shanksdigs wrote:OMG. Conquer Club is a database and gameserver, right? Why has every discussion I've read on this topic included some mention of the inability to delete users? If it is a database and a gameserver, deleting a user is completely functional, acceptable, and correct. This topic suggests turning the abuser into a neutral which is part of the way towards the right solution. Go all the way, delete abusers accounts and the games they entered. It MUST be easy to do considering that Conquer Club is a database and gameserver.
As yeti points out, it has to do with the server integrity. If CC were to delete all of the games which involved someone who cheated, then a large percentage of the games which have been played would need to be deleted (just a guess, but I think 20% is a conservative number). This would affect more than just the games which are deleted. The resultant scores for every remaining game would have to be recalculated (at least those which finished after the first deleted game). This would absolutely kill the server, as scores are only kept as a current value. Also, the games which are missing logs could not be reversed. Also, if users were deleted, it would be impossible to prove who has previously held an account and the multi problems would compound.
shanksdigs wrote:OMG. Conquer Club is a database and gameserver, right? Why has every discussion I've read on this topic included some mention of the inability to delete users? If it is a database and a gameserver, deleting a user is completely functional, acceptable, and correct. This topic suggests turning the abuser into a neutral which is part of the way towards the right solution. Go all the way, delete abusers accounts and the games they entered. It MUST be easy to do considering that Conquer Club is a database and gameserver.
As yeti points out, it has to do with the server integrity. If CC were to delete all of the games which involved someone who cheated, then a large percentage of the games which have been played would need to be deleted (just a guess, but I think 20% is a conservative number). This would affect more than just the games which are deleted. The resultant scores for every remaining game would have to be recalculated (at least those which finished after the first deleted game). This would absolutely kill the server, as scores are only kept as a current value. Also, the games which are missing logs could not be reversed. Also, if users were deleted, it would be impossible to prove who has previously held an account and the multi problems would compound.
exactly lance! so why not just turn them neutral instead of discussing deleting them? i love when people argue my points for me in round about ways! i knew you would see the light lance!!!-0
Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"
owenshooter wrote:exactly lance! so why not just turn them neutral instead of discussing deleting them? i love when people argue my points for me in round about ways! i knew you would see the light lance!!!-0
I guess I was slightly off topic there, but turning them neutral would have a similar effect as not letting the person take their turns (well, the same effect, just 72 hours sooner). The reason I do not like the idea is that there are people who are incorrectly busted (see the incident a few weeks ago where 50 people were wrongly busted by accident) and this does not allow them any leeway for clearing their names.
owenshooter wrote:exactly lance! so why not just turn them neutral instead of discussing deleting them? i love when people argue my points for me in round about ways! i knew you would see the light lance!!!-0
I guess I was slightly off topic there, but turning them neutral would have a similar effect as not letting the person take their turns (well, the same effect, just 72 hours sooner). The reason I do not like the idea is that there are people who are incorrectly busted (see the incident a few weeks ago where 50 people were wrongly busted by accident) and this does not allow them any leeway for clearing their names.
Agreed - but that is due to an error in the Bust system - and not the norm...
Without that specific issue involved (which should be fixed but hasn't been) the percentages far outweigh any potential "oh noes I got busted but I wasn't a multi" in comparison to "fucking multis stole my points again even though they got busted 2 weeks ago".
shanksdigs wrote:OMG. Conquer Club is a database and gameserver, right? Why has every discussion I've read on this topic included some mention of the inability to delete users? If it is a database and a gameserver, deleting a user is completely functional, acceptable, and correct. This topic suggests turning the abuser into a neutral which is part of the way towards the right solution. Go all the way, delete abusers accounts and the games they entered. It MUST be easy to do considering that Conquer Club is a database and gameserver.
As yeti points out, it has to do with the server integrity. If CC were to delete all of the games which involved someone who cheated, then a large percentage of the games which have been played would need to be deleted (just a guess, but I think 20% is a conservative number). This would affect more than just the games which are deleted. The resultant scores for every remaining game would have to be recalculated (at least those which finished after the first deleted game). This would absolutely kill the server, as scores are only kept as a current value. Also, the games which are missing logs could not be reversed. Also, if users were deleted, it would be impossible to prove who has previously held an account and the multi problems would compound.
Who cares about server integrity when the ranking and rating system's integrity becomes invalid? These people are allowed to come on to this game, create multis and/or chaos accounts and they wreak havoc on paying customers. The ranking system is invalid until a method is developed whereby cheaters accounts and games can be voided. Your response just encourages me to NOT renew when the annual fee time comes around again. Can anyone give me a good reason why I shoud renew? Every comment following mine just reaffirms the fact that I should not renew.
shanksdigs wrote: Can anyone give me a good reason why I shoud renew?
Maybe that score doesn't matter for one thing other than ego?
Play the game, have fun. There will be people who take this too seriously and ruin a very very small number of games, but if you dwell on it you won't have a good experience overall.
