Moderators: Suggestions Team, Global Moderators


patrickaa317 wrote:Symmetry wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:This is my thought:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=170171&start=60#p3785163
Ok, I think we've dealt with that one then.
Woody gave input, noone else

agentcom wrote:I must have missed it, but someone suggested "awarding" a medal for cheating? Are you referring to the asterisk put near their name/medals as the "medal" for cheating? I thought that whole thing was said tongue-in-cheek. I don't like the idea of an asterisk, I've been convinced that the point reset is a bad idea.
I still like the ideas of a point penalty and the specific targeting of certain related medals for removal if they were gained while cheating.
agentcom wrote:I must have missed it, but someone suggested "awarding" a medal for cheating? Are you referring to the asterisk put near their name/medals as the "medal" for cheating? I thought that whole thing was said tongue-in-cheek.
Woodruff wrote:agentcom wrote:I must have missed it, but someone suggested "awarding" a medal for cheating? Are you referring to the asterisk put near their name/medals as the "medal" for cheating? I thought that whole thing was said tongue-in-cheek.
I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't said tongue-in-cheek, based on the ferocity used in defending it.
Symmetry wrote:
Points reset seems a bit harsh, and point penalties might be popular, but neither seem easy to implement fairly. Stripping of medals seems like a point of honour. A good player who cheated will earn them back fairly if they want to.

agentcom wrote:BUT I feel this way mostly about multis, freestyle turn sitting abuse, and the most egregious forms of farming only. It wouldn't be appropriate to use this for forum abuse. And I'm not sure if the rules are clear enough to hand out these types of punishment for "ranching" which is as hard to define as it is to tell if its a rule violation.
agentcom wrote:Woodruff wrote:agentcom wrote:I must have missed it, but someone suggested "awarding" a medal for cheating? Are you referring to the asterisk put near their name/medals as the "medal" for cheating? I thought that whole thing was said tongue-in-cheek.
I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't said tongue-in-cheek, based on the ferocity used in defending it.
In either case, I'm not really for branding people.Symmetry wrote:
Points reset seems a bit harsh, and point penalties might be popular, but neither seem easy to implement fairly. Stripping of medals seems like a point of honour. A good player who cheated will earn them back fairly if they want to.
I don't think point resets are harsh, I just think that it was rightly pointed out that this punishes future opponents. Most of these people have some skill even if not all of their points were rightly earned. I shouldn't have to follow C&A to know which privates not to join games with cuz they're as good as colonels, but I'm gonna lose monster points if I play with them.
I think point penalties are actually a pretty good solution. It could be a flat rate or a percentage or the amount of the point difference between whatever rank you're at and the next lowers (i.e. 500 for a major who is caught cheating). It kind of takes the unearned points away from these people and (assuming they change their ways) won't punish the next opponent because those people are now playing different types of games where they don't have the unfair advantages. And if they are good enough, they will earn the lost points back within the rules.
Basically, I agree with your point on medal stripping, but see no difference between that and points. Earn what you get fairly or lose what you get unfairly. I don't have that big of a problem in taking away a few points or medals from someone.
BUT I feel this way mostly about multis, freestyle turn sitting abuse, and the most egregious forms of farming only. It wouldn't be appropriate to use this for forum abuse. And I'm not sure if the rules are clear enough to hand out these types of punishment for "ranching" which is as hard to define as it is to tell if its a rule violation.
Symmetry wrote:agentcom wrote:Woodruff wrote:agentcom wrote:I must have missed it, but someone suggested "awarding" a medal for cheating? Are you referring to the asterisk put near their name/medals as the "medal" for cheating? I thought that whole thing was said tongue-in-cheek.
I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't said tongue-in-cheek, based on the ferocity used in defending it.
In either case, I'm not really for branding people.Symmetry wrote:
Points reset seems a bit harsh, and point penalties might be popular, but neither seem easy to implement fairly. Stripping of medals seems like a point of honour. A good player who cheated will earn them back fairly if they want to.
I don't think point resets are harsh, I just think that it was rightly pointed out that this punishes future opponents. Most of these people have some skill even if not all of their points were rightly earned. I shouldn't have to follow C&A to know which privates not to join games with cuz they're as good as colonels, but I'm gonna lose monster points if I play with them.
I think point penalties are actually a pretty good solution. It could be a flat rate or a percentage or the amount of the point difference between whatever rank you're at and the next lowers (i.e. 500 for a major who is caught cheating). It kind of takes the unearned points away from these people and (assuming they change their ways) won't punish the next opponent because those people are now playing different types of games where they don't have the unfair advantages. And if they are good enough, they will earn the lost points back within the rules.
Basically, I agree with your point on medal stripping, but see no difference between that and points. Earn what you get fairly or lose what you get unfairly. I don't have that big of a problem in taking away a few points or medals from someone.
BUT I feel this way mostly about multis, freestyle turn sitting abuse, and the most egregious forms of farming only. It wouldn't be appropriate to use this for forum abuse. And I'm not sure if the rules are clear enough to hand out these types of punishment for "ranching" which is as hard to define as it is to tell if its a rule violation.
That's fair comment. I guess I'm trying to keep the suggestion as narrowly focussed as possible on medals. Point stripping seems like a separate suggestion, although many of the arguments employed here could serve double duty. I'm a little wary of this becoming a thread that no longer debates the merits of the suggestion, and although I'm happy if other suggestions get generated from it, the further away from the basic suggestion, the less likely the basic point of principle is to be implemented.


Symmetry wrote:the further away from the basic suggestion, the less likely the basic point of principle is to be implemented.
Pedronicus wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:Symmetry wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:This is my thought:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=170171&start=60#p3785163
Ok, I think we've dealt with that one then.
Woody gave input, noone else
OK, seeing as how I've spent a fair amount of time obtaining medals, and not just lots won by hosting a tournament medals like you i'll chime in. Your idea of giving someone a medal that indicates they have been cheating is nowhere near a deterrent as losing all that you've worked hard to achieve.
I support the cheater losing all medals idea and reject your cheating medal awarded idea.
Woodruff wrote:Symmetry wrote:the further away from the basic suggestion, the less likely the basic point of principle is to be implemented.
That's so cute.
jghost7 wrote:No, I don't think you can say a general amount of agreement here. Your suggestion must be fleshed out and then further discussed in order to even coming close to being considered for implementation. Your OP is so vague and the response lukewarm and very conditional. Some people say ok, but under this or that circumstance. IMO, the further thought I give it the less it makes sense. There is no good way for this to be done fairly and with the loose nature of the interpretation of the rules it will just lead to more complicated issues and debates. It solves nothing and does not work to fix the problems that needs to be addressed.
Thanks,
J
just in case you missed it sym,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests