GUIDE: How to get to Brig, IN 7 EASY STEPS!!!

[MrMoody]

Aalmeida17 has been warned not to create these kind of games (Manual Freestyle with Montreal and Portugal) for the meantime and encouraged to play and/or create games with different settings from those mentioned above.

You didn't include all of the statement made by King A. here.

Disclaimer: King A. said that he's still going to talk with the other admin to see if anything else needs to be done. So I'd wait a week before you start.

When reading this you could assume the case was not closed yet. Meaning the warning he received was only to stop making these games because he was under investigation. Your warning to wait supports this idea.

I'm just going off on a guess here, but I'm assuming that the mods don't play favorites and ban people for doing something that they only gave a warning for to someone else.

The mods also don't consider doing something that you admit to being against the rules thrice to be a ban-able offense.

Maybe this will help you figure out what disciplinary action should be taken. Its clearly stated in the guidelines.

Major/Severe Infractions are those that are more than just annoying, but are intentionally hurtful to a user, group of users, or the community in general. This includes but is not limited to: Cyber-bullying/Harassment, Bigotry, Personal Information Abuse, Account Sitting Abuse, Intentional Deadbeating, Repeatedly Holding Players Hostage, Serial Teammate Killing, Hijacking Accounts, Systematically "Farming" New Recruits, Illegal Point Collecting, Gambling, **Point Dumping** etc.

* Major/Severe Infractions follow a shortened vacation escalation scale of: Warning, One Month Vacation, Permanent Vacation.

The mods don't consider earning more than 1600 points from only half the games you made, with the other half waiting to raise you further, something to get a score reset for.

You don't even know if the case is closed yet.

A note for the mods: If you think this way of getting points is cheating, maybe you should talk to the admin and ask them to ban people for it before they close Aal's case completely.

If the Mods lobbied Admin for a ban it would only serve to bring inconsistency to the disciplinary process. These guidelines are to prevent inconsistency. If you feel they need to be changed posting in suggs&buggs would be a good start. I don't think they have been in place long enough for Admin want a change yet though.
The C&A forum may not move as quick as you would like all the time. A case like farming needs a lot of investigation. Mods volunteer hours of time researching games and in discussion. As we have seen not all cases members think are farming are ruled as actual farming. Standing on your soapbox, waving your finger and making accusations only alienates those you should be getting to help support your cause.

[lord voldemort]

Just for the record the case is still being reviewed. Its Christmas holidays not all the mods and admins are active. We are still discussing if any further action is going to happen. As was said in the thread. We are all human and have other things outside of cc to deal with. C&a is generally a decent turn around..but sometimes we are a lil slower.

[Army of GOD]

Just for the record the case is still being reviewed. Its Christmas holidays not all the mods and admins are active. We are still discussing if any further action is going to happen. As was said in the thread. We are all human and have other things outside of cc to deal with. C&a is generally a decent turn around..but sometimes we are a lil slower.

I thought you were an evil sorcerer or something.

It's leviosa not leviosa

[BigBallinStalin]

P.S. number 三五零零！

你的第三千五百個帖子! 非常好!

谢谢！我不懂"個帖,"忘记"第"了。

(I started to type "number 3500," then wanted to make it 中文。and i'm too lazy to go through the numbers, so digits will suffice

"帖子"的意思是"post (forums)."

"第"... it's used to express an order for cardinal numbers.
比如說: "第一個..(___)." 的意思是"First...(something)"

"個" is just a measure word, which 帖子 uses (as well as most nouns in Chinese).

I really don't know too much Chinese though. It can be complicated, and there's so much left for me to learn. From what I know if you just throw down 三五零零, it just means 3, 5, 0, 0, not 3500. If you say 三五零零年, it means the year 3500. Good luck and 加油!


Oh, and a translation for the fora's sake:
the.killing.44: 3 5 0 0
BBS: CODE RECEIVED. I'll drop bombs at ya mom's on friday.
the.killing.44: Say, brah, why you gonna bring such dismay?
alex951: Oy vey?*



*(the formal and traditional way is pretty lengthy)

[nippersean]

If he has not made his points in a way the community values then his shiny rank is worth f*ck all. In fact, it would be better to have some stripes and be unknown than to hold a high rank but be derided for it...think KLOBBER.

