Gen.LeeGettinhed [warned]

[Dukasaur]

I would like to connect this past report to this current report that we have right now, as it was stated there that he was/is "point harvesting" through private games:

viewtopic.php?f=239&t=166533

Although the pm's mentioned here could have been suggested/influenced or filtered to produce a certain view of the case, it is still undeniable that the past report above indicated that private games are being set up to unsuspecting players numerous times. This shows that Gen.LeeGettinhed is systematically soliciting/inviting certain players for the purpose of ranching.

Private 1 vs 1 games are as follows:
Game 10811352
Game 10789117
Game 10768654
Game 10763820
Game 10742454
Game 10741441
Game 10587777
Game 10548678
Game 10547675
Game 10536422
Game 10529562
Game 10502745
Game 10476064
Game 10471798
Game 10455367
Game 10440127
Game 10434598
Game 10421836
Game 10421706
Game 10410510
Game 10410225
Game 10392172
Game 10381247
Game 10371639
Game 10362805
Game 10336493

and the list goes on...

Basically, in these 1 vs 1 games, the opponent does not have an idea of how to play the map or how to engage in the settings of the game that was made. It's like you constructed a way to make a player become like a "new recruit", because you made a game that he will play for the first time in which you have played countless times already. Regularly doing this to different (unsuspecting) players is a systematic way of ranching points for yourself. These games exhibits a pattern of how someone can methodically target specific ranks or players that have no idea on how to play the map for the purpose of ranching. It's not fair to regularly do this. We will classify this as a gross abuse of the game.

Since we have always seen him as someone who just prefers to play against low ranked players in the past, re-checking his private games with certain settings has shed some light that this practice is more malicious than it seems. This does not mean that no one is allowed anymore to invite low ranks or unfamiliar players to private games. You can play any ranks publicly or privately but make sure that this practice is not done in extreme numbers to the point that you are already doing this regularly, seeking out specific ranks or players in order to ranch some points.

As this is Gen.LeeGettinhed's first major infraction, he is officially warned to stop setting up private games to lure unsuspecting players from now on.

Good job, KA!

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step!

[GoranZ]

IF YOU JUST STARTED PLAYING GAMES ON THIS SITE, DON'T JOIN GAMES WITH HIGH RANKING PLAYERS UNLESS YOU ARE EXPECTING TO LOSE....

so basically u say "DONT JOIN CC" lol... very smart from your side, genius thought, what will be next one? close the site

I now understand why u defend GLG

I would like to connect this past report to this current report that we have right now, as it was stated there that he was/is "point harvesting" through private games:

viewtopic.php?f=239&t=166533

Although the pm's mentioned here could have been suggested/influenced or filtered to produce a certain view of the case, it is still undeniable that the past report above indicated that private games are being set up to unsuspecting players numerous times. This shows that Gen.LeeGettinhed is systematically soliciting/inviting certain players for the purpose of ranching.

Private 1 vs 1 games are as follows:
Game 10811352
Game 10789117
Game 10768654
Game 10763820
Game 10742454
Game 10741441
Game 10587777
Game 10548678
Game 10547675
Game 10536422
Game 10529562
Game 10502745
Game 10476064
Game 10471798
Game 10455367
Game 10440127
Game 10434598
Game 10421836
Game 10421706
Game 10410510
Game 10410225
Game 10392172
Game 10381247
Game 10371639
Game 10362805
Game 10336493

and the list goes on...

Basically, in these 1 vs 1 games, the opponent does not have an idea of how to play the map or how to engage in the settings of the game that was made. It's like you constructed a way to make a player become like a "new recruit", because you made a game that he will play for the first time in which you have played countless times already. Regularly doing this to different (unsuspecting) players is a systematic way of ranching points for yourself. These games exhibits a pattern of how someone can methodically target specific ranks or players that have no idea on how to play the map for the purpose of ranching. It's not fair to regularly do this. We will classify this as a gross abuse of the game.

Since we have always seen him as someone who just prefers to play against low ranked players in the past, re-checking his private games with certain settings has shed some light that this practice is more malicious than it seems. This does not mean that no one is allowed anymore to invite low ranks or unfamiliar players to private games. You can play any ranks publicly or privately but make sure that this practice is not done in extreme numbers to the point that you are already doing this regularly, seeking out specific ranks or players in order to ranch some points.

As this is Gen.LeeGettinhed's first major infraction, he is officially warned to stop setting up private games to lure unsuspecting players from now on.

He also have Team games that follow same pattern, Does the warning apply for them also or he is able to use team games(mainly 2v2) for same abuse?

Good job, KA!

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step!

+1

[Gillipig]

I would like to connect this past report to this current report that we have right now, as it was stated there that he was/is "point harvesting" through private games:

viewtopic.php?f=239&t=166533

Although the pm's mentioned here could have been suggested/influenced or filtered to produce a certain view of the case, it is still undeniable that the past report above indicated that private games are being set up to unsuspecting players numerous times. This shows that Gen.LeeGettinhed is systematically soliciting/inviting certain players for the purpose of ranching.

Private 1 vs 1 games are as follows:
Game 10811352
Game 10789117
Game 10768654
Game 10763820
Game 10742454
Game 10741441
Game 10587777
Game 10548678
Game 10547675
Game 10536422
Game 10529562
Game 10502745
Game 10476064
Game 10471798
Game 10455367
Game 10440127
Game 10434598
Game 10421836
Game 10421706
Game 10410510
Game 10410225
Game 10392172
Game 10381247
Game 10371639
Game 10362805
Game 10336493

and the list goes on...

Basically, in these 1 vs 1 games, the opponent does not have an idea of how to play the map or how to engage in the settings of the game that was made. It's like you constructed a way to make a player become like a "new recruit", because you made a game that he will play for the first time in which you have played countless times already. Regularly doing this to different (unsuspecting) players is a systematic way of ranching points for yourself. These games exhibits a pattern of how someone can methodically target specific ranks or players that have no idea on how to play the map for the purpose of ranching. It's not fair to regularly do this. We will classify this as a gross abuse of the game.

Since we have always seen him as someone who just prefers to play against low ranked players in the past, re-checking his private games with certain settings has shed some light that this practice is more malicious than it seems. This does not mean that no one is allowed anymore to invite low ranks or unfamiliar players to private games. You can play any ranks publicly or privately but make sure that this practice is not done in extreme numbers to the point that you are already doing this regularly, seeking out specific ranks or players in order to ranch some points.

As this is Gen.LeeGettinhed's first major infraction, he is officially warned to stop setting up private games to lure unsuspecting players from now on.

Finally some justice!!!
Awesome work at highlighting this effect of his actions CoF! He's always insisted that he's helping them and that they are grateful for having played against him afterwards. I've always known it was total bullshit but it's first now that we have testimonials from his victims!

[KraphtOne]

i played risk on another site for 10 years before coming over to this site... so in my first game i would have no problem challenging anyone at what i perceived to be a slight variation on the same game...

my buddy tricked me into playing a freestyle game my first time out... and i remember thinking "this ain't risk ya dick"...

which is basically what GLG does to every single player he plays... Makes ya think you're playing the best player on the site at checkers, and once you join the game you realize that it is a rubix cube solving competition and he already knows the trick to finishing it...

i take full credit for this outcome...

well and COF, who i'm sorry you may not agree with the guy and you make think of he a vindictive person, but clearly is of intelligence and has continuously made a strong case...

COF, don't know ya, pretty sure never played ya, but almost every post of yours i've ever seen is what keeps me checking the forums... (that and KH, but for completely different reasons) i find it comforting that not every player on the site is a complete idiot...

and before you idiots come in with your "hey now wait a second good buddy there sir!"

if you've played a freestyle game with me, you're an idiot...

..... alright all kidding aside great job CC admins sorry i give you shit occasionally

[anonymus]

/

[nippersean]

Common sense prevails! Nice one King A!!

[Extreme Ways]

Nice, but still:

[Johnny Rockets]

Wow......Faith Restored.

Great Job, C.O.F. and Thanks to the mods for stepping up and putting a halt to this cancer.

JRock

[Chuuuuck]

I do believe the MH want to make this site a better place for all now. This makes me more excited to about this game.

[b00060]

The best way to curve this "ranching" is to make it impossible score wise. Somewhere there is a suggestion where if you are 2K higher than the player you are playing then you get 0 points. The factors were pretty interesting. With that said until we have a rule change we all sit and wait.