Play in some tournaments, or create some tournaments. Join a clan and get involved in some clan wars.
There's much more than just playing an occasional game and worrying about rank.
shanksdigs wrote:Who cares about server integrity when the ranking and rating system's integrity becomes invalid?
If the server integrity were to become compromised, then there would be no rankings. The rankings are based off of the data saved on the server. If the data on the server is not continuous, what is to stop someone from saying "Hey, these 50 games just disappeared and I had 750 points from them. Give me my points back." No one can prove that the person was lying.
Yup. Turn them into neutrals. While we're at it, go round to their houses and set fire to their computers. And eat all their snacks. And poo on their furniture. I'm in favour of punishing cheats and trying, qute hard, not to punish the rest of us.
If it's helpful I'd be willing to call round and poo on furniture for any cheats in the UK. Maybe we could have a separate band of volunteers who do nothing but defecate punitively.
saw another thread firing up about this, and wondering if this is even worth discussing further. as in, is it even possible. maybe andy or lack will notice this and give some sort of answer. seems logical and fair, but i know that what is logical and fair isn't always easy to code...-6cd
Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"
shanksdigs wrote:Who cares about server integrity when the ranking and rating system's integrity becomes invalid?
What lance failed to mention is that while deleteing a user or game is very bad for the DB it is fully possible to "lock" accounts (for a specified time or indefinately) to prevent them from affecting ongoing games.
owenshooter wrote:saw another thread firing up about this, and wondering if this is even worth discussing further. as in, is it even possible.
Anything is possible... But with the CC "re-buy and comeback" policy I can't see this idea (as good as it is) being wanted.
Thezzaruz wrote:What lance failed to mention is that while deleteing a user or game is very bad for the DB it is fully possible to "lock" accounts (for a specified time or indefinately) to prevent them from affecting ongoing games.
well, to be fair to lance, he posted that on Nov 3rd, and this thread was bumped because i saw another thread starting on the same topic that was not nearly as good as this one. and the solution i'm proposing doesn't delete the data... right? or am i understanding this incorrectly?
Thezzaruz wrote:Anything is possible... But with the CC "re-buy and comeback" policy I can't see this idea (as good as it is) being wanted.
well, i don't think that would have anything to do with turning their armies into neutrals....-6cd
Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"
I know that on Lack has something similar to this on his To-Do list. How it exactly would function, I'm not sure. Some suggestions were that it would automatically skip the multi's turn when it came to them, leaving them "in game" incase it is strategic to use them and take them out (for up to 3 turns of course before being booted)...or there was the instant boot and turn their armies to neutral, etc.
But I know Lack has long been considering this--I'm pretty sure he wants to, it's just trying to find which updates in what order, are the most beneficial for the site. We shall see!
AndyDufresne wrote:I know that on Lack has something similar to this on his To-Do list. How it exactly would function, I'm not sure. Some suggestions were that it would automatically skip the multi's turn when it came to them, leaving them "in game" incase it is strategic to use them and take them out (for up to 3 turns of course before being booted)...or there was the instant boot and turn their armies to neutral, etc.
But I know Lack has long been considering this--I'm pretty sure he wants to, it's just trying to find which updates in what order, are the most beneficial for the site. We shall see!
--Andy
the monkey has spoken... let there be bananas on earth, and let them begin with me... thanks andy!!!-0
Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"
shanksdigs wrote:OMG. Conquer Club is a database and gameserver, right? Why has every discussion I've read on this topic included some mention of the inability to delete users? If it is a database and a gameserver, deleting a user is completely functional, acceptable, and correct. This topic suggests turning the abuser into a neutral which is part of the way towards the right solution. Go all the way, delete abusers accounts and the games they entered. It MUST be easy to do considering that Conquer Club is a database and gameserver.
To continue to allow them to play only causes the following to happen:
-honest players get frustrated with Conquer Club and resort to playing heads up games or private games secluding themselves from competition against new players. -same honest players may decide to bail on paying the annual fee as this kind of abuse continues to happen. -the ranking and rating system of Conquer Club is null and void. Any system that allows for a cheater to improperly modify theirs or another player's ranking makes most rankings suspect. (Clearly some of the better players can be determined to be solid players based on years of winning and thousands of wins. That being said, how can any member know whether a brigadier got his ranking because of multis or other methods of cheating?) -some players may resort to cheating to return themselves the points that they undeservedly lost...and chaos ensues. (I have read PMs and emails from fellow players who have decided to cheat to get their points back, so I know it happens.) -good players get their points and ranking shot down for no good reason.
Essentially, I am saying that the only effective strategy for ending the cheating that is rampant on this system is to delete cheater's accounts. Send a message that says that "Conquer Club does not advocate cheating!"
If they did this, C.C. would soon be a clean site. Maybe it has something to do with the job security, of all the hunters.
But with the CC "re-buy and comeback" policy I can't see this idea (as good as it is) being wanted.
