speed public polymorphic games (in speed games it is not possible to make my turns longer) which anyone could join as I have not foes, and the streak was ended when I was first time beaten in the series of speed games on score of 5516
Jan 7 to 8: 2-5 losing streak, some 24 hour games which I have played longer turns in previous period have ended
Jan 8 to 13: 7-2 winning streak
Jan 13 to 15: 16-0 winning streak
Jan 15 to 20: 15-6 winning streak, in this period I was finishing games which looked like they will be finished soon, as well as games versus freemiums because I did not want to hold freemiums in my longer turns. Example of those games are Game 13881032 and Game 13831791 which are both games which I could legally play longer turns and make them end after my upcoming winning streak yet because of freemium status of my opponents I did not want to do it
Jan 20 to 26: 93-0 winning streak, which started with score of 5470 and finished with high score of 6428. My average score in that period was 5949 so my average point increase per one game was (6428-5470)/93 = 10.30 points, which means that rank of my average opponent was 10.30*5949/20 = 3064 which means I had pretty strong opponents
Jan 26 to 30: 9-64 losing streak, which finished with score of 4365
Jan 30 to Feb 3: 45-15 winning streak, which is more or less normal winning/losing rate for someone on 4400 score who is playing mostly polymorphic or standard 1v1 games

(4): Conclusions about slowing/rushing your own turns

Many players was slowing or rushing their turns on the time when they were on their lifetime high score. Someone did it in smaller scale which is logical because not lot of players can afford to play a lot of games at a time and still be properly focused and achieve high win rate in all of them, but as CoF said and I agree with him that "Akin to the law, intent alone (mens rea) will suffice to warrant prosecution" there should not be difference in scale of one's doing as long as his abusive intention is proven. However, for this case I do not think intention to slow down my own turns is abusive in any way, and on the same way like it was shown in this post for two the most vocal players CoF and chapcrap, I believe it can be found very similar scenario of winning and losing streaks for almost every player who reached high personal score. In fact, many players told in this and in the other thread in general discussion that majority of players are doing this from time to time when they want to get higher score.
Therefore, if slowing my own turns alone is abuse, then I guess we have many players on this site guilty for the same thing.

(5): Conclusions about collision between players

In previous chapter, I have spoken about rushing turns and justification of that. However, the strongest argument that I am accused in this thread is collision between me and Moonchild, so here I will justify that.
(5a) Why I even played versus Moonchild?
At first, I need to explain why I have played with many of my friends from clan, including Moonchild. I have challenged practically everyone with 3000+ score on map that he/she has decent past experience (before sending an invite I have checked past games of the player on the map). Therefore, I practically gave to everyone chance to play a game in which they can lose 10~15 points and earn 30~40 points. Therefore, if I gave the very favorable point wise opportunity to people that I do not know, then my friends would be handicapped because players surrounding them on scoreboard would get the chance to take a lot of points from me while my friends would not get that chance. For example, If I played vs everyone from top 10 of scoreboard but did not play vs my friend [player]random21[/player] then random21 would be handicapped to not get a chance to earn a lot of points and lose low points, while all players surrounding him on scoreboard would get that chance, what would not be fair to him at all. Therefore, to give everyone equal shot at me, I gave opportunity to play vs me to everyone over 300 points, as well as to some my old buddies or players who have challenged me, regardless of their rank.
(5b) Were we in collision?
Here is clear answer that we were not in collision. Before I have started with my run for high score, I have contacted bigWham and king achilles describing to them what I am planning to do and asking them whether that is against rules or not. I did not want to manipulate over loopholes in rules and therefore I was transparent from the beginning and have double checked with officials whether it is allowed practice or not. After I have explained in which parts are my plans essentially different than from what TheCrown did, I got an answer that basically I am allowed to play my turns whenever I want yet if I miss some of turn(s) in losing games while being fully active in other games during the 24 hour period then I can be accused of deliberately missing turn. Knowing my rights, and knowing that core part of TheCrown's abuse was collision between him and his opponents in what he was doing, I was sure I will never make collision with anyone to help me. What I will do on my turns is my right and what will my opponents do on their turns is their right, unless me or them are breaking rules with what we are doing.
(5c) Proof(s) that collision did not exist
To additionally support my statement that I was not involved in any collision about speed of my opponent's turns, here are games versus my friends/clan mates who also had winning games versus me yet they have played their turns very fast:
Game 13884539 [player]sjnap[/player], his turns were played after 0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/2/2/1/0/0 hours yet I have played 3 turns longer than 20 hours in order to make the game long
Game 13884017 [player]italianipastido[/player], his turns were played after 0/9/0/0/0/0/0/0/3/4/1/0/3/3/4/7/6 hours yet I have played 7 turns longer than 20 hours
Game 13924355 [player]hmsps[/player], his turns were played after 0/0/0/0/5/2/10/0/0/4 hours yet I have played 7 turns longer than 20 hours
There are also many other examples from games with my friends but those two are the most significant in order to support my statement that there was not collision between me and my friends but every of them had their free choice what to do with their turns whatever they want. Did they chose 24 hour turns, it was of course fine with me, but request for that did not come from my side but was their good will and not any type of collision. In fact, from games with Moonchild I have earned only 7 points during my run for high score and have lost 98 points afterwards, so playing games with him in any way was not beneficial for me, or at least did not have significant influence in the whole streak.

Also, look at this additional evidence that any type of collision between me and opponents did not exist:
On the day when I made my high score, [player]kjg21[/player] sent me this pm (I have gotten permission from kjg21 to share these pms):

kjg21 wrote:Sent: Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:09 am
From: kjg21
To: josko.ri

do you want me to delay taking the objective? you seem to be stalling the game. are you trying to set a new high score?

And my reply was:

josko.ri wrote:Sent: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:07 pm
From: josko.ri
To: kjg21

Later today my first losses after long winning streak will come, so I try to delay winning games a bit in order to set up personal high score.

However, that is story about my turns only. About your turns, it is your choice what you will do.

However, if you want to play some real time standard games today, like classic map but can be other also, let me know and I will send you invite. If game will go bad for me, I will start to play long turns.

He was speaking about Game 13874844 where he had objective so he only needed to press start button to win the game. Later on, he has played the game with after only 5 hours, and he was the first one to beat me when I was on my high score of 6428.

What is point of using this private messages as an argument?

Point is to prove that, even when other player first contacted me and asked if I wish that he delays his winning turn, I told him it is not on me to tell him what he will do on his turns. I clearly told him what I am doing on my turns, but there was not any request about his turns. So, how then anyone can say that I was in collision with other players to delay their turns, if I did not even take the offer when it was clearly offered to me by my opponent through private message, like in this example?

(6) Differences between collision types

In previous chapter it was proven by many other examples that I did not conduct any collisions.
However, in this chapter I would like to compare type of collision to which I am accused with type of collision which TheCrown did.
I am accused that I was in collision with Moonchild that he plays 24 hour turns in winning games.
TheCrown was declared guilty for being in collision with other players to deliberately not end their game when they could do it in one turn.
Core difference between two collisions, if we assume that collision between Moonchild and me existed (which is not true, once again) is that collision to make his turns 24 hour is collision to make something which is not against rules, because Moonchild has legal right to play 24 hour turns. However, collision to deliberately not end the game when it can be ended in one turn is against rules because deliberately not ending a game is against rules and players have no legal right to do that.

Collision to do something which by itself does not break any rule (play 24 hour turns) cannot be the same like collision to do something which by itself is against rules (deliberately not ending a game when the game can be ended).

May I just clarify that you're talking about collusion (agreeing to act together with another) rather than collision (coming into contact with)?

puppydog85 wrote:holy cow......

Yeah, not reading that.

Thank you clangfield, you are right. In every place where I wrote collision I meant collusion. Sorry, I am not nature english speaker. I will fix it in original post later.

Bloody hell Josko, you've got waaaay too much time on your hands

Firstly an ad hominem attack doesn't defend your own position.

Secondly there is no comparison to my winning streak of 16-1, although 16-1 isn't even a streak is it as there's a loss in there, (I'll assume your figures are correct - I'm not even going to bother checking) and what you intentionally set out to do. I used to have a win rate of 65%. If I had 27 active games and finished my losing games first and then played out my winning games then that is simply good management - and the win streak would be approximately 17 games.

