A Rethink of the Farming Rules

[Symmetry]

The rules on farming are obsolete

Concise description:

• Players and moderators disagree with the current interpretation of the rules on farming

Specifics/Details:

• http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=239&t=157218

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Now here we have a case where virtually everyone in the community, from mod to average Joe, sees that someone is, at best, not playing fair, and at worst cheating.
  
  Understandably, even the mods are a bit uncomfortable with this one- nobody likes to have to enforce a rule so bizarre that the best argument for it is "that's how we did it before".
  
  So let's make this suggestion a little clearer- rethink the rules on this one- either define them more specifically in the wording, or allow a bit of interpretation for cases like this.

[Army of GOD]

I think the basic rule is that farming at the very least only refers to the taking advantage of ?s.

[Metsfanmax]

I think the basic rule is that farming at the very least only refers to the taking advantage of ?s.

The bottom line is that farming is defined as taking advantage of New Recruits. This is bad for the site specifically because NRs are not familiar with site and game mechanics and may be taken advantage of simply because they are too new. But, perhaps there should be a separate rule for intentionally taking advantage of someone who is not necessarily brand new but is simply not nearly as skilled.

[jgordon1111]

Take the Banner down AoG

[Gold Knight]

Take the Banner down AoG

Thats a totally different suggestion...

And I completely agree, there have been several cases along with this one that are clear cases of farming while they may not be "New Recruits". Its pretty clear cut, and there is a difference between playing not-so-skilled players and players that have no clue whats going on. This case and many other land in the former and it's about time something is done, as not only will it balance the scoreboard somewhat but also lead to longer lasting member joining the site.

[Symmetry]

I think the basic rule is that farming at the very least only refers to the taking advantage of ?s.

The bottom line is that farming is defined as taking advantage of New Recruits. This is bad for the site specifically because NRs are not familiar with site and game mechanics and may be taken advantage of simply because they are too new. But, perhaps there should be a separate rule for intentionally taking advantage of someone who is not necessarily brand new but is simply not nearly as skilled.

Indeed, as and AoG also said, the New Recruits are defined as players with a "?" as their sign. That's too narrow in my mind, and that's why I suggest a rethink.

[IcePack]

Why not extend the new recruit phase til like first 25 games or sarg (or some other further point in CC career), or whichever comes first. Allows them for more time to get used to the site and isn't ridiculous 5 games that go and they still dont know anything. Keeps peoples paws off them until at least a little bit later.

IcePack

[Army of GOD]

There's gonna be a great deal of disagreement I think if we decide to change the rules. But whatever the end result, it should be based on subjective reasoning as little as possible. There should be empirical standards as to what farming is and isn't (games per time period, average (or highest) rank in these games, etc.

[Symmetry]

Take the Banner down AoG

Thats a totally different suggestion...

And I completely agree, there have been several cases along with this one that are clear cases of farming while they may not be "New Recruits". Its pretty clear cut, and there is a difference between playing not-so-skilled players and players that have no clue whats going on. This case and many other land in the former and it's about time something is done, as not only will it balance the scoreboard somewhat but also lead to longer lasting member joining the site.

Cheers for the support. One of the weirdest things about this is how uncomfortable everyone is about this. It's not just a few posters, or a few mods- nobody really likes it. Pretty much the strongest objection to it has been Gordy's, and even he seems to be trolling AoG (to be fair, who isn't?) more than talking about the point.

Basically, this is a weird rule, pretty much universally accepted as such.

So anwyay- ideas on fixing it? My personal suggestion would be upping the standard for the rules by about ten games minimum. I'd prefer more, but simply having newbie protection for your first few cycles of games as you try the new maps and settings leaves you less open to predators. This isn't my own suggestion, but better limits on maps and settings for new players might be a decent way of preventing this.

[WILLIAMS5232]

the best way would probably be a judgment call. like a "jury of peers".
if you could have some sort of board that would review these cases and come to a unanimous decision on each particular case.
of course you would need fair, unbiased people to look at these cases. i think they could be appointed, and removed with enough support from the peanut gallery.

this would take away the need for an exact set of rules to determine what is and isn't farming. i think most people can agree on what is and isn't.
and to make it even more favorable to the innocent, don't be so strict on the first and second offenses. have it layered to only affect the most abusive cases the worst. meaning that you have to just do it without regard for any type of general consensus over and over before serious consequences are enforced.

[Symmetry]

Why not extend the new recruit phase til like first 25 games or sarg (or some other further point in CC career), or whichever comes first. Allows them for more time to get used to the site and isn't ridiculous 5 games that go and they still dont know anything. Keeps peoples paws off them until at least a little bit later.

IcePack

I pretty much agree with that, although maybe certain types of games should have more weight than others. But yeah- after five games you really shouldn't be prey for high ranking players who don't care if you come back.

[Metsfanmax]

the best way would probably be a judgment call. like a "jury of peers".
if you could have some sort of board that would review these cases and come to a unanimous decision on each particular case.
of course you would need fair, unbiased people to look at these cases. i think they could be appointed, and removed with enough support from the peanut gallery.

This is exactly the opposite of what we want. The goal here is to create a rule that minimizes the amount of cases the C&A team has to deal with.

[Symmetry]

the best way would probably be a judgment call. like a "jury of peers".
if you could have some sort of board that would review these cases and come to a unanimous decision on each particular case.
of course you would need fair, unbiased people to look at these cases. i think they could be appointed, and removed with enough support from the peanut gallery.

This is exactly the opposite of what we want. The goal here is to create a rule that minimizes the amount of cases the C&A team has to deal with.

Probably the best path to that is clearer wording, though.

[Metsfanmax]

the best way would probably be a judgment call. like a "jury of peers".
if you could have some sort of board that would review these cases and come to a unanimous decision on each particular case.
of course you would need fair, unbiased people to look at these cases. i think they could be appointed, and removed with enough support from the peanut gallery.

This is exactly the opposite of what we want. The goal here is to create a rule that minimizes the amount of cases the C&A team has to deal with.

Probably the best path to that is clearer wording, though.

The current rules are clear, and there are a whole host of C&A cases to use as precedent. I've been personally shocked at some of the things people have done and gotten away with, because the high ranked players know exactly what they can get away with.

[WILLIAMS5232]

the best way would probably be a judgment call. like a "jury of peers".
if you could have some sort of board that would review these cases and come to a unanimous decision on each particular case.
of course you would need fair, unbiased people to look at these cases. i think they could be appointed, and removed with enough support from the peanut gallery.

This is exactly the opposite of what we want. The goal here is to create a rule that minimizes the amount of cases the C&A team has to deal with.

well... then i imagine you will be forever bogged down trying to come up with a method that will not be easy to circumvent. if humans can fly to the moon, then i'm sure they can figure out a way around a few CC rules.