Conquer Club

codierose wrote:correct me if im wrong but are they not already branded as guests or guested under there groups. Not sure but thought i saw it somewhere ??

That is true if they don't buy back.

chapcrap wrote:

codierose wrote:correct me if im wrong but are they not already branded as guests or guested under there groups. Not sure but thought i saw it somewhere ??

That is true if they don't buy back.

ok so way brand them twice ?
How many times can you buy back after being busted ?

codierose wrote:

chapcrap wrote:

codierose wrote:correct me if im wrong but are they not already branded as guests or guested under there groups. Not sure but thought i saw it somewhere ??

That is true if they don't buy back.

ok so way brand them twice ?
How many times can you buy back after being busted ?

once

greenoaks wrote:

codierose wrote:

chapcrap wrote:

codierose wrote:correct me if im wrong but are they not already branded as guests or guested under there groups. Not sure but thought i saw it somewhere ??

That is true if they don't buy back.

ok so way brand them twice ?
How many times can you buy back after being busted ?

once

ok so why do we want to brand/tag multis twice
why not just change the group from guest to busted to make it clearer what they did

Anyone busted cheating should have a big old asterisk placed next to their avatar. Perhaps with different colors signifying how many times or how badly they offended.

I support this over any type of medal stripping or point resetting. Give them a reminder and make sure the public easily can tell who they are.

As a said in the other thread, I support this but think the asterisks should go away after a time (I'm not sure how long).

Sounds good. Cheaters need to be shamed repeatedly for their crimes against ConquerClubity.

Shall we set the time limit for the asterik at 6 months?

i agree with that and with the fact that it should be limited in time, 6 month sounds good ("noted" shouldn't be counted, and "warning" i'm not sure) nevertheless, if we count only real offense, there should be no such thing as the double asterisk, the player should be banned on second major offense.

oh, and this should not include anything related to forum missbehaviour, just game related.

I'd agree that it's not a permanent asterisk, especially for those issues where you weren't sure of a rule once. I think the warning and noted points were good. And this of course would only be for gameplay issues, nothing to do with deemed misuse of the forum.

patrickaa317 wrote:I'd agree that it's not a permanent asterisk, especially for those issues where you weren't sure of a rule once. I think the warning and noted points were good. And this of course would only be for gameplay issues, nothing to do with deemed misuse of the forum.

In that case, I'm all for it. 6 months sounds reasonable. I don't think warnings should count as an asterisk- I worry that tournament directors won't let players with asterisks join their tournaments, and being forced to refrain from tournaments for 6 months would suck!

I don't see shaming as an effective way of righting a wrong. Public humiliation only further hampers rehabilitation after an offense. We want these players to feel welcomed back into society to discourage further offenses, not alienated, which only makes more offenses likely.
Of course, this means that offenders who aren't interested with being constructive and helpful on CC, or at least decent, will get past unnoticed and ruin games unexpectedly. But isn't that what the 3-strikes-equals-a-ban system is for? Catching offenders who, when past 3 offenses, are more likely just trolls?

Just_essence wrote:I don't see shaming as an effective way of righting a wrong. Public humiliation only further hampers rehabilitation after an offense. We want these players to feel welcomed back into society to discourage further offenses, not alienated, which only makes more offenses likely.

This is the internet. It's different because public shaming is not as drastic and isolating--compared to involuntary, facial tattoo'ing or cutting off the offender's nose. In the RL, the status, "Ex-con," stays forever, but in CC it lasts 6 months.

But we can't have success without trial-and-error, so we could push for 3 months, see how it goes, then make a more informed decision.

What exactly would the public do with this information, were it to be implemented as such?

BMO

I support this.

Also, there should be more than one asterisk, each one of a different colour for eech kind of infraction.

Just_essence wrote:I don't see shaming as an effective way of righting a wrong. Public humiliation only further hampers rehabilitation after an offense. We want these players to feel welcomed back into society to discourage further offenses, not alienated, which only makes more offenses likely.
Of course, this means that offenders who aren't interested with being constructive and helpful on CC, or at least decent, will get past unnoticed and ruin games unexpectedly. But isn't that what the 3-strikes-equals-a-ban system is for? Catching offenders who, when past 3 offenses, are more likely just trolls?

It worked in the book Scarlet Letter.

rdsrds2120 wrote:What exactly would the public do with this information, were it to be implemented as such?

