Strip Past Cheating Conquerors of their Conqueror Medals

[Funkyterrance]

Concise description:
Do an actual thorough investigation into which formed conquerors cheated/farmed/rule bent their ways to the pole position(pun intended).
Specifics/Details:
The historical archives are all there. Just do a little official research and strip the medals off of those who obtained them dishonorably.
How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
-First and foremost for the sake of the purity of the site. People won't have to look at the profiles of these players in disgust at the fact that they were even able to gain the medal in the first place

-More players will strive for this position if they know it can only be achieved and retained without bending the rules

-Will give a more accurate representation of who actually deserved the title

Honestly though, I shouldn't even have to suggest this; it should have been done ages ago.

[Armandolas]

agree with this

[greenoaks]

i couldn't care less about what a Conquerer may have done 3 years ago.

[Metsfanmax]

Who volunteers to take on the job of doing the research?

[Funkyterrance]

Who volunteers to take on the job of doing the research?

I would imagine there is existing staff that would find this a worthy cause. If not, make me a temporary volunteer or something and I'll do the research myself; I wouldn't mind doing a little bit of legwork to make this happen.

[jsnyder748]

-More players will strive for this position if they know it can only be achieved and retained without bending the rules

That is impossible. end of discussion

[Funkyterrance]

-More players will strive for this position if they know it can only be achieved and retained without bending the rules

That is impossible. end of discussion

Which part is impossible? More players striving or only achieving and retaining without bending the rules? Or something else entirely?

[Agent 86]

-More players will strive for this position if they know it can only be achieved and retained without bending the rules

That is impossible. end of discussion

FT, I think your cause is a noble one...but your quest would fail. Let's just make sure all future conquerors are worthy of the title

[Funkyterrance]

-More players will strive for this position if they know it can only be achieved and retained without bending the rules

That is impossible. end of discussion

FT, I think your cause is a noble one...but your quest would fail. Let's just make sure all future conquerors are worthy of the title

Shit.
I guess I'm missing why. Like I feel that future conquerors will more likely be legit if this went through.

[greenoaks]

reviewing past Conquerers will not make future Conquerers more legit.

reviewing current or soon to be Conquerers will. keep your focus on the present contenders.

[Funkyterrance]

reviewing past Conquerers will not make future Conquerers more legit.

reviewing current or soon to be Conquerers will. keep your focus on the present contenders.

I see where you guys are coming from with the "ancient history" argument but please hear me out on this?

I'm saying that historically, conquerors have been able to bend the rules/cheat and these players are still talked about as "conquerors" as though they are the same caliber of those players who didn't commit gross abuse of the game. If these players were stripped of their medals after the fact, it would convey the message that yeah, you may be able to become conqueror by bending the rules but it won't "count" in the long run. I feel this would deter cheating on the high end of the spectrum because the goal of most conquerors is to make some sort of hall of fame so to speak. Take away this reward and future cheaters just won't bother.

[greenoaks]

reviewing past Conquerers will not make future Conquerers more legit.

reviewing current or soon to be Conquerers will. keep your focus on the present contenders.

I see where you guys are coming from with the "ancient history" argument but please hear me out on this?

I'm saying that historically, conquerors have been able to bend the rules/cheat and these players are still talked about as "conquerors" as though they are the same caliber of those players who didn't commit gross abuse of the game. If these players were stripped of their medals after the fact, it would convey the message that yeah, you may be able to become conqueror by bending the rules but it won't "count" in the long run. I feel this would deter cheating on the high end of the spectrum because the goal of most conquerors is to make some sort of hall of fame so to speak. Take away this reward and future cheaters just won't bother.

you mean like how the death penalty has eliminated severe crimes in the states that still have it.

if a past Conquerer attained the rank through means now considered evil, so be it. make it clear those tactics are no longer acceptable and watch out for it.

[jsnyder748]

I mean there is always going to be a new way to reach conqueror. some of the ways people used to do it were not thought of as a gross abuse of the game until....we all realized it was.

Finding a legit conqueror is impossible. There would be a new one every day if everyone was on the same playing field. People who deserve it wouldnt get it, but those who walk the borderline of edging out points would eventaully get it and we consider this to be cheating. (farming, playing with really low ranking people on your team only)

Not tht cheaters shouldn't loose their ill begotten gifts, but what we all want is someone who plays at a high level while playing good opponents on a map/settings everyone respects as legit. To be able to reach 4500 points playing this way is currently impossible. If I were to play doubles on das schloss (A popular team game amongnst clans) there would be no way to get to a high enough score. I may be good at the map and I may win 50 percent vs other teams who know the strategy.

That is why it is impossible to get to conqueror while not bending the rules/what others find as fair play and get there.

this wasn't very well worded ,but maybe you will get my point.

The suggestion is good but this line "More players will strive for this position if they know it can only be achieved and retained without bending the rules" is the essence of who conqueror is. A rule "bender" or innovator, if you will. There is no way to get enough points without it.

