Kiron Conqueror - Abuse or Legal play?

[Lindax]

You can repeat all you like about the stats not being favourable for either of you as individuals when you play together as opposed to when you play alone. But the higher win % when you are together (in a very convenient silent agreement to share the spoils of victory) is certainly not favourable for the other 6 poor sods who have joined your games. So whether you stand to benefit individually is irrelevant. As a 'team' you do, and this is unfair and detrimental to the chances of the other players.

Unfair to ALL other players that try to gain points in an honest way.

[xiangwang]

You can repeat all you like about the stats not being favourable for either of you as individuals when you play together as opposed to when you play alone. But the higher win % when you are together (in a very convenient silent agreement to share the spoils of victory) is certainly not favourable for the other 6 poor sods who have joined your games. So whether you stand to benefit individually is irrelevant. As a 'team' you do, and this is unfair and detrimental to the chances of the other players.

I believe it's stated that the win % is lower as a "team" (or whatever you allege) than playing individually. I have already calculated the numbers and have shown that there is NO higher win % for 8 player freestyle playing together or when we play as a team. The OP already agreed with me thus refuting your largest allegation. When most people cheat or play multi, their win % as a team increases by at least 10-20%, for us it doesn't change or is slightly reduced. We both play for our own win. If we intentionally wanted to collude, i think we can hit 80-90% win rate together.

[Kiron]

You can repeat all you like about the stats not being favourable for either of you as individuals when you play together as opposed to when you play alone. But the higher win % when you are together (in a very convenient silent agreement to share the spoils of victory) is certainly not favourable for the other 6 poor sods who have joined your games. So whether you stand to benefit individually is irrelevant. As a 'team' you do, and this is unfair and detrimental to the chances of the other players.

I believe it's stated that the win % is lower as a "team" (or whatever you allege) than playing individually. I have already calculated the numbers and have shown that there is NO higher win % for 8 player freestyle playing together or when we play as a team. The OP already agreed with me thus refuting your largest allegation. When most people cheat or play multi, their win % as a team increases by at least 10-20%, for us it doesn't change or is slightly reduced. We both play for our own win. If we intentionally wanted to collude, i think we can hit 80-90% win rate together.

Alright, it's time to give it a rest. Some people are entrenched in their views, nothing can change it despite being offered reasonable, plausible explanations. Fun debate. Anyways, i'm done my last game. See you in awhile CC.

[BigBallinStalin]

Good analogy, and I fully agree with the 2nd paragraph. But for me, this position of ours only justifies social shaming--but not CC moderation. (Perhaps K & X should have their names posted on a sticky thread titled "Wall of Shame").

BBS, even in a world of no government there exists such a notion as Justice. If it were in the hands of the community, at the very least there would be a stripping of the conqueror medal. Banishment would also be highly probable. If you make a "wall of shame" it will eventually be buried and new players and anyone who doesn't visit the forums or main page will put these guys in the same boat as "legit" conquerors, which would be a disgrace.
Even someone with your purist views regarding authoritarian intervention has got to admit that the punishment ought to fit the crime.

Sure, in voluntary arrangements between individuals, there are contracts and institutions which can delineate the realm of justice (i.e. obligations and rules to each party), but I'm not sure where you're going with that.

RE: the rest, I somewhat believe that the accusation of collusion does not seem strong enough, and Mr Changsha makes a good case for collusion. However...

Is it reasonable for us to use statistics in order to reject a null hypothesis to provide some evidence? I'm not sure. How costly of a statistical method should be required? I dunno!

Given these constraints, we have that vague "abuse of the game" rule, so here's where we are:

(1) We can establish new rules for determining collusion because:

(a) I support the rule of law--i.e. equality before the law.
(b) Clearer rules diminish the possibility of perverse incentives (e.g. Conqueror Corruption).
(c) Clearer methods of prosecution reduce costs (e.g. 15 pages of this thread) and reduce the chance of accidentally enforcing injustice.

(2) or we can say, 'f*ck that' and appeal to the Ban Hammer.

I want more of #1 and less of #2, so that these entanglements can be somewhat reduced in the future.

