Conquer Club

The current "policy" dictates that if someone creates a number of games on the same map and those games happen to attract a healthy percentage of newbies to them, then that player is farming.

I am about as anti-farming as one can get (on record, in these fora) and yet, I must disagree and I think this "policy" needs to be struck down immediately. It is thoroughly illogical.

I have almost NEVER had an 8-man public game I've started (which is my preference) not have a ? in it. That's based on ALL maps (because I play a great many). It's frankly ludicrous to expect that it won't happen, as there are so damn many newbies running around...so should I be accused of newbie farming, as well?

The only difference between those currently being accused and myself is that they happen to love playing public games on one particular map whereas I love the strategy of playing public games on many different maps. As far as "intent" between those being currently being accused and myself, there is no possible way to determine that there is a difference in that respect.

If a map preference can determine "farminess" when the user creating the games has no control over who is going to join them, then that is a problem with the map, not the user creating the games. I have no problem if the user has been found to be sending out invitations to newbies - then hammer the bastards. But this witchhunt crap is ludicrous - to convict someone for something they have no control over just makes no sense at all and simply makes the site look stupid.

Then again, if the site would simply implement the many-times-suggested idea of putting limitations on who can join your games, THIS WOULD NOT EVEN BE AN ISSUE...it would be apparent if they were trying to avoid newbies or not. It's almost as if the site WANTS to be able to accuse people of farming, perhaps as a way of keeping them in line. Seems stupid to consider, and yet...as stupid as the site looks with this policy, it's probably the case.

As far as "creating subdivisions" (not the term that's used, but I can't think of the accurate one), there was one suggestion that implemented a percentage of the game-creator's score rather than having the game-creator be able to just select a number. That's not going to create too many sub-divisions and most games started would still fall well within newbie-joining range. Keep those blinders on though, folks, and continue to accuse your paying members of inaccurate crimes - that's always a swell business plan!

I assume your talking about krapht

If a map preference can determine "farminess" when the user creating the games has no control over who is going to join them, then that is a problem with the map, not the user creating the games

As i said in his thread. The problem is that he is aware that there are a strangely high number of new recruits in his gams. And he continues to create them. He understands the problem but then takes advantage of it

Then again, if the site would simply implement the many-times-suggested idea of putting limitations on who can join your games, THIS WOULD NOT EVEN BE AN ISSUE...it would be apparent if they were trying to avoid newbies or not. It's almost as if the site WANTS to be able to accuse people of farming, perhaps as a way of keeping them in line. Seems stupid to consider, and yet...as stupid as the site looks with this policy, it's probably the case.

I dont know how feudal was put in there originally but it will be changed

Then again, if the site would simply implement the many-times-suggested idea of putting limitations on who can join your games, THIS WOULD NOT EVEN BE AN ISSUE...it would be apparent if they were trying to avoid newbies or not. It's almost as if the site WANTS to be able to accuse people of farming, perhaps as a way of keeping them in line. Seems stupid to consider, and yet...as stupid as the site looks with this policy, it's probably the case.

CC will never rank segregate.
Farming is a new reruit thing. Once a player earns their first promation they are for lack of a better word free game.

double post..
As for your games. At a quick glance less than say 10 % of your games have a new recruit. a) you didnt start them b) they are on random maps c) they have a maximum of 1 or 2 or 3 new recruits in them.

Woodruff wrote:The current "policy" dictates that if someone creates a number of games on the same map and those games happen to attract a healthy percentage of newbies to them, then that player is farming.

I am about as anti-farming as one can get (on record, in these fora) and yet, I must disagree and I think this "policy" needs to be struck down immediately. It is thoroughly illogical.

I have almost NEVER had an 8-man public game I've started (which is my preference) not have a ? in it. That's based on ALL maps (because I play a great many). It's frankly ludicrous to expect that it won't happen, as there are so damn many newbies running around...so should I be accused of newbie farming, as well?

The only difference between those currently being accused and myself is that they happen to love playing public games on one particular map whereas I love the strategy of playing public games on many different maps. As far as "intent" between those being currently being accused and myself, there is no possible way to determine that there is a difference in that respect.

If a map preference can determine "farminess" when the user creating the games has no control over who is going to join them, then that is a problem with the map, not the user creating the games. I have no problem if the user has been found to be sending out invitations to newbies - then hammer the bastards. But this witchhunt crap is ludicrous - to convict someone for something they have no control over just makes no sense at all and simply makes the site look stupid.