What I didn't do was create a whole bunch of games (in your case 140) with the intention of reaching an all-time CC high score by manipulating winning and losing games, i.e. I never had any premeditated intention of reaching a high score. You did.

I also didn't benefit from any opponents speeding up or slowing down their turns. You did.

My earlier post clearly stated "Should Josko be punished? No I don't think so". "Was it done within the parameters of the game's design? Yes" (no different to my own set of circumstances when I played my turns).

The issue here is one of premeditation. It's plain to see what you set out to do. The only reason I raised a post in this thread was to query whether it is acceptable practice for everyone on the site to start doing this. There are two answers:

1. Yes it is OK to create (say) 140 games and artificially inflate one's score to reach new heights on leaderboards, or
2. No it is not OK and it will be outlawed/prevented in future.

If the answer is 1 then the integrity of the scoreboard will forever be tarnished and we will witness the same farce in future by other players.
If the answer is 2 then it means you have reached a score on CC by means that will become impossible to use in future, thereby keeping a record that could be called unfair as no-one will ever be able to reach it.

So what is it? Should everyone be allowed to start doing this, or will admin agree that what you did wasn't in the spirit of the site?

Chariot of Fire wrote:The issue here is one of premeditation. It's plain to see what you set out to do. The only reason I raised a post in this thread was to query whether it is acceptable practice for everyone on the site to start doing this. There are two answers:

1. Yes it is OK to create (say) 140 games and artificially inflate one's score to reach new heights on leaderboards, or
2. No it is not OK and it will be outlawed/prevented in future.

If the answer is 1 then the integrity of the scoreboard will forever be tarnished and we will witness the same farce in future by other players.
If the answer is 2 then it means you have reached a score on CC by means that will become impossible to use in future, thereby keeping a record that could be called unfair as no-one will ever be able to reach it.

So what is it? Should everyone be allowed to start doing this, or will admin agree that what you did wasn't in the spirit of the site?

The integrity of the scoreboard is already forever tarnished by people not playing according to the spirit of the site.

But then again, is the spirit of the site what I would like to believe it to be?

Lx

I have no idea if the numbers you posted on any of us are true. If I really went 30-1, I'm pretty proud of that. That being said, I never in any way did what you did. I just play all my games as they come. I just got home from work and played all my games that were waiting for me. I currently have no waiting games (I think). That's what I always do. The only time I wait is for round 1 fog games and teammate input. In any case, I certainly never went 93-0 followed by 9-64. I mean, you're underlining streaks for me that were 0-3 and calling them streaks. I mean, going 30-1 in between two streak of 0-3, is a lot different. Anyway, you want to accuse me, go ahead and start a thread.

From my perspective, I feel like you just brought more than enough evidence to indict yourself, more than string CoF or I up. 93-0 followed by 9-64?! Wow.

chapcrap wrote:I have no idea if the numbers you posted on any of us are true. If I really went 30-1, I'm pretty proud of that. That being said, I never in any way did what you did. I just play all my games as they come. I just got home from work and played all my games that were waiting for me. I currently have no waiting games (I think). That's what I always do. The only time I wait is for round 1 fog games and teammate input. In any case, I certainly never went 93-0 followed by 9-64. I mean, you're underlining streaks for me that were 0-3 and calling them streaks. I mean, going 30-1 in between two streak of 0-3, is a lot different. Anyway, you want to accuse me, go ahead and start a thread.

From my perspective, I feel like you just brought more than enough evidence to indict yourself, more than string CoF or I up. 93-0 followed by 9-64?! Wow.

Streaks aside, it is perfectly within the rules of the site to take your turns at any point during a 24 hour window. This report is spurious and, frankly, ridiculous. No rules were broken. Josko even checked before he began his run for his top score that his plan was legit by getting confirmation from king achilles.

I don't understand why people always try so hard to tear josko down. He began his run as conqueror. Then he won a bunch of points, hit his personal high score, and remained conqueror. Now he's lost a bunch of points and still remains conqueror.