[BigBallinStalin]

You can repeat all you like about the stats not being favourable for either of you as individuals when you play together as opposed to when you play alone. But the higher win % when you are together (in a very convenient silent agreement to share the spoils of victory) is certainly not favourable for the other 6 poor sods who have joined your games. So whether you stand to benefit individually is irrelevant. As a 'team' you do, and this is unfair and detrimental to the chances of the other players.

I believe it's stated that the win % is lower as a "team" (or whatever you allege) than playing individually. I have already calculated the numbers and have shown that there is NO higher win % for 8 player freestyle playing together or when we play as a team. The OP already agreed with me thus refuting your largest allegation. When most people cheat or play multi, their win % as a team increases by at least 10-20%, for us it doesn't change or is slightly reduced. We both play for our own win. If we intentionally wanted to collude, i think we can hit 80-90% win rate together.

Nevertheless, assuming that you two are colluding,
then this could boost your win rate by 10-20%.
Assuming that you two would stop colluding,
then your "natural" win rate would be 10-20% lower than the current win rate.

So, with this in mind, it could be the case that y'all two aren't that great, so y'all collude in order to attain a 'normal' win-rate of 50% or whatever seems normal--compared to better plays who don't collude yet do attain normal win rates. Therefore, comparisons of your current win-rate do not help us determine if collusion has or has not occurred.

[SaMejoHn]

You can repeat all you like about the stats not being favourable for either of you as individuals when you play together as opposed to when you play alone. But the higher win % when you are together (in a very convenient silent agreement to share the spoils of victory) is certainly not favourable for the other 6 poor sods who have joined your games. So whether you stand to benefit individually is irrelevant. As a 'team' you do, and this is unfair and detrimental to the chances of the other players.

I believe it's stated that the win % is lower as a "team" (or whatever you allege) than playing individually. I have already calculated the numbers and have shown that there is NO higher win % for 8 player freestyle playing together or when we play as a team. The OP already agreed with me thus refuting your largest allegation. When most people cheat or play multi, their win % as a team increases by at least 10-20%, for us it doesn't change or is slightly reduced. We both play for our own win. If we intentionally wanted to collude, i think we can hit 80-90% win rate together.

But if the win rate is the same when they are without each other (we know that it is), doesn't that contradict what you are saying?
Nevertheless, assuming that you two are colluding,
then this could boost your win rate by 10-20%.
Assuming that you two would stop colluding,
then your "natural" win rate would be 10-20% lower than the current win rate.

So, with this in mind, it could be the case that y'all two aren't that great, so y'all collude in order to attain a 'normal' win-rate of 50% or whatever seems normal--compared to better plays who don't collude yet do attain normal win rates. Therefore, comparisons of your current win-rate do not help us determine if collusion has or has not occurred.

[Mr Changsha]

You can repeat all you like about the stats not being favourable for either of you as individuals when you play together as opposed to when you play alone. But the higher win % when you are together (in a very convenient silent agreement to share the spoils of victory) is certainly not favourable for the other 6 poor sods who have joined your games. So whether you stand to benefit individually is irrelevant. As a 'team' you do, and this is unfair and detrimental to the chances of the other players.

I believe it's stated that the win % is lower as a "team" (or whatever you allege) than playing individually. I have already calculated the numbers and have shown that there is NO higher win % for 8 player freestyle playing together or when we play as a team. The OP already agreed with me thus refuting your largest allegation. When most people cheat or play multi, their win % as a team increases by at least 10-20%, for us it doesn't change or is slightly reduced. We both play for our own win. If we intentionally wanted to collude, i think we can hit 80-90% win rate together.

Alright, it's time to give it a rest. Some people are entrenched in their views, nothing can change it despite being offered reasonable, plausible explanations. Fun debate. Anyways, i'm done my last game. See you in awhile CC.

If you genuinely can't see that your play on this site has been dodgy in the extreme then I guess nothing more needs to be said. However, I suspect we will all continue to believe that you know exactly what you have been doing and treat this matter on that basis. In my view though the surest sign of a guilty conscience is if you scurry away the moment you reach your goal. It is more than suggestive. On the other hand, such a response (pissing off) should warm the hearts of those of us who play this game fair for it shows - as if we didn't already know this - that crime doesn't pay. The public reaction to your 'achievements' - strong condemnation of your play - naturally ruins a lot of the enjoyment you should be getting from this moment. You are the conqueror! Yet I doubt you are getting as much pleasure as you thought you would from it. This is because the validity of your play is massively suspect, thus the respect you are getting from what you have done is minimal and you are eliciting no little anger in some. Finally, your reaction to our criticism shows to me that you don't only care about the scoreboard, otherwise you would have been far less interested in defending yourself against our accusations of foul play. You obviously wanted the site's respect, yet are getting little and this bothers you.