Fantastic idea!

[Riskmaster101]

WOO-HOOOOO!!!!

[rhp 1]

IF YOU JUST STARTED PLAYING GAMES ON THIS SITE, DON'T JOIN GAMES WITH HIGH RANKING PLAYERS UNLESS YOU ARE EXPECTING TO LOSE....

so basically u say "DONT JOIN CC" lol... very smart from your side, genius thought, what will be next one? close the site

I now understand why u defend GLG

I would like to connect this past report to this current report that we have right now, as it was stated there that he was/is "point harvesting" through private games:

viewtopic.php?f=239&t=166533

Although the pm's mentioned here could have been suggested/influenced or filtered to produce a certain view of the case, it is still undeniable that the past report above indicated that private games are being set up to unsuspecting players numerous times. This shows that Gen.LeeGettinhed is systematically soliciting/inviting certain players for the purpose of ranching.

Private 1 vs 1 games are as follows:
Game 10811352
Game 10789117
Game 10768654
Game 10763820
Game 10742454
Game 10741441
Game 10587777
Game 10548678
Game 10547675
Game 10536422
Game 10529562
Game 10502745
Game 10476064
Game 10471798
Game 10455367
Game 10440127
Game 10434598
Game 10421836
Game 10421706
Game 10410510
Game 10410225
Game 10392172
Game 10381247
Game 10371639
Game 10362805
Game 10336493

and the list goes on...

Basically, in these 1 vs 1 games, the opponent does not have an idea of how to play the map or how to engage in the settings of the game that was made. It's like you constructed a way to make a player become like a "new recruit", because you made a game that he will play for the first time in which you have played countless times already. Regularly doing this to different (unsuspecting) players is a systematic way of ranching points for yourself. These games exhibits a pattern of how someone can methodically target specific ranks or players that have no idea on how to play the map for the purpose of ranching. It's not fair to regularly do this. We will classify this as a gross abuse of the game.

Since we have always seen him as someone who just prefers to play against low ranked players in the past, re-checking his private games with certain settings has shed some light that this practice is more malicious than it seems. This does not mean that no one is allowed anymore to invite low ranks or unfamiliar players to private games. You can play any ranks publicly or privately but make sure that this practice is not done in extreme numbers to the point that you are already doing this regularly, seeking out specific ranks or players in order to ranch some points.

As this is Gen.LeeGettinhed's first major infraction, he is officially warned to stop setting up private games to lure unsuspecting players from now on.

He also have Team games that follow same pattern, Does the warning apply for them also or he is able to use team games(mainly 2v2) for same abuse?

Good job, KA!

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step!

+1

you're a goofball... it's warning to weak players about playing top players... what a lame statement by you

[QoH]

Excellent ruling, and a bit overdue in my opinion. But glad the decision was finally made. However, he also "ranches" many low-ranked plays in private doubles games-does this decision apply there as well?

[Gen.LeeGettinhed]

exerpts:
1) . . .undeniable that the past report above indicated that private games are being set up to unsuspecting players numerous times. This shows that Gen.LeeGettinhed is systematically soliciting/inviting certain players for the purpose of ranching.
2) . . .It's not fair to regularly do this. We will classify this as a gross abuse of the game.
3) . . . this practice is more malicious than it seems.
4) . . .seeking out specific ranks or players in order to ranch some points.
5) . . .stop setting up private games to lure unsuspecting players from now on.

1-Unsuspecting players? they are asked if they WANT TO play a game, many say no. Others say "sure", others negotiate the map. They are given the game number and with that the chance to review the map/settings. See prior sentence. HOW IS THIS UNSUSPECTING?

2-not fair? how FAIR is it for someone of higher rank to give up 900%-1600%-2500% DISADVANTAGE (-66/+6m -80/+5, -100/+4)to opponents and not be allowed to manage that risk? explain THAT, then claim it's UNFAIR.

3-Malicious? "1. desire to inflict injury or suffering to another, especially when based on deep-seated meanness. 2. committing a wrongful act injurious to others". 4-6 point on 1,000 is no injury or suffering. Definitely not based on deep-seated meanness. Your adjective is wrong, slanderous/libelous AND malicious.