Foxglove wrote:

chapcrap wrote:I have no idea if the numbers you posted on any of us are true. If I really went 30-1, I'm pretty proud of that. That being said, I never in any way did what you did. I just play all my games as they come. I just got home from work and played all my games that were waiting for me. I currently have no waiting games (I think). That's what I always do. The only time I wait is for round 1 fog games and teammate input. In any case, I certainly never went 93-0 followed by 9-64. I mean, you're underlining streaks for me that were 0-3 and calling them streaks. I mean, going 30-1 in between two streak of 0-3, is a lot different. Anyway, you want to accuse me, go ahead and start a thread.

From my perspective, I feel like you just brought more than enough evidence to indict yourself, more than string CoF or I up. 93-0 followed by 9-64?! Wow.

Streaks aside, it is perfectly within the rules of the site to take your turns at any point during a 24 hour window. This report is spurious and, frankly, ridiculous. No rules were broken. Josko even checked before he began his run for his top score that his plan was legit by getting confirmation from king achilles.

I don't understand why people always try so hard to tear josko down. He began his run as conqueror. Then he won a bunch of points, hit his personal high score, and remained conqueror. Now he's lost a bunch of points and still remains conqueror.

In a nutshell... This.

I see we have 2 options :

1. We will allow this in the future too. I don't see the real harm. No one can use this tactic to shoot up the scoreboard and stay there for a long time. A lot of players do it on a smaller scale everyday, so where do we draw the line and who is going to police the rule?

2. We forbid this. But the ONLY way we can enforce it is by making it mandatory to always play the next available game in your list, and remove the option to choose to play whatever game you feel like. And that change will do some real harm, for a very small gain.

Regarding Josko, he did nothing wrong. He even got confirmation from the the site managers before doing it. So no one can question if he should be punished or not. He spend a lot of energy and time to achieve a new highscore. Congrats to him. He did not in any way hurt me or most other people doing so.

all i would ask of this case to be fair to all ccer's is that josko be removed from the monthly scoreboard while he is chasing this top score. questions that need to be asked are simple..

did he do this to get to conqueror ? no i dont think he did.

the games he plays he loses 50 odd points per game while only gaining 7 points. (this is from the example given in the op.) so it takes 5 wins to cover the games he loses.

i think what he is doing is ok because he is not manipulating the main scoreboard(he was ranked first when this started so nowhere else to raise to.) but if allowed to remain on the monthly (something that was introduced to give all players a chance to be no 1 on a scoreboard.) then it could be classed as manipulating a scoreboard.

all i can say is gl to you josko on your journey

eddie2 wrote:all i would ask of this case to be fair to all ccer's is that josko be removed from the monthly scoreboard while he is chasing this top score. questions that need to be asked are simple..

did he do this to get to conqueror ? no i dont think he did.

the games he plays he loses 50 odd points per game while only gaining 7 points. (this is from the example given in the op.) so it takes 5 wins to cover the games he loses.

i think what he is doing is ok because he is not manipulating the main scoreboard(he was ranked first when this started so nowhere else to raise to.) but if allowed to remain on the monthly (something that was introduced to give all players a chance to be no 1 on a scoreboard.) then it could be classed as manipulating a scoreboard.

all i can say is gl to you josko on your journey

I like josko, he seems like a good guy and he is the best conqueror we've had for a while. It'd be nice if the scoreboard was peopled by folk who are just playing the games, and will play all comers. It'd be nice if the top players played open games the whole time, and half the playerbase weren't clan-wanking but hey-ho. I don't really see that happening. People who do that are likely to stick around the 2-3000 point, and I guess I'm fine with that.

All that said, the post above is nonsense. Of course it's manipulating the scoreboard. Just because he was number 1 when he started, it's no less manipulative. That's just a logic fail. I guess it's just a question of whether it's manipulation within the rules. Probably it is. It means my happiness with josko as conqueror has gone from a 10 to a 9.5, but that's about it really. Plus, it's another conqueror I have a win record against, so I get to feel all warm about that (1v0, winning with a misdeploy - suck it josko!).

Chariot of Fire wrote:Firstly an ad hominem attack doesn't defend your own position.

I know, that is why in my post are chapters 3~6 which are only speaking about my defense.

Chariot of Fire wrote:Secondly there is no comparison to my winning streak of 16-1, although 16-1 isn't even a streak is it as there's a loss in there, (I'll assume your figures are correct - I'm not even going to bother checking) and what you intentionally set out to do. I used to have a win rate of 65%. If I had 27 active games and finished my losing games first and then played out my winning games then that is simply good management - and the win streak would be approximately 17 games.