Saying that, I have always said that you can't punish players for setting up games within the rules. Neon's assertion that the player SHOULD KNOW that by setting up these games he is farming is a bit of a leap. In this case he might well know what he is up to but it is terribly subjective, I can imagine an absolutely horrendously large number of accusations being made if Neon's argument was backed up by lack...in fact we saw what could happen over the feudal map: one player was warned for the exact same thing and then a large number of similar cases followed...in the end the hunters had to back off. Hence, this brig. is 'getting away with it'...as I believe he should.

That the admins should sort out the farming rules is without question; they most definitely should. The tricky thing is that no one knows how to do it !!!

Hiya,

1) Farming is against the rules. So setting up games to systematically target new recruits is against the rules. Check rules page.

2) It wasn't a leap, he admitted he knew these games would fill with ? and that that's why he made them. Having tested this out and found they did fill with ?'s he made more - lots more, therefore in the full knowledge they fill with new recruits.

Note on OP - 5 player games are best for this.

[Mr Changsha]

If he has not made his points in a way the community values then his shiny rank is worth f*ck all. In fact, it would be better to have some stripes and be unknown than to hold a high rank but be derided for it...think KLOBBER.

Saying that, I have always said that you can't punish players for setting up games within the rules. Neon's assertion that the player SHOULD KNOW that by setting up these games he is farming is a bit of a leap. In this case he might well know what he is up to but it is terribly subjective, I can imagine an absolutely horrendously large number of accusations being made if Neon's argument was backed up by lack...in fact we saw what could happen over the feudal map: one player was warned for the exact same thing and then a large number of similar cases followed...in the end the hunters had to back off. Hence, this brig. is 'getting away with it'...as I believe he should.

That the admins should sort out the farming rules is without question; they most definitely should. The tricky thing is that no one knows how to do it !!!

Hiya,

1) Farming is against the rules. So setting up games to systematically target new recruits is against the rules. Check rules page.

2) It wasn't a leap, he admitted he knew these games would fill with ? and that that's why he made them. Having tested this out and found they did fill with ?'s he made more - lots more, therefore in the full knowledge they fill with new recruits.

Note on OP - 5 player games are best for this.

Hiya indeed!

I am aware that this chap almost certainly knew what he was doing. The trouble is that once the rule is actually enforced (and it hasn't been in all cases) then other players - who might well have just set up a bunch of games that happened to fill with NR's - will find themselves being denounced by that group of posters who just love trying to find a cheat. It is a slippery slope to creating the kind of bad blood we saw in C and A not all that long ago over the feudal players.

It is still a subjective judgement and for all the certainty many a poster likes to display when they say "Yep, that percentage of NR's is enough to prove it" it is still a subjective thing and therefore quite open to misinterpretation. About a month ago a general actually pm'd me to argue his case for him and while many considered him guilty of the exact same thing, I didn't, and he was eventually cleared. The trouble is that the current rule sucks arse. It needs to be tightened up one way or another as, at the moment, some definite farmers are getting away with it under the cover of 'well how can we be sure?' while I suspect quite innocent parties are being dragged into C and A and being forced to defend themselves.

Any restrictions that do need to be made over farming should be instituted by the site. It should NOT be up to us to regulate our games and the players that happen to join them. If CC doesn't want NR's playing colonels then simply code it so that they can't join a colonel's game. If CC doesn't want groups of NR's playing the same game then again, code it so that it can't happen. I think it is often forgotten that we pay money to use this site and really should not have to bother ourselves with making moral judgements: this is supposed to be fun!

Finally, I am still far from convinced that farming needs to clamped down on to the extent that some people seem to. I think we should be free to make our points how we like; 'we pays our money we takes our choice'. The scoreboard is such a pointless thing anyway. While a player hoping to join a good CLA team might think hitting page 2 might get him in, any half competent judge of a player will map rank the chap and find out the truth. Those that farm their way up are not respected anyway...hence when a chap farms to conqueror the community at large says "Yeah, so what?"