Good.

[jester88]

All hail conquer club, the love of my life

[Razorvich]

:twisted: YOU BOTH DONT UNDERSTAND THE POWER OF KING ACHILLES......... KIRON AND XIANGWANG ARE PART OF THE HARTH REVOLUTION... WHICH WILL SHOW U UNGRATEFUL BASTARDS.. WHERE THE POWER OF C.C TRULY LIES!!! LORD HARTH AND KING ACHILLES!!!! THE HARTH EMPIRE IS BORN!!! FU dmajor!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAH

Nice waste of a post multi scumbag

[jester88]

I love cc

[BigBallinStalin]

You can repeat all you like about the stats not being favourable for either of you as individuals when you play together as opposed to when you play alone. But the higher win % when you are together (in a very convenient silent agreement to share the spoils of victory) is certainly not favourable for the other 6 poor sods who have joined your games. So whether you stand to benefit individually is irrelevant. As a 'team' you do, and this is unfair and detrimental to the chances of the other players.

I believe it's stated that the win % is lower as a "team" (or whatever you allege) than playing individually. I have already calculated the numbers and have shown that there is NO higher win % for 8 player freestyle playing together or when we play as a team. The OP already agreed with me thus refuting your largest allegation. When most people cheat or play multi, their win % as a team increases by at least 10-20%, for us it doesn't change or is slightly reduced. We both play for our own win. If we intentionally wanted to collude, i think we can hit 80-90% win rate together.

Nevertheless, assuming that you two are colluding,
then this could boost your win rate by 10-20%.
Assuming that you two would stop colluding,
then your "natural" win rate would be 10-20% lower than the current win rate.

So, with this in mind, it could be the case that y'all two aren't that great, so y'all collude in order to attain a 'normal' win-rate of 50% or whatever seems normal--compared to better plays who don't collude yet do attain normal win rates. Therefore, comparisons of your current win-rate do not help us determine if collusion has or has not occurred.

But if the win rate is the same when they are without each other (we know that it is), doesn't that contradict what you are saying?

No, but I probably wasn't clear enough. I'm not comparing their win-rates with each other and without each other. I'm analyzing K&X's win-rate with collusion, and K&X's winrate without collusion in order to show that X's #2 argument fails to support his position that they were not colluding.


X basically makes two arguments:
(1) "Hey, if we were colluding, then our win rate would be higher (90%). Since it's 50%, then we aren't colluding."

Obviously, this doesn't settle the issue because if they're smart, they can collude enough so that they do not attain a 90% win rate. Instead, they could opt for a 50% winrate.

(2) "Our current winrate is 50%. If were were colluding, then our winrate would be 20% higher. Since it's not 20% higher, then we aren't colluding."

I wondered: this proves nothing. If they weren't colluding, their winrate could drop to 20%, thus it would be 30%. Since the counterfactual is unknown, i.e. since we can't determine what would have happened, then we cannot conclude if collusion occurred or didn't occur. How do demonstrate my case?

Thus,
BBS basically makes the argument
Imagine two worlds. World Red is where K&X collude. World Blue is where K&X aren't colluding.

In world Red (with collusion), K&X attain a 50% win rate.
In world Blue (without collusion), K&X attain a 30% win rate--because they aren't that good without collusion.

Okay, back to the RL.

Therefore, even if their winrate is 50%, and that this does not allegedly constitute as colluding in X's opinion, it still is not clear if they colluded or not. It could be the case that given their best ability in collusion, they can only attain a 50% winrate. Without collusion it would drop to 30%. But I made up these numbers of the counterfactual for the sake of that example. In other words, we have no idea what their winrate would've been without collusion, and we cannot from the beginning know if they colluded or not.

Which world is the real one? Red or Blue? We can't know lol.

In short,
1. since the counterfactual cannot be demonstrated,
2. and since we do have a priori knowledge of their collusion or non-collusion,
3. then no one can conclude that collusion did (or did not) occur--given X's arguments and anyone else's who uses similar reasoning.