[Funkyterrance]

I see where you guys are coming from with the "ancient history" argument but please hear me out on this?

I'm saying that historically, conquerors have been able to bend the rules/cheat and these players are still talked about as "conquerors" as though they are the same caliber of those players who didn't commit gross abuse of the game. If these players were stripped of their medals after the fact, it would convey the message that yeah, you may be able to become conqueror by bending the rules but it won't "count" in the long run. I feel this would deter cheating on the high end of the spectrum because the goal of most conquerors is to make some sort of hall of fame so to speak. Take away this reward and future cheaters just won't bother.

you mean like how the death penalty has eliminated severe crimes in the states that still have it.

No, not like that at all.
For the most part people don't commit crimes that get them the death penalty in order to become famous/infamous. You are focusing on the punishment after the fact(if you can even call stripping of the conqerer medal from a non-deserving player a punishment), I'm not. The suggestion is more akin to the removal of something that wasn't deserved in the first place. I'm talking about eliminating the motivation to do the crime in the first place. See the difference?

I mean there is always going to be a new way to reach conqueror. some of the ways people used to do it were not thought of as a gross abuse of the game until....we all realized it was.

Finding a legit conqueror is impossible. There would be a new one every day if everyone was on the same playing field. People who deserve it wouldnt get it, but those who walk the borderline of edging out points would eventaully get it and we consider this to be cheating. (farming, playing with really low ranking people on your team only)

Not tht cheaters shouldn't loose their ill begotten gifts, but what we all want is someone who plays at a high level while playing good opponents on a map/settings everyone respects as legit. To be able to reach 4500 points playing this way is currently impossible. If I were to play doubles on das schloss (A popular team game amongnst clans) there would be no way to get to a high enough score. I may be good at the map and I may win 50 percent vs other teams who know the strategy.

That is why it is impossible to get to conqueror while not bending the rules/what others find as fair play and get there.

this wasn't very well worded ,but maybe you will get my point.

The suggestion is good but this line "More players will strive for this position if they know it can only be achieved and retained without bending the rules" is the essence of who conqueror is. A rule "bender" or innovator, if you will. There is no way to get enough points without it.

I think it was worded well enough for me to get what you mean.
It sounds to me like what you are saying that it is the rule benders are the ones who prevent the legit people from getting to the top. If that's true, then this change would be a severe demotivating factor to those who are doing the bending. They would take care not to bend the rules because if they are discovered all of their hard work would be for nothing. It's not worth the risk of wasting all that effort.

As far as "no way to get enough points without it" part, those people who got such high scores ought to be "adjusted". Otherwise, you are suggesting that in the future only cheating conquerors will exist since no one can possibly get 4500 points without rule-bending. Is this really what we want to have as the future of CC?

If the "more players will strive" part should be "more legit players will strive" I am not opposed to changing the wording.

In conclusion, I'm being told that:

1. Those players who reach 4000+ points most likely gained a good deal of those points by rule bending.

2. Legitimate players have no way of reaching this score.

3. We have to accept the fact that there is no way that a legitimate player can possibly attain the position of conqueror since these "old" scores will not be removed.

Wow, there has to be something seriously wrong with the system because this sounds totally screwed up.
Greenoaks, what is your suggestion as to how to extricate CC from this predicament? Focusing on future conquerors is apparently not going to solve a thing.

[greenoaks]

reviewing past Conquerers will not make future Conquerers more legit.

reviewing current or soon to be Conquerers will. keep your focus on the present contenders.

I see where you guys are coming from with the "ancient history" argument but please hear me out on this?

I'm saying that historically, conquerors have been able to bend the rules/cheat and these players are still talked about as "conquerors" as though they are the same caliber of those players who didn't commit gross abuse of the game. If these players were stripped of their medals after the fact, it would convey the message that yeah, you may be able to become conqueror by bending the rules but it won't "count" in the long run. I feel this would deter cheating on the high end of the spectrum because the goal of most conquerors is to make some sort of hall of fame so to speak. Take away this reward and future cheaters just won't bother.

you mean like how the death penalty has eliminated severe crimes in the states that still have it.

No, not like that at all.
For the most part people don't commit crimes that get them the death penalty in order to become famous/infamous. You are focusing on the punishment after the fact(if you can even call stripping of the conqerer medal a punishment), I'm not. The suggestion is more akin to the removal of something that wasn't deserved in the first place. I'm talking about eliminating the motivation to do the crime in the first place. See the difference?

i get the difference, but as jsnyder is pointing out Conquerers get there by pushing the boundaries. what we now consider to be going too far may not have been back then. to apply today's morals to yesteryear's actions and then hand out punishments is wrong.

[Funkyterrance]

i get the difference, but as jsnyder is pointing out Conquerers get there by pushing the boundaries. what we now consider to be going too far may not have been back then. to apply today's morals to yesteryear's actions and then hand out punishments is wrong.