[The Neon Peon]

Aalmeida17 has been warned not to create these kind of games (Manual Freestyle with Montreal and Portugal) for the meantime and encouraged to play and/or create games with different settings from those mentioned above.

You didn't include all of the statement made by King A. here.

Disclaimer: King A. said that he's still going to talk with the other admin to see if anything else needs to be done. So I'd wait a week before you start.

When reading this you could assume the case was not closed yet. Meaning the warning he received was only to stop making these games because he was under investigation. Your warning to wait supports this idea.

I'm just going off on a guess here, but I'm assuming that the mods don't play favorites and ban people for doing something that they only gave a warning for to someone else.

The mods also don't consider doing something that you admit to being against the rules thrice to be a ban-able offense.

Maybe this will help you figure out what disciplinary action should be taken. Its clearly stated in the guidelines.

Major/Severe Infractions are those that are more than just annoying, but are intentionally hurtful to a user, group of users, or the community in general. This includes but is not limited to: Cyber-bullying/Harassment, Bigotry, Personal Information Abuse, Account Sitting Abuse, Intentional Deadbeating, Repeatedly Holding Players Hostage, Serial Teammate Killing, Hijacking Accounts, Systematically "Farming" New Recruits, Illegal Point Collecting, Gambling, **Point Dumping** etc.

* Major/Severe Infractions follow a shortened vacation escalation scale of: Warning, One Month Vacation, Permanent Vacation.

Just for the record the case is still being reviewed. Its Christmas holidays not all the mods and admins are active. We are still discussing if any further action is going to happen. As was said in the thread. We are all human and have other things outside of cc to deal with. C&a is generally a decent turn around..but sometimes we are a lil slower.

I am aware that the case is not yet closed, which is why I made the thread.

I will still have to discuss this with the other admins if there is more that is needed to be done with this case.

What I was trying to get across in this thread is that if there is not "more that is needed to be done with this case," then how quickly the CC rule against farming will break apart. It would be useless after the thread gets locked completely.

The mods don't consider earning more than 1600 points from only half the games you made, with the other half waiting to raise you further, something to get a score reset for.

You don't even know if the case is closed yet.

A note for the mods: If you think this way of getting points is cheating, maybe you should talk to the admin and ask them to ban people for it before they close Aal's case completely.

If the Mods lobbied Admin for a ban it would only serve to bring inconsistency to the disciplinary process. These guidelines are to prevent inconsistency. If you feel they need to be changed posting in suggs&buggs would be a good start. I don't think they have been in place long enough for Admin want a change yet though.
The C&A forum may not move as quick as you would like all the time. A case like farming needs a lot of investigation. Mods volunteer hours of time researching games and in discussion. As we have seen not all cases members think are farming are ruled as actual farming. Standing on your soapbox, waving your finger and making accusations only alienates those you should be getting to help support your cause.

Sorry if I came across this way, that was not my intent. As I said before in this post, my only purpose with this thread was to point out how ridiculous the lack of a further ruling is by acting upon the warning as if it is the final case.

As for the statement you quoted right there, I've seen several mods posts things like "after talking it over with such and such, we've decided that...." Things like this gave me the impression that CC did not have a very rigid "division of labor" among the mods. I thought that this "lobbying" (as you put it) was going on all the time, which is my mistake, I guess.

Honestly, even if the final decision is to remove his warning, the removal of rule #2, the allowance of multi accounts for whatever use to premium members, the complete removal of the C&A forum, and the stopping of banning people whatsoever... CC administration would still be by far better than that of some of the other games that friends showed me and I'd played with them.

If any of that seemed offensive to you, please accept my apologies. Most of the first post was an attempt to replicate some of the blatant cheating that I can see going on in the future (you don't see me making a bunch of games, and won't), and my later posts were over exaggerated so that they would seem ridiculous. I am not one to say "the mods don't care about cheating" (and actually mean it), if they issued a warning for it. This was the only way I could think of saying anything that would get any reaction from the mods. It's all been said before, but people tend to notice someone calling out for others to cheat.

[Georgerx7di]

I don't know. If he's not inviting noobs to the game, then its kind of unfair to warn him. If the maps or settings (I hate those two maps), are unfair, then get rid of them.