Big problem.

[Funkyterrance]

Okay, back to the RL.

Therefore, even if their winrate is 50%, and that this does not allegedly constitute as colluding in X's opinion, it still is not clear if they colluded or not. It could be the case that given their best ability in collusion, they can only attain a 50% winrate. Without collusion it would drop to 30%. But I made up these numbers of the counterfactual for the sake of that example. In other words, we have no idea what their winrate would've been without collusion, and we cannot from the beginning know if they colluded or not.

Which world is the real one? Red or Blue? We can't know lol.

In short,
1. since the counterfactual cannot be demonstrated,
2. and since we do have a priori knowledge of their collusion or non-collusion,
3. then no one can conclude that collusion did (or did not) occur--given X's arguments and anyone else's who uses similar reasoning.

Big problem.

It's not really a problem BBS, you're just making it more complex than it has to be.
Let's say a runner had some hidden springy devices inside the soles of his/her shoes that gave him/her an advantage in a race and he/she ended up winning the race by like half a mile. Once the illegal devices are found, do you disqualify the runner for having an unfair advantage or do you ask: "Hmm, well since the runner won by such a landslide, maybe the springy things were nominally responsible for the win..."? The only way these guys can gain any "props" is if they start over and do it all legit because of course you have no way of knowing just how much the SD had to do with their scores. This is a case of secret diplomacy/point manipulation and that's against the rules. Why is it against the rules? Because it gives an unfair advantage, whether you recognize the advantage or not.

[SaMejoHn]

You can repeat all you like about the stats not being favourable for either of you as individuals when you play together as opposed to when you play alone. But the higher win % when you are together (in a very convenient silent agreement to share the spoils of victory) is certainly not favourable for the other 6 poor sods who have joined your games. So whether you stand to benefit individually is irrelevant. As a 'team' you do, and this is unfair and detrimental to the chances of the other players.

I believe it's stated that the win % is lower as a "team" (or whatever you allege) than playing individually. I have already calculated the numbers and have shown that there is NO higher win % for 8 player freestyle playing together or when we play as a team. The OP already agreed with me thus refuting your largest allegation. When most people cheat or play multi, their win % as a team increases by at least 10-20%, for us it doesn't change or is slightly reduced. We both play for our own win. If we intentionally wanted to collude, i think we can hit 80-90% win rate together.

Nevertheless, assuming that you two are colluding,
then this could boost your win rate by 10-20%.
Assuming that you two would stop colluding,
then your "natural" win rate would be 10-20% lower than the current win rate.

So, with this in mind, it could be the case that y'all two aren't that great, so y'all collude in order to attain a 'normal' win-rate of 50% or whatever seems normal--compared to better plays who don't collude yet do attain normal win rates. Therefore, comparisons of your current win-rate do not help us determine if collusion has or has not occurred.

But if the win rate is the same when they are without each other (we know that it is), doesn't that contradict what you are saying?

No, but I probably wasn't clear enough. I'm not comparing their win-rates with each other and without each other. I'm analyzing K&X's win-rate with collusion, and K&X's winrate without collusion in order to show that X's #2 argument fails to support his position that they were not colluding.


X basically makes two arguments:
(1) "Hey, if we were colluding, then our win rate would be higher (90%). Since it's 50%, then we aren't colluding."

Obviously, this doesn't settle the issue because if they're smart, they can collude enough so that they do not attain a 90% win rate. Instead, they could opt for a 50% winrate.

(2) "Our current winrate is 50%. If were were colluding, then our winrate would be 20% higher. Since it's not 20% higher, then we aren't colluding."

I wondered: this proves nothing. If they weren't colluding, their winrate could drop to 20%, thus it would be 30%. Since the counterfactual is unknown, i.e. since we can't determine what would have happened, then we cannot conclude if collusion occurred or didn't occur. How do demonstrate my case?

Thus,
BBS basically makes the argument
Imagine two worlds. World Red is where K&X collude. World Blue is where K&X aren't colluding.

In world Red (with collusion), K&X attain a 50% win rate.
In world Blue (without collusion), K&X attain a 30% win rate--because they aren't that good without collusion.

Okay, back to the RL.