4-"Seeking out specific ranks. . .to ranch". Since when is using methodical approaches to solving problems wrong? Ranching wasn't even a term until I introduced it -- to separate it from the terrible practice of Farming. Also regarding specific ranks: stopped playing "unranked ? new recruits", cooks, then cadets. JUST began working on eliminating Privates -- CONSTANTLY improving my opponent strength, and that's WRONG?

5)Setting up private games to LURE unsuspecting players: Private games were used to PREVENT JUMPERS. since when is playing who someone wants, when they want illegal? LURE: "1.anything that attracts or entices . . .especially in trapping". Trapping? surely you jest. See #1 again. And wtH is wrong with attracting/enticing?

AND. . .you base this on less than a dozen negative replies to a HUGELY slanted "survey" by the always-altruistic Charioteer. . .after I posted 20 of 25 then-recent opponents THANKING ME (1 negative, 4 no replies) for the game and showing them a map and settings? At least be balanced, unbiased and fair.

well I can go on, and on. . .and will later. But. . .aside from the bogus/biased ruling: THANK YOU TO CHARIOT OF FIRE AND KING ACHILLES for making GLG infamous -- for making up general rules to slow down rule abiding player(s).

GLG

[alster]

1-Unsuspecting players? they are asked if they WANT TO play a game, many say no. Others say "sure", others negotiate the map. They are given the game number and with that the chance to review the map/settings. See prior sentence. HOW IS THIS UNSUSPECTING?

2-not fair? how FAIR is it for someone of higher rank to give up 900%-1600%-2500% DISADVANTAGE (-66/+6m -80/+5, -100/+4)to opponents and not be allowed to manage that risk? explain THAT, then claim it's UNFAIR.

3-Malicious? "1. desire to inflict injury or suffering to another, especially when based on deep-seated meanness. 2. committing a wrongful act injurious to others". 4-6 point on 1,000 is no injury or suffering. Definitely not based on deep-seated meanness. Your adjective is wrong, slanderous/libelous AND malicious.

4-"Seeking out specific ranks. . .to ranch". Since when is using methodical approaches to solving problems wrong? Ranching wasn't even a term until I introduced it -- to separate it from the terrible practice of Farming. Also regarding specific ranks: stopped playing "unranked ? new recruits", cooks, then cadets. JUST began working on eliminating Privates -- CONSTANTLY improving my opponent strength, and that's WRONG?

5)Setting up private games to LURE unsuspecting players: Private games were used to PREVENT JUMPERS. since when is playing who someone wants, when they want illegal? LURE: "1.anything that attracts or entices . . .especially in trapping". Trapping? surely you jest. See #1 again. And wtH is wrong with attracting/enticing?

AND. . .you base this on less than a dozen negative replies to a HUGELY slanted "survey" by the always-altruistic Charioteer. . .after I posted 20 of 25 then-recent opponents THANKING ME (1 negative, 4 no replies) for the game and showing them a map and settings? At least be balanced, unbiased and fair.

well I can go on, and on. . .and will later. But. . .aside from the bogus/biased ruling: THANK YOU TO CHARIOT OF FIRE AND KING ACHILLES for making GLG infamous -- for making up general rules to slow down rule abiding player(s).

GLG

A lot of text, but in principle I concur. Took a look at the first game referred to by KA: Game 10811352

Apparently you had invited:

Username: tjd25041
Rank: Sergeant 1st Class
Score: 1435 Games: 520 completed, 183 (35%) won
Attendance: 99% of turns taken

I would think that such a player could take care of himself and don't really see how it could be a gross abuse to, in any circumstances, play a premium/500+ games player. Very confusing warning.

[Conchobar]

Haha, yes poor you. Finally a guilty verdict and long overdue in my opinion. You should be thankful that you're not getting a point reset or rank stripping. Why can't you just realise and accept that nobody likes or approves of your practices and that you are cheapening the whole site for the hundreds & thousands of people that enjoy the challenge & chance of the game. The site is inspired by the board game 'RISK' but you eliminate all of the Risk & fun from the game. I imagine you 10/15 years ago going around with a box containing the board game & all the pieces, stopping kids in the playground, talking them into playing a game on a board they've never seen & betting their lunch money on the outcome. Nobody likes or approves of what you do, why don't you just feck off and play a different board game? Maybe monopoly seeing as greed is the name of the game there.