As I said, difference between your and my doings is only scale, you had less active games, less free time or whatever, but your intention and my intention was completely the same, slow down turns in losing game(s) in order that winning games ends before them and that achieved high score become as much as possible higher. As you said "intent alone (mens rea) will suffice to warrant prosecution" then if the same intention is proven to you, then you should be treated equally by law like I am treated.

Your intention to "manipulate scoreboard" (using your expression) at that time is proven, so I will repeat evidence which proves that:
Turns played by you in your losing Game 8032896: 22/9/11/24(miss)/3/9//0/18/19/23/22 hours
While at the same time period, in all other winning games, you had 1 of 58 turns played with more than 15 hours.
Your score after 13-0 winning streak was 4380, then it came loss of -39 points in questioned Game 8032896 and then in next 1 day it came 3 another wins in Game 7966784 with +14 points, Game 7940753 with +12 points and Game 7940749 with +13 points so you were for a second time on 4380 score.
What you had wanted is to delay ending time of losing game Game 8032896 after ending time of winning games Game 8032896, Game 7966784 and Game 7940753 but apparently you did not success because you could not use more than 24 hours in your losing game. You wanted to have 16-0 winning streak followed by 0-5 losing streak in which case your high score would be 4380+14+12+13=4419 before dropping down. Some other games in your 13-0 winning streak you successfully ended before the losing game, but those 3 you did not but you had intention to try, by slowing speed of your turns in losing game Game 8032896 yet rushing your turns in 3 winning games.

Chariot of Fire wrote:I never had any premeditated intention of reaching a high score. You did.

I also didn't benefit from any opponents speeding up or slowing down their turns. You did.

Lie. We both did. Timing of your turns in the losing game definitely proves that you had intention to delay ending of your losing game and achieve "artificial high score" (using your expression again).
Other statement that you did not benefit is by opponents slowing down their turns is also very suspicious, because in your losing Game 8032896 your opponent did his final turn by using 23.33 hours. This is very suspicious, because in no other 11 turns he had used long time to play yet in the final turn he had used almost the whole 24 hours and therefore probably you had collusion with him to do so.

Chariot of Fire wrote:The issue here is one of premeditation. It's plain to see what you set out to do. The only reason I raised a post in this thread was to query whether it is acceptable practice for everyone on the site to start doing this. There are two answers:

1. Yes it is OK to create (say) 140 games and artificially inflate one's score to reach new heights on leaderboards, or
2. No it is not OK and it will be outlawed/prevented in future.

If the answer is 1 then the integrity of the scoreboard will forever be tarnished and we will witness the same farce in future by other players.
If the answer is 2 then it means you have reached a score on CC by means that will become impossible to use in future, thereby keeping a record that could be called unfair as no-one will ever be able to reach it.

So what is it? Should everyone be allowed to start doing this, or will admin agree that what you did wasn't in the spirit of the site?

Yes I had plan to do that and I did not hide anything from anyone nor broke any rule.
I had pre-checked with officials whether this is against rules or not.
If scoreboard system is flawed, I am not guilty of that, it is task of the community to improve it.
Among so many available scoreboards in worldwide competitions, is it so big problem to use more proper one, if this one is flawed? I do not think so.
However, in my opinion the current scoreboard is good. Before I had started my slowing down games, I was already on 5500 score, so while someone may think this is very easy to do, I can guarantee this is in fact very hard to do and whoever wants to do the same need to have proper skills/concentration/stamina/reason for opponents to join games (maybe challenge them on their maps like I did)/ and need to care to not miss any turn, otherwise his actions will be treated as deliberately missing turns. Does anyone think this is so easy like it looks on paper? Let him try, I can guarantee this is much harder to do than how it looks on the first sight.

Tenebrus i wont quote you. i think you are missing my point.

sit back and think josko is no 1 his point loss is 4 times what he wins in a game. he has his right to play his shots in any order within the time frame allowed in the game. once he reaches this top score his point loss will be a lot worse than he started off with point wise. only thing that will ruin this for him is if players start letting him win or start delaying there shots at his request. many people who have played josko or watched some of his games no that he usually leaves his shots till the last minute. So this case is even worded wrong against him he is not delaying his losses he is speeding up his wins.