Therefore, even if their winrate is 50%, and that this does not allegedly constitute as colluding in X's opinion, it still is not clear if they colluded or not. It could be the case that given their best ability in collusion, they can only attain a 50% winrate. Without collusion it would drop to 30%. But I made up these numbers of the counterfactual for the sake of that example. In other words, we have no idea what their winrate would've been without collusion, and we cannot from the beginning know if they colluded or not.

Which world is the real one? Red or Blue? We can't know lol.

In short,
1. since the counterfactual cannot be demonstrated,
2. and since we do have a priori knowledge of their collusion or non-collusion,
3. then no one can conclude that collusion did (or did not) occur--given X's arguments and anyone else's who uses similar reasoning.

Big problem.

Exactly, there isnt one way of knowing. Even in the games listed in C&A report many players who are good at those settings have argued that A) some of the arguments/assertions made by Cof were due to lack of knowledge of the map/settings on his part
B) that K and X played the game the way it is suppose to be played, passive and avoiding confrontation. I still dnt understand the collusion argument. If the collusion was evident in its self and we were sure without a doubt and their win rate is only 50%. Wouldnt it be logical to expect their win rate in games without each other where collusion is impossible to be considerably lower. After all, two heads is better than one. no matter which way you put it. And i think you are the first to openly suggest they might not be that good, from my readings there seems to be a general consensus that they have a mastery of the game at least on the crusade map in the freestyle settings.

[SaMejoHn]

Okay, back to the RL.

Therefore, even if their winrate is 50%, and that this does not allegedly constitute as colluding in X's opinion, it still is not clear if they colluded or not. It could be the case that given their best ability in collusion, they can only attain a 50% winrate. Without collusion it would drop to 30%. But I made up these numbers of the counterfactual for the sake of that example. In other words, we have no idea what their winrate would've been without collusion, and we cannot from the beginning know if they colluded or not.

Which world is the real one? Red or Blue? We can't know lol.

In short,
1. since the counterfactual cannot be demonstrated,
2. and since we do have a priori knowledge of their collusion or non-collusion,
3. then no one can conclude that collusion did (or did not) occur--given X's arguments and anyone else's who uses similar reasoning.

Big problem.

It's not really a problem BBS, you're just making it more complex than it has to be.
Let's say a runner had some hidden springy devices inside the soles of his/her shoes that gave him/her an advantage in a race and he/she ended up winning the race by like half a mile. Once the illegal devices are found, do you disqualify the runner for having an unfair advantage or do you ask: "Hmm, well since the runner won by such a landslide, maybe the springy things were nominally responsible for the win..."? The only way these guys can gain any "props" is if they start over and do it all legit because of course you have no way of knowing just how much the SD had to do with their scores. This is a case of secret diplomacy/point manipulation and that's against the rules. Why is it against the rules? Because it gives an unfair advantage, whether you recognize the advantage or not.

At what point did you move from reasonable doubt to absolute certainty? Im sure that they are guilty in the one game brought forth by josko but even that considering it happened to Kiron and he was led to believe it was legal i wont judge. But the games brought forth by CoF in C&A are tainted to say the very least. I've read on more than one occasion of how he misinterpreted things because he didn't know the map or settings. I dont understand why everyone is so quick to pass judgement and with such dogma

[donelladan]

At what point did you move from reasonable doubt to absolute certainty? Im sure that they are guilty in the one game brought forth by josko but even that considering it happened to Kiron and he was led to believe it was legal i wont judge. But the games brought forth by CoF in C&A are tainted to say the very least. I've read on more than one occasion of how he misinterpreted things because he didn't know the map or settings. I dont understand why everyone is so quick to pass judgement and with such dogma

For you, from C&A

Game 12395303- xiangwang hit everything around Vatican, but Vatican! he even hit one blue territory, just to make sure blue doesnt take over Vatican(2013-02-28 07:51:40 - xiangwang assaulted Apulia from Lombardy and conquered it from Private D)... he also knows Kiron is holding the objective, but plays dumb in chat:

2013-02-28 07:53:16 - xiangwang: sorry, hit u by accident blue on that last hit
2013-02-28 07:54:19 - xiangwang: blue, cyan hit u last turn, so u can help me now? XD

Just have a quick look to the game, this one gave me certainty, but there is more example.

I am not saying they have been cheating all along, but they should not have been playing together, they crossed the line more than once.