[jgordon1111]

1-Unsuspecting players? they are asked if they WANT TO play a game, many say no. Others say "sure", others negotiate the map. They are given the game number and with that the chance to review the map/settings. See prior sentence. HOW IS THIS UNSUSPECTING?

2-not fair? how FAIR is it for someone of higher rank to give up 900%-1600%-2500% DISADVANTAGE (-66/+6m -80/+5, -100/+4)to opponents and not be allowed to manage that risk? explain THAT, then claim it's UNFAIR.

3-Malicious? "1. desire to inflict injury or suffering to another, especially when based on deep-seated meanness. 2. committing a wrongful act injurious to others". 4-6 point on 1,000 is no injury or suffering. Definitely not based on deep-seated meanness. Your adjective is wrong, slanderous/libelous AND malicious.

4-"Seeking out specific ranks. . .to ranch". Since when is using methodical approaches to solving problems wrong? Ranching wasn't even a term until I introduced it -- to separate it from the terrible practice of Farming. Also regarding specific ranks: stopped playing "unranked ? new recruits", cooks, then cadets. JUST began working on eliminating Privates -- CONSTANTLY improving my opponent strength, and that's WRONG?

5)Setting up private games to LURE unsuspecting players: Private games were used to PREVENT JUMPERS. since when is playing who someone wants, when they want illegal? LURE: "1.anything that attracts or entices . . .especially in trapping". Trapping? surely you jest. See #1 again. And wtH is wrong with attracting/enticing?

AND. . .you base this on less than a dozen negative replies to a HUGELY slanted "survey" by the always-altruistic Charioteer. . .after I posted 20 of 25 then-recent opponents THANKING ME (1 negative, 4 no replies) for the game and showing them a map and settings? At least be balanced, unbiased and fair.

well I can go on, and on. . .and will later. But. . .aside from the bogus/biased ruling: THANK YOU TO CHARIOT OF FIRE AND KING ACHILLES for making GLG infamous -- for making up general rules to slow down rule abiding player(s).

GLG

A lot of text, but in principle I concur. Took a look at the first game referred to by KA: Game 10811352

Apparently you had invited:

Username: tjd25041
Rank: Sergeant 1st Class
Score: 1435 Games: 520 completed, 183 (35%) won
Attendance: 99% of turns taken

I would think that such a player could take care of himself and don't really see how it could be a gross abuse to, in any circumstances, play a premium/500+ games player. Very confusing warning.

You missed the point that sfc had alot of games but had no real freestyle experience and was not familiar with the map in question.

[jj3044]

2-not fair? how FAIR is it for someone of higher rank to give up 900%-1600%-2500% DISADVANTAGE (-66/+6m -80/+5, -100/+4)to opponents and not be allowed to manage that risk? explain THAT, then claim it's UNFAIR.

LOL, the reason you HAVE the huge risk in points is BECAUSE you play low ranks. If you played other high rankers, your risk wouldn't be nearly as high.

[Barney Rubble]

Making you "Infamous" in a way that obviously harms the whole CC community. I myself could care less how you justify the way you play ,but let me say this .I joined this site after playing the original game for over four decades ,face to face .Enjoying the many many hours of personal interaction ,constant banter,many many drinks and cannons .It was and is a very social event in my view . Now I only read one game chat log of all those listed .In that log your opponent states that he realizes he is way outclassed on a map he does not have any idea how too play .You tell him that's ok "its only 14 minutes and 5 points ",then after you summarily execute him you invite him too a doubles match.Not as Buddy, Buddy and "educational for the condemned as you make out . Maybe if you started your own version of Bedrock........Where all are welcome and they have as fair a chance to win as any others on the site ,'Hedrock' so to speak, others would not be so upset and offended at your type of point collecting. One word of caution though win ratio could go down .Just saying .

[alster]

You missed the point that sfc had alot of games but had no real freestyle experience and was not familiar with the map in question.

Yeah, sure. But is GLG expected to make a review of the past games of a premium/500+ games player (and then not play if not sufficiently experienced/familiar)? I would think that a premium/500+ games player is capable of determining himself if he wants to play against GLG. I played King_Herpes once on City Mogul/freestyle, knew for sure that I was gonna loose, but see no problems with that.