Then again, if the site would simply implement the many-times-suggested idea of putting limitations on who can join your games, THIS WOULD NOT EVEN BE AN ISSUE...it would be apparent if they were trying to avoid newbies or not. It's almost as if the site WANTS to be able to accuse people of farming, perhaps as a way of keeping them in line. Seems stupid to consider, and yet...as stupid as the site looks with this policy, it's probably the case.

As far as "creating subdivisions" (not the term that's used, but I can't think of the accurate one), there was one suggestion that implemented a percentage of the game-creator's score rather than having the game-creator be able to just select a number. That's not going to create too many sub-divisions and most games started would still fall well within newbie-joining range. Keep those blinders on though, folks, and continue to accuse your paying members of inaccurate crimes - that's always a swell business plan!

The definition of farming is hard to fit into a neat little package, but it's one of those things that 'I know it when I see it.' Therefore, the policy needs to be enforced on a case by case basis. The first example you gave is obviously not farming. Besides, how can you noob farm being a noob yourself?

lord voldemort wrote:I assume your talking about krapht

No, definitely not exclusively. There were a couple of other instances before his case came up...his was simply the one that prompted me to speak out.

lord voldemort wrote:

Woodruff wrote:If a map preference can determine "farminess" when the user creating the games has no control over who is going to join them, then that is a problem with the map, not the user creating the games

As i said in his thread. The problem is that he is aware that there are a strangely high number of new recruits in his gams. And he continues to create them. He understands the problem but then takes advantage of it

So because he likes to play a lot of games on a map he loves, the presumption is guilty. This makes no sense and holds no justice. And so why have I not been found guilty of farming, with my tremendously high number of games against ?'s on many different maps on public games? Rationally, there is no difference.

lord voldemort wrote:I dont know how feudal was put in there originally but it will be changed

Which is a good thing, no argument. But it is just a bandaid over the symptom without doing anything about the actual problem. The problem doesn't go away, and the problem is that someone can even be CONSIDERED to be farming under such circumstances.

lord voldemort wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Then again, if the site would simply implement the many-times-suggested idea of putting limitations on who can join your games, THIS WOULD NOT EVEN BE AN ISSUE...it would be apparent if they were trying to avoid newbies or not. It's almost as if the site WANTS to be able to accuse people of farming, perhaps as a way of keeping them in line. Seems stupid to consider, and yet...as stupid as the site looks with this policy, it's probably the case.

CC will never rank segregate.

"Segregate"...that's the term I was looking for, thanks. I know that's the current "policy", but that's my point...standing by that policy for illogical reasons which are not founded at all by the evidence nor statistics just makes the site look stupid.

lord voldemort wrote:Farming is a new reruit thing. Once a player earns their first promation they are for lack of a better word free game.

I understand that completely...which is a large part of my point. Let newbies play newbies for their first five games. Then they're no longer newbies. There are PLENTY of newbies and cooks running around this place to find games against each other with NO PROBLEM.

I appreciate your response, LV...you generally speak your mind honestly, and I like that. But in this case, I think you're toeing a party line that is a failure by definition.

lord voldemort wrote:double post..
As for your games. At a quick glance less than say 10 % of your games have a new recruit. a) you didnt start them b) they are on random maps c) they have a maximum of 1 or 2 or 3 new recruits in them.

Ok, I saw your second post, so I'll tack onto the end of mine. DEFINITELY more than 10% of my games have had a new recruit - far more than that. The fact that they're NO LONGER a new recruit isn't relevant...they're old games. If you go back and look at Tezu's games (I think she was one of the previous ones), her opponents wouldn't be new recruits any longer either. Whether they're on random maps or not is irrelevant to the presumption of guilt of these others. As well, if I didn't start the games, that should make me MORE GUILTY than someone who is starting games. FAR MORE GUILTY...because now I can be seen as actually targeting someone.

prismsaber wrote:

Woodruff wrote:The current "policy" dictates that if someone creates a number of games on the same map and those games happen to attract a healthy percentage of newbies to them, then that player is farming.

The definition of farming is hard to fit into a neat little package, but it's one of those things that 'I know it when I see it.' Therefore, the policy needs to be enforced on a case by case basis. The first example you gave is obviously not farming. Besides, how can you noob farm being a noob yourself?

I'm not even remotely a noob, but if you'd like to make the mistake of looking at my current rank and believing I don't know how to play the game, then I'd be more than happy to prove it to you in...say...10 sequential 1-vs-1 games on random maps? Are you up to the challenge against a "noob"? I promise I won't accuse you of farming me. <smile>

As to "I know it when I see it"...that is not justice. If it cannot be defined, then how can someone be held accountable with any sense of justice? That's not justice, it's ludicrous.

Woodruff wrote:So because he likes to play a lot of games on a map he loves...

But what is stopping him from joining games already created on said map?

Just saying...(Personally, I'd like to pick my opponents [so that I play against those close in rank to me, rather than trying to take on people I couldn't possibly beat or having new recruits join], rather than not knowing who might join)

Woodruff wrote:

lord voldemort wrote:I assume your talking about krapht

No, definitely not exclusively. There were a couple of other instances before his case came up...his was simply the one that prompted me to speak out.

lord voldemort wrote:

Woodruff wrote:If a map preference can determine "farminess" when the user creating the games has no control over who is going to join them, then that is a problem with the map, not the user creating the games

As i said in his thread. The problem is that he is aware that there are a strangely high number of new recruits in his gams. And he continues to create them. He understands the problem but then takes advantage of it

So because he likes to play a lot of games on a map he loves, the presumption is guilty. This makes no sense and holds no justice. And so why have I not been found guilty of farming, with my tremendously high number of games against ?'s on many different maps on public games? Rationally, there is no difference.

lord voldemort wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I dont know how feudal was put in there originally but it will be changed

Which is a good thing, no argument. But it is just a bandaid over the symptom without doing anything about the actual problem. The problem doesn't go away, and the problem is that someone can even be CONSIDERED to be farming under such circumstances.

lord voldemort wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Then again, if the site would simply implement the many-times-suggested idea of putting limitations on who can join your games, THIS WOULD NOT EVEN BE AN ISSUE...it would be apparent if they were trying to avoid newbies or not. It's almost as if the site WANTS to be able to accuse people of farming, perhaps as a way of keeping them in line. Seems stupid to consider, and yet...as stupid as the site looks with this policy, it's probably the case.

CC will never rank segregate.

"Segregate"...that's the term I was looking for, thanks. I know that's the current "policy", but that's my point...standing by that policy for illogical reasons which are not founded at all by the evidence nor statistics just makes the site look stupid.

lord voldemort wrote:Farming is a new reruit thing. Once a player earns their first promation they are for lack of a better word free game.

I understand that completely...which is a large part of my point. Let newbies play newbies for their first five games. Then they're no longer newbies. There are PLENTY of newbies and cooks running around this place to find games against each other with NO PROBLEM.

I appreciate your response, LV...you generally speak your mind honestly, and I like that. But in this case, I think you're toeing a party line that is a failure by definition.

lord voldemort wrote:double post..
As for your games. At a quick glance less than say 10 % of your games have a new recruit. a) you didnt start them b) they are on random maps c) they have a maximum of 1 or 2 or 3 new recruits in them.

Ok, I saw your second post, so I'll tack onto the end of mine. DEFINITELY more than 10% of my games have had a new recruit - far more than that. The fact that they're NO LONGER a new recruit isn't relevant...they're old games. If you go back and look at Tezu's games (I think she was one of the previous ones), her opponents wouldn't be new recruits any longer either. Whether they're on random maps or not is irrelevant to the presumption of guilt of these others. As well, if I didn't start the games, that should make me MORE GUILTY than someone who is starting games. FAR MORE GUILTY...because now I can be seen as actually targeting someone.

prismsaber wrote:

Woodruff wrote:The current "policy" dictates that if someone creates a number of games on the same map and those games happen to attract a healthy percentage of newbies to them, then that player is farming.

The definition of farming is hard to fit into a neat little package, but it's one of those things that 'I know it when I see it.' Therefore, the policy needs to be enforced on a case by case basis. The first example you gave is obviously not farming. Besides, how can you noob farm being a noob yourself?

I'm not even remotely a noob, but if you'd like to make the mistake of looking at my current rank and believing I don't know how to play the game, then I'd be more than happy to prove it to you in...say...10 sequential 1-vs-1 games on random maps? Are you up to the challenge against a "noob"? I promise I won't accuse you of farming me. <smile>

As to "I know it when I see it"...that is not justice. If it cannot be defined, then how can someone be held accountable with any sense of justice? That's not justice, it's ludicrous.

What would that prove?

A. seq 1v1 is luck based
B. Even if prismsaber won 9 out of the 10 games he would still lose points to your noob ass.

Woodruff wrote:So because he likes to play a lot of games on a map he loves, the presumption is guilty. This makes no sense and holds no justice. And so why have I not been found guilty of farming, with my tremendously high number of games against ?'s on many different maps on public games? Rationally, there is no difference.

I have scanned through your games. I got through the first 4 pages without spotting a new recruit.

There is a difference between playing on a map you love and farming. The distinction of the games being on many different maps is one thing that makes you not a farmer. If I start 50 games on a map available to new recruits, about 10 of them will fill with people that enjoy that map and settings, and the other 40 will be full of new recruits/low ranks. However, if I was to create those same 50 games except have each be on a different map, most would fill with players and the other few with low ranks/new recruits.

There is never a "market" for a certain map/setting past a certain point at which almost only new recruits join. And, I think it is a reasonable assumption to make that someone is playing 40 games on the same map/settings against new recruits is not doing it for fun.

Basically, there are ways that you can make sure that mostly new recruits join your games. In other cases such as yours, while new recruits may join them, they are not the main populous.

Supermarioluigi wrote:

Woodruff wrote:So because he likes to play a lot of games on a map he loves...

But what is stopping him from joining games already created on said map?

But that right there is precisely the problem - if he JOINS games, now he IS targeting noobies, unless the presumption is that there are plenty of games available on the map he loves that don't have noobies already in them. I would suggest that's not likely the case, given how quickly they seem to jump in on my games.

In fact, joining games that had noobies already in them was originally the criteria used for farming (and it makes sense!), along with of course sending invitations to noobs to join games.

demonfork wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

prismsaber wrote:

Woodruff wrote:The current "policy" dictates that if someone creates a number of games on the same map and those games happen to attract a healthy percentage of newbies to them, then that player is farming.

The definition of farming is hard to fit into a neat little package, but it's one of those things that 'I know it when I see it.' Therefore, the policy needs to be enforced on a case by case basis. The first example you gave is obviously not farming. Besides, how can you noob farm being a noob yourself?

I'm not even remotely a noob, but if you'd like to make the mistake of looking at my current rank and believing I don't know how to play the game, then I'd be more than happy to prove it to you in...say...10 sequential 1-vs-1 games on random maps? Are you up to the challenge against a "noob"? I promise I won't accuse you of farming me. <smile>

What would that prove?
A. seq 1v1 is luck based
B. Even if prismsaber won 9 out of the 10 games he would still lose points to your noob ass.

It has nothing to do with points. I am fully confident that after the 10 games he would no longer consider me "a noob", regardless of what the outcome of those 10 games actually was.

The Neon Peon wrote:

Woodruff wrote:So because he likes to play a lot of games on a map he loves, the presumption is guilty. This makes no sense and holds no justice. And so why have I not been found guilty of farming, with my tremendously high number of games against ?'s on many different maps on public games? Rationally, there is no difference.

I have scanned through your games. I got through the first 4 pages without spotting a new recruit.

Sure, they're not new recruits NOW...I haven't played a lot of games lately, as you can see by the game numbers. So those players who were newbies at the time have moved on past their 5 games played, for the most part. But at the time they were played, there has been a VERY HIGH incidence of ?'s in the games I've played.

The Neon Peon wrote:Basically, there are ways that you can make sure that mostly new recruits join your games. In other cases such as yours, while new recruits may join them, they are not the main populous.

Not the main populace, I agree...and yet, it's definitely been very close to the "50% threshold" that has been referenced in these situations (50% of the games, not 50% of the players in the games).

The Neon Peon wrote:There is a difference between playing on a map you love and farming. The distinction of the games being on many different maps is one thing that makes you not a farmer.

I understand that distinction, and yet logically it does not follow. Newbies aren't "locked into" playing whatever map is being created (we'll say Feudal, since that seems to be the big deal in most of these cases). They can pick any game that's available...so they COULD flock to my games on different maps coincidentally just as they could flock to the Feudal map games coincidentally. As I said before, it's a very different issue if someone is sending out invites to the noobs...but if they're not, then there is nothing "inherently noobie-attracting" about any particular map.

Woodruff wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:Basically, there are ways that you can make sure that mostly new recruits join your games. In other cases such as yours, while new recruits may join them, they are not the main populous.

Not the main populace, I agree...and yet, it's definitely been very close to the "50% threshold" that has been referenced in these situations (50% of the games, not 50% of the players in the games).

Well, the main reason the mods finally spoke up against it was the fact that the people that new recruits who joined games with people that farm hardly ever stay on the site. So in your case, simply having the people stay with the site means that there is no reason to ban you.

The two reasons why farming is bad:
1. points given mainly from people deatbeating
2. keeps many new recruits from staying

Neither is true in your case, but if you look at some of the older games of previous farmers like KLOBBER you will see how many of them game him points by deatbeating and how many of those new recruits finished 5 games.

The Neon Peon wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:Basically, there are ways that you can make sure that mostly new recruits join your games. In other cases such as yours, while new recruits may join them, they are not the main populous.

Not the main populace, I agree...and yet, it's definitely been very close to the "50% threshold" that has been referenced in these situations (50% of the games, not 50% of the players in the games).

Well, the main reason the mods finally spoke up against it was the fact that the people that new recruits who joined games with people that farm hardly ever stay on the site. So in your case, simply having the people stay with the site means that there is no reason to ban you.

The two reasons why farming is bad:
1. points given mainly from people deatbeating
2. keeps many new recruits from staying

Neither is true in your case, but if you look at some of the older games of previous farmers like KLOBBER you will see how many of them game him points by deatbeating and how many of those new recruits finished 5 games.

But isn't that largely just "luck of the draw"? If my new recruits HAPPEN to stick around and KLOBBER's recruits don't happen to stick around, that's not because he was farming and I wasn't...it's just blind luck.

(But speaking of someone who IS violating the intent of the policies...<ahem>)

I don't think NR staying on the site has anything to do with farming, it just gives the impression that it does. Like for example, it rains more this year(more truth to that then I meant) and the price of ice cream goes up. Just because these two events happen simultaneously, doesn't mean they are linearly-dependent on each other. The same could be said for farming and NR leaving before they earn their first promotion. It may seem like farming drives them away, but there could be other factors like CC was not as fun as they thought it was going to be( the horror).

Jace22 wrote:I don't think NR staying on the site has anything to do with farming, it just gives the impression that it does. Like for example, it rains more this year(more truth to that then I meant) and the price of ice cream goes up. Just because these two events happen simultaneously, doesn't mean they are linearly-dependent on each other. The same could be said for farming and NR leaving before they earn their first promotion. It may seem like farming drives them away, but there could be other factors like CC was not as fun as they thought it was going to be( the horror).

I'm fairly certain that the statistics showed a higher percentage of NRs leaving after playing farmable-type maps than more normalish ones, otherwise the admins wouldn't have restricted NR map choices in the first place. I would say that fairly definitively indicates that the two are linked. And who could honestly think otherwise? It is far less fun to play anything if you get destroyed in round 2 or 3 than it is to play something new and lose, but still kind of get the idea of what's going on. When I first started to try out team games and didn't know anyone on the site, I joined some random teams. The least fun was a freestyle game (I didn't get at the time how it works with teams) in which I joined team 1 with similar ranked noobs, and got jumped by a high-ranked team looking for easy points (ahem! you know who you are!). I learned a lesson (don't join freestyle team games!), but it certainly didn't enhance my CC experience.

-deleted-

I've always found it a little odd that a cadet with 90 games is considered fair opposition while a NR is seen to be off-limits. Assuming the NR doesn't deadbeat (though I understand many do) I would always consider the cadet to be less of a threat. I mean, the cadet has proved himself to be as effective as a windbreaker in a gale with his sub 900 score, the NR is more than likely going to play better than the cadet.

But we can beat up on cadets all day, right?

So what is farming? Currently, farming seems to be the targetting of NR's with the implied assumption that the NR will hopefully deadbeat or be unable to competently play the game due to unusual rules and settings. I'd always assumed that farming also included either hunting for NR created games and jumping in, or setting up private games and specifically inviting NR's to join.

All very naughty.

Yet the recent case (that inspired this thread no doubt) ended in censure for a player who was setting up multiplayer public standard games, wasn't specifically inviting NR's or foeing likely competition, and yet was still found to be guilty of farming due to the player's assumed knowlege of NR's being attracted to feudal multiplayers.

One crucial question that I think has yet to be answered is 'Why do NR's love doing it feudal?'

Another even more crucial question is whether our hunters comprehend the long term consequences of their decision. From now, it is our responsibility to drop public games if too many NR's are joining them.

I think not. It is not my responsibility to regulate CC in anyway. It is not my responsibilty to keep a close eye on my waiting games, nor is it my responsibility to agonise over whether the players joining are going to be seen as throwing themselves to their pitiful little deaths. It is certainly not my responsibility to drop games I want to play and finally it is without question not my responsibility to change my game style because NR's seem to enjoy playing them.

So what is farming? It is the bogey man in the corner, the all-embracing insult, the dark stain on a player's record. It is a quite legitimate method of gaining points (in many cases) and almost all page 1 players have farmed (including me) in their own way at one time or another. Accusations of it are often the ultimate in hypocricy, with the accusers often sporting thousands of farming games under their belt while slyly claiming that they 'did their farming when it was quite allright to do so'. (for once I'll neglect to name names).. Farming is a joke from both sides of the argument and betrays the weakness of all involved in the C and A cases.

It depends who you are if your considered farming or not. CC double standards.

I like to think that farming can be best summed up by the following example:

Player A (lets call him thegreekdog) is a newly minted corporal who has only played standard, sequential games (some flat rate, some escalating) with more than 1 other player.

So this thegreekdog receives a PM from Player B (let's call him Duke_STD) saying, "Hey, want to join a fun speeder?"

thegreekdog joins Duke_STD's "fun speeder" because it sounds like, well, fun. thegreekdog proceeds to get demolished. Duke_STD wins some points, thegreekdog learns nothing and never plays freestyle again.

To me, this is farming (despite the "newbie" player not being an actual new recruit).

This happened before the new rules. I'm not accusing Duke_STD of anything, so relax.

Oh, and Woodruff, sorry for fast posting, but as I understood the whole debate (from a cynical and practical perspective) around farming -

The high ranked players who did not farm were upset that the high ranked players who farmed were getting easy points. So they complained. These non-farmers reasoned that it was not fair to the new recruits to be farmed.

The high ranked players who farmed said, in response, "Non-farmers, you don't care about new recruits. You care about yourselves."

Now, I agree with the high-ranked farmers, the high-ranked non-farmers did not, in fact, care about the new recruits. In fact, no new recruits even posted in the thread discussing farming and I don't think anyone below a lieutenant posted there. So, it was purely a selfish act on the part of the high-ranked non-farmers.

That being said, the high ranked farmers really had no leg to stand on, since they wanted no farming rules so they could continue to farm, thus inflating their high scores.

hahaha3hahaha wrote:Just briefly browsing your post I can tell we are on the same page. I thoroughly read KraphtOne's thread I think its BS. If conquerclub has a problem with it they should create rank restrictions on games like a lot of people have been asking for!

so creating hundreds of games with the same settings where 82% of the players that joined are new recruits is not farming ? And admitting that he knew he was farming the new recruits and kept setting more and more games up is not farming ? Than hides behind the same old song and dance " its my favorite setting " and " I cant control who joins " but yet he can if he would stop creating the farming games. Than blames it on CC for not putting the map on lockdown for new recruits instead of just stop creating the games. He did absolutely nothing to solve the problem but yet continued to benefit from the issue. Anotherwards, he decided to be part of the problem instead of the solution just to collect points. Nice guy he is.

lord voldemort wrote:CC will never rank segregate.
Farming is a new reruit thing. Once a player earns their first promation they are for lack of a better word free game.

So i am now being told that it is not okay to "farm" a new recruit or systematically target them, but as soon as they have completed their 5th game i can farm the Sh*t out of them and its perfectly legal, personally i dont think this is right, seeing as 1000pts is the stage at which a new recruit begins, my point being someone with under 1000 points would be classified as worse/lower ranked than a new recruit, yet farming would not apply to these... im sorry CC but can you explain this to me a bit better..

JJ

jefjef wrote:It depends who you are if your considered farming or not. CC double standards.

oh really? show some examples of this. Show who was treated unfairly for farming, and who wasnt.

Ive seen nearly every farming thread at this point. They were all treated the same, and certainly fairly.

Farming has been regulated as: The systematic targeting of NEW RECRUITS by CREATING OR JOINING games with many new recruits and taking advantage of thier skill level, and the dramatically increased likely hood that they will deadbeat. This includes, INDIRECT AND DIRECT methods.

This is my interpretation of the rules as written, AND based on how every case has been ruled on. If the occasional new recruit slips in, no big deal... if you end up in the 20-50% range, It may be deemed farming. The QUANTITY AND PERCENTAGE of new recruits in games will be very important to any case. The higher the percentage, and the higher the number, the more obvious that the intent is to target new recruits.

AAFitz wrote:

jefjef wrote:It depends who you are if your considered farming or not. CC double standards.

oh really? show some examples of this. Show who was treated unfairly for farming, and who wasnt.

Ive seen nearly every farming thread at this point. They were all treated the same, and certainly fairly.

No fight at all man. As I said, nearly everybody's farmed...I have myself.

THESE ARE YOUR OWN WORDS from Kraphtones farming thread.

Woodruff wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:Basically, there are ways that you can make sure that mostly new recruits join your games. In other cases such as yours, while new recruits may join them, they are not the main populous.

Not the main populace, I agree...and yet, it's definitely been very close to the "50% threshold" that has been referenced in these situations (50% of the games, not 50% of the players in the games).

Well, the main reason the mods finally spoke up against it was the fact that the people that new recruits who joined games with people that farm hardly ever stay on the site. So in your case, simply having the people stay with the site means that there is no reason to ban you.

The two reasons why farming is bad:
1. points given mainly from people deatbeating
2. keeps many new recruits from staying

Neither is true in your case, but if you look at some of the older games of previous farmers like KLOBBER you will see how many of them game him points by deatbeating and how many of those new recruits finished 5 games.

But isn't that largely just "luck of the draw"? If my new recruits HAPPEN to stick around and KLOBBER's recruits don't happen to stick around, that's not because he was farming and I wasn't...it's just blind luck.

(But speaking of someone who IS violating the intent of the policies...<ahem>)

Lack did some stats that showed him that the new recruits that join games made for farming have a drastically lower rate of sticking to the sight.

It is almost impossible that you simply got lucky that all of the last 100 of the new recruits in your games stayed, and only 5 out of the new recruits farmers play out of 100 stay.

lord voldemort wrote:I assume your talking about krapht

If a map preference can determine "farminess" when the user creating the games has no control over who is going to join them, then that is a problem with the map, not the user creating the games

As i said in his thread. The problem is that he is aware that there are a strangely high number of new recruits in his gams. And he continues to create them. He understands the problem but then takes advantage of it

seriously you piss me off everytime you type that...

what the f*ck did i "take advantage" of... my rank is now lower than it was when i started playing the 4 man feudal casual games...

I DONT LIKE THE NEW RECRUITS JOINING MY FEUDAL GAMES.... THEY f*ck THEM UP BY DEADBEATING AND ATTACKING RANDOMLY...

i informed the mods that there were new recruits joining my games and that it was ruining them i did not know that new recruits joining my games was against the rules ... and you contradict yourselves by saying "we won't make a system to keep new recruits from joining your games, because we want everyone to be able to join against the high ranks if there is an open slot"... and then you say "it is not ok for new players to join your games, you are being warned for breaking an obvious rule..."

and here's some news for you guys on farming...

lackattack could give a shit about how many points you're jacking your score up to... he has noticed that there is a greater chance of someone staying with the site if they are able to play a few competitive games when they first start out, rather than getting slaughtered by someone who is taking a territory per second in a freestyle game... lack could care less if you play the same cooks 6000 times and have a 99% win ratio... just don't stop new people from getting comfortable with playing here... it's all about dollars, has nothing to do with point gaining...


and be prepared for the obligitory "you knew you were farming" remark from aafitz...
farming is targeting the low ranked players, thus causing them to not want to play on CC any longer...

if your argument is that farming is playing new recruits in order to get an advantage and gain a ton of points... then your argument seems silly since my rank is lower now than it was before...