I just don't like it. It's hard to control who joins your games. I make public games all the time, luckily I get a lot of colonels and majors, but I don't see how its the persons fault who joins. Unless he has the first 5 pages of the scoreboard foed ofc. There should be some sort of concrete rule, something that is not subjective.

For example, "you cannot create more than 25 games on the same map with the same settings". Or just do what someone else had suggested and make it so you cannot play with people who are very far ahead or behind you on the scoreboad, maybe plus or minus 600 or 700 points.

It can't just be "noobs are joining your games, so stop". Not saying that I like farmers, but there has to be a concrete rule.

So you're saying that if I create 30 games on a map and settings like he did, that I'm allowed to create more on that same map and settings if ONLY new recruits joined the first 30?

And after I've created a 100 games on that map and settings, and they filled with ONLY new recruits, that I'm allowed to create more on that same map and settings?

It is definitely not his fault that new recruits just happen to join his games. How is he to guess that they are going to join his next set of Montreal games? The first 120 games he started aren't any indication that only new recruits will join in the next 30...

Again, what is the rule. If your games fill with new recruits, then you have to stop playing that map? I'm being completely serious, because someone could find themselves accidentally farming if a lot of their games fill with noobs. There needs to be a rule, a clear one. I haven't looked at his games yet, but what if he made 30 and 7 filled with colonels and majors and 23 with new recruits? What if only 5 fill with experienced players, how many have to be experienced players to allow him to make another 100.

People pay for premium so that they can make as many games as they want, and on any map that they want. There needs to be a clear rule here. And if we can't make one, then let everyone farm to level the playing field, new recruits will quickly learn how to play that map and soon there will be tons of people who know how to play it, and the advantage will be gone.

Or, you join his games if it bothers you.

[The Neon Peon]

I don't know. If he's not inviting noobs to the game, then its kind of unfair to warn him. If the maps or settings (I hate those two maps), are unfair, then get rid of them.

I just don't like it. It's hard to control who joins your games. I make public games all the time, luckily I get a lot of colonels and majors, but I don't see how its the persons fault who joins. Unless he has the first 5 pages of the scoreboard foed ofc. There should be some sort of concrete rule, something that is not subjective.

For example, "you cannot create more than 25 games on the same map with the same settings". Or just do what someone else had suggested and make it so you cannot play with people who are very far ahead or behind you on the scoreboad, maybe plus or minus 600 or 700 points.

It can't just be "noobs are joining your games, so stop". Not saying that I like farmers, but there has to be a concrete rule.

So you're saying that if I create 30 games on a map and settings like he did, that I'm allowed to create more on that same map and settings if ONLY new recruits joined the first 30?

And after I've created a 100 games on that map and settings, and they filled with ONLY new recruits, that I'm allowed to create more on that same map and settings?

It is definitely not his fault that new recruits just happen to join his games. How is he to guess that they are going to join his next set of Montreal games? The first 120 games he started aren't any indication that only new recruits will join in the next 30...

Again, what is the rule. If your games fill with new recruits, then you have to stop playing that map? I'm being completely serious, because someone could find themselves accidentally farming if a lot of their games fill with noobs. There needs to be a rule, a clear one. I haven't looked at his games yet, but what if he made 30 and 7 filled with colonels and majors and 23 with new recruits? What if only 5 fill with experienced players, how many have to be experienced players to allow him to make another 100.

People pay for premium so that they can make as many games as they want, and on any map that they want. There needs to be a clear rule here. And if we can't make one, then let everyone farm to level the playing field, new recruits will quickly learn how to play that map and soon there will be tons of people who know how to play it, and the advantage will be gone.

Or, you join his games if it bothers you.

A clear rule... perhaps... perhaps... but the methods people use for farming are very many. They can start games, or join them. They can make private games. They can reserve slots for non-playing members. They can reserve slots for new recruits. They can foe everyone on the scoreboard. They can start a bunch of games that no one wants to play. They can be such a jerk that everyone foes them and no one wants to join their games. They can send PM's to new recruits. They can comment on the new recruit's walls. etc... etc...