[hmsps]

You missed the point that sfc had alot of games but had no real freestyle experience and was not familiar with the map in question.

Yeah, sure. But is GLG expected to make a review of the past games of a premium/500+ games player (and then not play if not sufficiently experienced/familiar)? I would think that a premium/500+ games player is capable of determining himself if he wants to play against GLG. I played King_Herpes once on City Mogul/freestyle, knew for sure that I was gonna loose, but see no problems with that.

To be honest alstergren, no one listens to what you say. You just have to look at your games played, a bit embarrassing really, not really much difference between you and glg in my opinion

[tkr4lf]

Finally a ruling that makes sense.

[Serbia]

Excellent ruling. Long overdue. I'm happy this was looked at again.

[alster]

You missed the point that sfc had alot of games but had no real freestyle experience and was not familiar with the map in question.

Yeah, sure. But is GLG expected to make a review of the past games of a premium/500+ games player (and then not play if not sufficiently experienced/familiar)? I would think that a premium/500+ games player is capable of determining himself if he wants to play against GLG. I played King_Herpes once on City Mogul/freestyle, knew for sure that I was gonna loose, but see no problems with that.

To be honest alstergren, no one listens to what you say. You just have to look at your games played, a bit embarrassing really, not really much difference between you and glg in my opinion

Well. To be honest, it's none of your business (so I couldn't care less). Pay your premium and play the games you want to play. And I'm surprised that the fact that GLG having invited a premium/500+ games player to a game is someone else's business. When was the last time people, who has no shoot at the Conqueror title, whined and made the current Conqueror's games their business?

[Jdsizzleslice]

exerpts:
1) . . .undeniable that the past report above indicated that private games are being set up to unsuspecting players numerous times. This shows that Gen.LeeGettinhed is systematically soliciting/inviting certain players for the purpose of ranching.
2) . . .It's not fair to regularly do this. We will classify this as a gross abuse of the game.
3) . . . this practice is more malicious than it seems.
4) . . .seeking out specific ranks or players in order to ranch some points.
5) . . .stop setting up private games to lure unsuspecting players from now on.

1-Unsuspecting players? they are asked if they WANT TO play a game, many say no. Others say "sure", others negotiate the map. They are given the game number and with that the chance to review the map/settings. See prior sentence. HOW IS THIS UNSUSPECTING?

2-not fair? how FAIR is it for someone of higher rank to give up 900%-1600%-2500% DISADVANTAGE (-66/+6m -80/+5, -100/+4)to opponents and not be allowed to manage that risk? explain THAT, then claim it's UNFAIR.

3-Malicious? "1. desire to inflict injury or suffering to another, especially when based on deep-seated meanness. 2. committing a wrongful act injurious to others". 4-6 point on 1,000 is no injury or suffering. Definitely not based on deep-seated meanness. Your adjective is wrong, slanderous/libelous AND malicious.

4-"Seeking out specific ranks. . .to ranch". Since when is using methodical approaches to solving problems wrong? Ranching wasn't even a term until I introduced it -- to separate it from the terrible practice of Farming. Also regarding specific ranks: stopped playing "unranked ? new recruits", cooks, then cadets. JUST began working on eliminating Privates -- CONSTANTLY improving my opponent strength, and that's WRONG?

5)Setting up private games to LURE unsuspecting players: Private games were used to PREVENT JUMPERS. since when is playing who someone wants, when they want illegal? LURE: "1.anything that attracts or entices . . .especially in trapping". Trapping? surely you jest. See #1 again. And wtH is wrong with attracting/enticing?

AND. . .you base this on less than a dozen negative replies to a HUGELY slanted "survey" by the always-altruistic Charioteer. . .after I posted 20 of 25 then-recent opponents THANKING ME (1 negative, 4 no replies) for the game and showing them a map and settings? At least be balanced, unbiased and fair.

well I can go on, and on. . .and will later. But. . .aside from the bogus/biased ruling: THANK YOU TO CHARIOT OF FIRE AND KING ACHILLES for making GLG infamous -- for making up general rules to slow down rule abiding player(s).

GLG

If you are this concerned... Means you have something to hide obviously...

Just create public games so anyone can join! I mean, you are Conqueror, right?