Ok but see here, it's been established that the scores reached by past conquerors cannot be beaten by legit gameplay. Do you see the conundrum that arises from this? Without retroactive practices you may never have another legit conqueror. This calls for taking away things gained in the past. It's the only way.
All a cheater has to do is slip through the cracks for a while then not play any more games and they will sit at the top indefinitely until another cheater knocks him off in an endless cycle. The current conqueror as well as the previous one are prime examples of this. Your system is counting way too heavily on people continuing to play once they've reached the top. It also has the downside of not being able to right past wrongs. CC can't practically have a statute of limitations.

[greenoaks]

i get the difference, but as jsnyder is pointing out Conquerers get there by pushing the boundaries. what we now consider to be going too far may not have been back then. to apply today's morals to yesteryear's actions and then hand out punishments is wrong.

Ok but see here, it's been established that the scores reached by past conquerors cannot be beaten by legit gameplay. Do you see the conundrum that arises from this? Without retroactive practices you may never have another legit conqueror. This calls for taking away things gained in the past. It's the only way.
All a cheater has to do is slip through the cracks for a while then not play any more games and they will sit at the top indefinitely until another cheater knocks him off in an endless cycle. The current conqueror as well as the previous one are prime examples of this. Your system is counting way too heavily on people continuing to play once they've reached the top. It also has the downside of not being able to right past wrongs. CC can't practically have a statute of limitations.

you don't need to beat the scores of past Conquerers. you only need to beat the scores of current players.

[Funkyterrance]

you don't need to beat the scores of past Conquerers. you only need to beat the scores of current players.

Not if a past conqueror is at the top of the scoreboard.

[chapcrap]

Is this substantially different that this: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=170171#p3717624

It seems like the only difference is that this suggestion focuses on the Conqueror Medal.

[Funkyterrance]

Is this substantially different that this: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 1#p3717624

It seems like the only difference is that this suggestion focuses on the Conqueror Medal.

I think it is...
You can't effectively file a report against someone cheating when they did the cheating a year or two ago. I feel anyone holding the conqueror title's record should be scrutinized(even retroactively) more so than your average player since they are in a "role model" position and more strongly represent the site's tolerance of fair play, etc. There will always be cheating that goes unchecked due to limited resources but the conqueror position should be one of zero-tolerance in this regard.

[chapcrap]

Is this substantially different that this: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=170171#p3717624

It seems like the only difference is that this suggestion focuses on the Conqueror Medal.

I think it is...
You can't effectively file a report against someone cheating when they did the cheating a year or two ago. I feel anyone holding the conqueror title's record should be scrutinized(even retroactively) more so than your average player since they are in a "role model" position and more strongly represent the site's tolerance of fair play, etc. There will always be cheating that goes unchecked due to limited resources but the conqueror position should be one of zero-tolerance in this regard.

So... What's the difference? Both ideas want medals removed for cheating.

[Funkyterrance]

Is this substantially different that this: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 1#p3717624

It seems like the only difference is that this suggestion focuses on the Conqueror Medal.

I think it is...
You can't effectively file a report against someone cheating when they did the cheating a year or two ago. I feel anyone holding the conqueror title's record should be scrutinized(even retroactively) more so than your average player since they are in a "role model" position and more strongly represent the site's tolerance of fair play, etc. There will always be cheating that goes unchecked due to limited resources but the conqueror position should be one of zero-tolerance in this regard.

So... What's the difference? Both ideas want medals removed for cheating.

The difference is if you are a past conqueror and a cheater you will lose your medal irregardless of when you got it or when you cheated. It seems to me that the "strip cheaters" suggestion is only going to apply to cheaters from here on in. The conqueror thing will be sort a retroactive investigation of sorts for the sake of the integrity the site. Unless of course the strip cheaters suggestion is going to go back through everyone ever in the history of conquer club found cheating and strip them of their medals? If so I suppose they would overlap but I don't think that is the case.
Basically what I'm suggesting is that every conqueror who ever got the medal should be investigated and if it turns out they cheated/bent the rules then they don't get to keep the medal. Why shouldn't the past conquerors be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as the more recent/current ones? They've still got the medal after all.

[greenoaks]

bending the rules is not against the rules.

[Funkyterrance]

bending the rules is not against the rules.

What differentiates rule-bending and cheating is constantly being deliberated. What decides most of the time is the amount of energy put into discovery of evidence. The more evidence that piles up, the more the "bending" looks like "abuse" and abuse is considered by most to be a form of cheating. Ultimately the decision is up to administration as to where the line falls on each case.

[chapcrap]

Ok, so you're saying that the difference is retroactive removal vs future removal? I honestly, kind of thought that they other suggestion wanted past cases looked at as well. If this is implemented and there is a case of cheating, I don't see why we wouldn't look to the past as well as the present.

Either why, I'll leave them as separate suggestions for now.