It would be very hard to make a rule that would encompass all these ways of farming, plus the others that may exist... I was thinking of simply preventing all but one or two types in this suggestion: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=104889 After we do that, there is hardly anything that we need to make a rule against.

[max is gr8]

The reason I stopped creating Circus Maximus games is because only new-recruits joined. If you like playing the game you would dislike new recruits joining your games so you'd stop playing on the map.

[HighlanderAttack]

Wow what a farming loser--I just scrolled his games. He is probably proud of his accomplishments too-a joke to real players though.

[Georgerx7di]

I don't know. If he's not inviting noobs to the game, then its kind of unfair to warn him. If the maps or settings (I hate those two maps), are unfair, then get rid of them.

I just don't like it. It's hard to control who joins your games. I make public games all the time, luckily I get a lot of colonels and majors, but I don't see how its the persons fault who joins. Unless he has the first 5 pages of the scoreboard foed ofc. There should be some sort of concrete rule, something that is not subjective.

For example, "you cannot create more than 25 games on the same map with the same settings". Or just do what someone else had suggested and make it so you cannot play with people who are very far ahead or behind you on the scoreboad, maybe plus or minus 600 or 700 points.

It can't just be "noobs are joining your games, so stop". Not saying that I like farmers, but there has to be a concrete rule.

So you're saying that if I create 30 games on a map and settings like he did, that I'm allowed to create more on that same map and settings if ONLY new recruits joined the first 30?

And after I've created a 100 games on that map and settings, and they filled with ONLY new recruits, that I'm allowed to create more on that same map and settings?

It is definitely not his fault that new recruits just happen to join his games. How is he to guess that they are going to join his next set of Montreal games? The first 120 games he started aren't any indication that only new recruits will join in the next 30...

Again, what is the rule. If your games fill with new recruits, then you have to stop playing that map? I'm being completely serious, because someone could find themselves accidentally farming if a lot of their games fill with noobs. There needs to be a rule, a clear one. I haven't looked at his games yet, but what if he made 30 and 7 filled with colonels and majors and 23 with new recruits? What if only 5 fill with experienced players, how many have to be experienced players to allow him to make another 100.

People pay for premium so that they can make as many games as they want, and on any map that they want. There needs to be a clear rule here. And if we can't make one, then let everyone farm to level the playing field, new recruits will quickly learn how to play that map and soon there will be tons of people who know how to play it, and the advantage will be gone.

Or, you join his games if it bothers you.

A clear rule... perhaps... perhaps... but the methods people use for farming are very many. They can start games, or join them. They can make private games. They can reserve slots for non-playing members. They can reserve slots for new recruits. They can foe everyone on the scoreboard. They can start a bunch of games that no one wants to play. They can be such a jerk that everyone foes them and no one wants to join their games. They can send PM's to new recruits. They can comment on the new recruit's walls. etc... etc...

It would be very hard to make a rule that would encompass all these ways of farming, plus the others that may exist... I was thinking of simply preventing all but one or two types in this suggestion: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=104889 After we do that, there is hardly anything that we need to make a rule against.

See, some of the things you say can be in the rule. Reserving spots for new recruits, writing on new recruits walls or pm'ing them. Foeing anyone with rank who joins your game, cc can even put measures in place to prevent this. They can definitely make a rule against this an look to see if it happened.

I just don't want it to be so vague that someone could accidentally be farming. I also don't want a rule that says you can't play a certain map just because you have a higher rank, or you can't play a certain map as many times as you want. When I find a new map I like, I usually play it a lot, some of us are like that.

Like I said, I've been lucky to draw good players in a lot of my games, but I don't invite them and I don't usually make private games anymore. I've been learning poland lately, and about half of games fill with colonels and majors and about half fill with cooks. I don't really control that, and I don't feel like having to invite opponents to games every time I make them. I just want to make a game and whoever joins joins. Like I said it hasn't been an issue, but I don't want to worry that it will some day.

As long as you are not actively seeking recruits to join, or avoiding high ranks, then it should not be considered farming.

[natty dread]

I've the perfect solution. Let's put all who are suspected of farming into a lie detector test and ask them "did you farm?" And if they did we'll ban them. Problem solved!