I have had many a argument with josko and honestly like someone has said before in this thread, all players at some point have played there winning games faster to hit a mark slowing down losing games. only difference is josko is not doing it to get a higher rank on the main scoreboard, just beat a score which was set years ago when it was easier to get to. but if while doing this he gets top on the other scoreboards then it could be classed as manipulating them score boards, which he is not trying to do so obviously to prevent manipulation of them scoreboards he should be removed from them. while doing this.

"Premeditated" Josko, read my words. There is no comparison with any player on CC other than The Crown, because I didn't set up loads of games beforehand with the sole intent of trying to gain a high score. My high score simply came as a result of the games I was already in and were underway. You're not stupid, so you very well know the difference between what you set out to do and what I (and probably every other player on the site) do.

i played many matches, vs variety of opponents, it costed me points. and also, i made run for high CC score, by dragging turns in some losing games, which later come to end

Your words, though I've already stated I don't have a problem with anyone taking 24 hours to take a turn. My concern is where this goes in future - when a player can create hundreds of games and manipulate the system.

Please don't always misconstrue every post I make in a thread concerning you as an attack. It's not. I've already stated you don't warrant any punishment for this, or have done anything that breaches the rules.

I merely seek a resolution so this doesn't keep happening, otherwise I can have my daughter sit and play 300 consecutive games in her holidays and she could be the next "all-time high scorer and Conqueror". Would she deserve it? Probably not, lol.

WHAT ARE POINTS
JOSKO DONT FARM ME
DONT FARM ME
NO MORE

eddie2 wrote:Tenebrus i wont quote you. i think you are missing my point.

sit back and think josko is no 1 his point loss is 4 times what he wins in a game. he has his right to play his shots in any order within the time frame allowed in the game. once he reaches this top score his point loss will be a lot worse than he started off with point wise. only thing that will ruin this for him is if players start letting him win or start delaying there shots at his request. many people who have played josko or watched some of his games no that he usually leaves his shots till the last minute. So this case is even worded wrong against him he is not delaying his losses he is speeding up his wins.

I have had many a argument with josko and honestly like someone has said before in this thread, all players at some point have played there winning games faster to hit a mark slowing down losing games. only difference is josko is not doing it to get a higher rank on the main scoreboard, just beat a score which was set years ago when it was easier to get to. but if while doing this he gets top on the other scoreboards then it could be classed as manipulating them score boards, which he is not trying to do so obviously to prevent manipulation of them scoreboards he should be removed from them. while doing this.

I'm not missing your point at all. You were constructing an argument that josko was manipulating the monthly scoreboards, but not the general one. That's nonsense, of course.

Whether or not he is "within his rights" is an open question, I think he probably is, but it's manipulative. Just in the same way that refusing to play people with a low score, and only playing people with scores higher than yours is. Manipulative doesn't necessarily mean "against the rules", but it's conducting your play in a way that influences the scoreboards in a way that if you were entirely ambivalent about your score you wouldn't do.

Tenebrus wrote:

eddie2 wrote:Tenebrus i wont quote you. i think you are missing my point.

sit back and think josko is no 1 his point loss is 4 times what he wins in a game. he has his right to play his shots in any order within the time frame allowed in the game. once he reaches this top score his point loss will be a lot worse than he started off with point wise. only thing that will ruin this for him is if players start letting him win or start delaying there shots at his request. many people who have played josko or watched some of his games no that he usually leaves his shots till the last minute. So this case is even worded wrong against him he is not delaying his losses he is speeding up his wins.

I have had many a argument with josko and honestly like someone has said before in this thread, all players at some point have played there winning games faster to hit a mark slowing down losing games. only difference is josko is not doing it to get a higher rank on the main scoreboard, just beat a score which was set years ago when it was easier to get to. but if while doing this he gets top on the other scoreboards then it could be classed as manipulating them score boards, which he is not trying to do so obviously to prevent manipulation of them scoreboards he should be removed from them. while doing this.

I'm not missing your point at all. You were constructing an argument that josko was manipulating the monthly scoreboards, but not the general one. That's nonsense, of course.

Whether or not he is "within his rights" is an open question, I think he probably is, but it's manipulative. Just in the same way that refusing to play people with a low score, and only playing people with scores higher than yours is. Manipulative doesn't necessarily mean "against the rules", but it's conducting your play in a way that influences the scoreboards in a way that if you were entirely ambivalent about your score you wouldn't do.

eddie2 wrote:......

ht of them.)

but like i said new eddie2 just here to play and enjoy the team games. and i defo dont have to get involved with the politics.

from viewtopic.php?f=440&t=157471&start=45&p=4398556&view=show#p4398556

i do not want to call this situation a name since whenever i do they (mods) cut me my fine calling THE MOST RIGHTFULL name for one who doesnt call honest....
my question now is, what is this really ?
i said i didnt believe old one, and still not believing in new one as well.

for this below my post given with the link,

viewtopic.php?f=443&t=199977&start=15#p4397756

you are demanding public opinion in the opening post you make, then as a part of this i respond sitting within limits and rules stating i dont believe you, never...for my post, since it is not a post to your appetide, you do REPORT it even without looking if there is any insult in it or not...

NOW, PLS THE ONE IN QUESTION, OR MODS, WHOEVER IT IS;

WHAT GIVES THE RIGHT HE REPORTS ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING showing very very touchy BUT SOMEHOW THIS VERY SAME FREAK COMES HERE AND CREATES FILTHY & BANEFUL thoughts and projects about one of my clan mates ? IF HE FEELS EVERY COMFORT TO COMMENT FOR PPL WHOM DOES NOT LIKE HIM ANY LITTLE, THEN HOW COME HE DOES REPORT MY VERY BUT EVERY POSTS I ENTER ? WHAT BUSINESS DO YOU SERVE/HAVE HERE REALLY ? WHAT IS UR MOTIVE TO BE/TYPE UNDER THIS TOPIC REALLY ? CAN YOU EXPLAIN ? ARE YOU STILL BAITING/TROLLING ?

WE, DO NOT LIKE YOU OLD ONE, NEW ONE WHATEVER YOU ARE...
GET LOST, GET AWAY OUT FROM OUR SIGHT... !!!!

iAmCaffeine wrote:WHAT ARE POINTS
JOSKO DONT FARM ME
DONT FARM ME
NO MORE

Hehe

MrPinky wrote:I see we have 2 options :

1. We will allow this in the future too.

show

2. We forbid this.

show

There is a third option which I would personally like to see. This whole situation (using staggered wins and losses to get a "stretch" high-score) is driven by the desire to achieve a personal best score and, in this latest case, the best ever score on CC. This is natural for the top players to want to make their mark in the historical records and be recognised as being among the best ever. However, there is no official historical record and so the issue of valid best-ever score becomes something of an ink-blot test - everyone sees what they want to see.

I think the CC team should introduce an official high score table. "Stretch" high-scores should NOT be allowed on this high-score table. I think there should be an initial period during which all previous players scores are analyzed to separate the stretch high-scores from balanced high scores (eg.. Josko's 5400 or so points would be valid, the 6400 would not). From this point onwards, all new entries into the high-score table would have to be assessed and approved by the CC team. In my opinion, this would remove the need to try these tricks since players would prize their entry into this high-score table more highly.

Of course, players could still go for a stretch high-score for fun, as long as rules are not broken, but it would not count in the official table.

For this to work, there would need to be an algorithm that can analyze a series of games, look at average turn times in winning and losing games and decide objectively whether there is some "stretching" going on. This would need to be sufficiently loose that you could not fail it with normal play, but sufficiently tight that it would not allow much of an inflated score. NB.. everyone has some winning streak even when playing normally. What is an acceptable amount would need to be established.

I think the points system should be removed entirely.

iAmCaffeine wrote:I think the points system should be removed entirely.

lol, if that happened, C&A would become a dead forum....lol

iAmCaffeine wrote:I think the points system should be removed entirely.

I quite like the points system, apart from the tricks people play to inflate their score. It's at least some way towards showing who takes their games seriously. There are not many 2000+ players that say "ya, this game is rly boring, imma just gonna suicide lol"