BMO

I guess it would help tourney directors block these cheaters from tournaments?

rdsrds2120 wrote:What exactly would the public do with this information, were it to be implemented as such?

BMO

Realize who's a cheater and who isn't, and then respond accordingly. Let the shunning begin!


(this suggestion would increase the costs of cheating, thus strengthening the current threat deterrent against cheating).

rdsrds2120 wrote:What exactly would the public do with this information, were it to be implemented as such?

BMO

It would make it be public and thus less people would do it, which would make people happier, which will increase premium membership, which increases revenue. In other words, there is some great ROI on this, get it done!

I estimate about a $500 revenue boost

BigBallinStalin wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:What exactly would the public do with this information, were it to be implemented as such?

BMO

Realize who's a cheater and who isn't, and then respond accordingly. Let the shunning begin!


(this suggestion would increase the costs of cheating, thus strengthening the current threat deterrent against cheating).

patrickaa317 wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:What exactly would the public do with this information, were it to be implemented as such?

BMO

It would make it be public and thus less people would do it, which would make people happier, which will increase premium membership, which increases revenue. In other words, there is some great ROI on this, get it done!

Let's follow this through:

1) The current punishment for cheating is a website ban. This is arguably a far greater deterrent than what's been proposed.
2) It would not make the people who have bought back any happier, and the number of people to NOT buy back would be far greater than the very few that I imagine would buy premium just so that...nothing changes for their account.
3) The consequence of Item 2 is a projected profit loss, combined with the branding of of members of our site, providing a constant access to be baited, flamed, etc.

I am very heavily against this.

BMO

rds, the scarlet letter would NOT replace website bans, rather, it would be added alongside a point reset.

nicestash wrote:rds, the scarlet letter would NOT replace website bans, rather, it would be added alongside a point reset.

Right, so since it wouldn't be replacing it, it would only be insult to injury on those who do cheat, thus the deterrent factor is minimal.

BMO

rdsrds2120 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:What exactly would the public do with this information, were it to be implemented as such?

BMO

Realize who's a cheater and who isn't, and then respond accordingly. Let the shunning begin!


(this suggestion would increase the costs of cheating, thus strengthening the current threat deterrent against cheating).

patrickaa317 wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:What exactly would the public do with this information, were it to be implemented as such?

BMO

It would make it be public and thus less people would do it, which would make people happier, which will increase premium membership, which increases revenue. In other words, there is some great ROI on this, get it done!

Let's follow this through:

1) The current punishment for cheating is a website ban. This is arguably a far greater deterrent than what's been proposed.
2) It would not make the people who have bought back any happier, and the number of people to NOT buy back would be far greater than the very few that I imagine would buy premium just so that...nothing changes for their account.
3) The consequence of Item 2 is a projected profit loss, combined with the branding of of members of our site, providing a constant access to be baited, flamed, etc.

I am very heavily against this.

BMO

#3 is only applicable to those that make a profit of premium membership. #2 is not a consequence to those of us who are honest, paying members. I think I can speak for most, I'd rather the true cheaters off the site. If it's a misinterpretation or misunderstanding, that's one thing and those people should not be branded but when it comes to long time members all of a sudden having multis, I don't see how it is a positive to the site to strip them of their membership and allow them to re-buy.

If you want to keep people from being labeled as cheaters all together, make the C&A forum decisions private.

Also, if the site is concerned around cheaters buying back, I can submit a suggestion for cheaters to get 50% off their premium buy back. Is that something that would be implemented, more cheaters would be apt to buy back given the discount on premium membership. Right?

More people would opt to buy back but not enough. For half priced premium buy backs to be a net gain for the site, twice as many banned players would have to decide to rebuy their membership than would've bought it at full price

patrickaa317 wrote:If you want to keep people from being labeled as cheaters all together, make the C&A forum decisions private.

Also, if the site is concerned around cheaters buying back, I can submit a suggestion for cheaters to get 50% off their premium buy back. Is that something that would be implemented, more cheaters would be apt to buy back given the discount on premium membership. Right?

There's a difference between a case in the C&A forum and marking someone individually. Secondly, the latter would never be implemented. It would encourage cheating to get a deal, so it would present a win-win to cheating and buying back.

BMO

I thought cheaters were just banned permanetly from the site?