Conquer Club

i really cannot believe they have came back with a warning for this case.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=239&t=141310

not only did the player point dump the players points he also gained from the point dump. i like many think this case should of had some sort of ban all the mod has done has made it open for people wanting to dump just ask someone to sit there account.

Has anybody got similar cases where they thought the result was a joke.

thats a fault in the escalating ban system not the actual offence.
I said it in the thread that the best you could hope for was a warning.
He clearly cheated and only got a warning from it because it was his first offence

lord voldemort wrote:thats a fault in the escalating ban system not the actual offence.
I said it in the thread that the best you could hope for was a warning.
He clearly cheated and only got a warning from it because it was his first offence

lv i would agree but he point dumped a account (auto site ban) and gained from the point dump(warning) so middle ground should of been a temp ban

not how it works...obviously...its suprising eddie...for a guy who has not much of a life except to be on cc. you really know little of how things are run around here

I agree with the warning because of how things are set up here. Would have been unfair to give anything else unless it was a major infraction.

I am ok with the warning as well.

lord voldemort wrote:not how it works...obviously...its suprising eddie...for a guy who has not much of a life except to be on cc. you really know little of how things are run around here

point dumping = auto ban if they had a warning or not so what you are saying is all players that point dump but never had a warning should not be striped of premium and banned. will cc reinburse them said players and put the record straight because like you just said

not how it works...obviously. but it does work in that case.

listen i dont care who the player was but feel he abused someone elses account. and to only get a warning is very light.

eddie2 wrote:listen i dont care who the player was but feel he abused someone elses account. and to only get a warning is very light.

Like I just told Owen in a PM... if I were a betting man I would have guessed that Blitz was going to get off free (again) and escape even a warning. An official warning is a huge step in the right direction and surprised me.

eddie2 wrote:

lord voldemort wrote:not how it works...obviously...its suprising eddie...for a guy who has not much of a life except to be on cc. you really know little of how things are run around here

point dumping = auto ban if they had a warning or not so what you are saying is all players that point dump but never had a warning should not be striped of premium and banned. will cc reinburse them said players and put the record straight because like you just said

not how it works...obviously. but it does work in that case.

listen i dont care who the player was but feel he abused someone elses account. and to only get a warning is very light.

I had assumed that the accusation couldn't be right on the basis that it isn't that hard to find a cook who can follow orders. Nor a private or a corporal for that matter. Once they've reached a point (say sgt.), find another one. Therefore, I logically presumed that the original account must have started a bunch of games, quit, and Blitz watched them drop.

If it is now accepted that Blitz did indeed abuse this account, and purposely lowered it and kept it lowered, then I must accuse him of self-destructiveness, rank stupidity and sheer greed. Possibly greed most of all. It wasn't enough for him to have his fourth man on say 1,100 points. Oh no. It isn't easy to find a 600 point cook who can play properly, I would imagine it is quite difficult indeed. So Blitz had to push the envelope, had to stretch that score a little more, and so tanked an account to do it.

I mention self-destructiveness because he flaunted this. It was right up there in lights for everyone to see.

While the stupidity factor relates to the manner in which he did it, and the fact that he didn't take into account the long-term effect on that reputation he cares so much about. I've got one hell of a stick to beat him with now. So have a lot of others who really dislike him.

With regards to the punishment...if it is a point reset offence to purposely dump your own account (and I believe that it is), then it is rather odd that it isn't a point reset to dump someone's else account. However, on second thought, one has to realise that this offence isn't covered by the same rule. It is on the escalating system.

Therefore, I suggest that it be considered whether the offence of 'dumping someone else's account' should result in the point reset of the offender's account. It would either be interpreted as 're-setting the amount lost on the victim's account' or 're-setting the offender's score back to 1,000'.

In my view it should result in the latter option. It is a very dangerous prescendence to set that you can do this (and to maintain conqueror nonetheless) and only be warned.

I think a bigger punishment would have been a point increase for Jobiwan. Then he'd lose one of his dummy accounts and have to try to find someone else's to take over... I mean, give directions to.

nicely said but you forgot to add that blitz is still gaining extra points from jobiwans account as he is still allwoed to play his account for the active team games he is in.

Bones2484 wrote:I think a bigger punishment would have been a point increase for Jobiwan. Then he'd lose one of his dummy accounts and have to try to find someone else's to take over... I mean, give directions to.

(and I rarely do that)

I'm annoyed I didn't think of it...

It is enough that Blitz has been warned. The punishment does fit the crime.

Let's be clear, in cc terms Blitz now joins those infamous ranks of a Conqueror who had to cheat, manipulate, step outside the rules, whatever you call it, to retain his position. This reflects on a persons character and in my book is a far worse punishment (as it is self inflicted) than anything Admin. might have done. His persona is now tainted with this and I am sure there are enough people around who will use this as a stick to beat him with when they feel it required.

I shall now christen him "Dumper Blitz"

I wonder if Dumper will now remove his own name from the top 100 scores list...a la so many others who have had judgement cast on them by that thread.

NEW BLITZ THREAD IDEA: Top 10 CC Cheaters of All-Time

I disagree Fc. Quite sincerely. May i suggest that you are looking a this from the standpoint of a sequential general. And you are quite right that a high ranker should have the right to put a striper or lower on their team. I've always followed this approach when i play in such exalted circles and often suggest they do it.

The issue is that he dumped point. This results in a point reset if you do it to your own account so I think it should if you do it to someone else's.

Let me repeat..this is not about cheating to keep your score high (i've supported almost everyone who has done that...i often positively approve of it)..it is about dumping points.

Mr Changsha wrote:I disagree Fc. Quite sincerely. May i suggest that you are looking a this from the standpoint of a sequential general. And you are quite right that a high ranker should have the right to put a striper or lower on their team. I've always followed this approach when i play in such exalted circles and often suggest they do it.

The issue is that he dumped point. This results in a point reset if you do it to your own account so I think it should if you do it to someone else's.

Let me repeat..this is not about cheating to keep your score high (i've supported almost everyone who has done that...i often positively approve of it)..it is about dumping points.

Indeed Mr C, you are correct. Dumper involved himself in a crime. More than this he has been found guilty of actually perpetrating the crime. However, there is no precedence for some one dumping as dumper has done. This is the first case of these circumstances. You will no doubt be aware that most law is based on precedent. CC is still growing up, it will take years before every crime that can be committed will be. So the question surely must be 'should Admin now review the punishment meted out for such a crime'. I think the answer to this is a resounding yes. The punishment should be increased to Draconian levels as it is for certain other crimes. Maybe the enactment could be called the 'Dumper Blitz enactment' so as to remind every one here and to come how this set of rules and punishments came about. Dare one put forward the idea that within the rules there could be a couple of lines explaining the circumstances of how the rule came into being?

Is it a warning for 1 infraction or many? When was the last time Jobiwan was actually on? Did he even have a death in the family or did someone else wall me that?

I guess the tainted Conqueror title is a fitting punishment. Like Bonds, Clemens, or Sosa. They might have gotten away with it, have loyalists support them, but any records they hold are tainted.

gradybridges wrote:Is it a warning for 1 infraction or many? When was the last time Jobiwan was actually on? Did he even have a death in the family or did someone else wall me that?

I guess the tainted Conqueror title is a fitting punishment. Like Bonds, Clemens, or Sosa. They might have gotten away with it, have loyalists support them, but any records they hold are tainted.

Indeed Graybridge. Dumper should really do the decent thing and take his own name off the top 100 scores list. To do otherwise only goes to prove the feeling of many that in fact he is a craven individual. Would be good to see some real backbone from him for a change.

We are indeed in agreement Fc. I would disagree with Blitz being punished retrospectively (as that isn't really fair) but I strongly urge the powers that be to review the rule.

I think we will help to name the rule after dear Blitz regardless of any offical line and may I just say that 'dumper blitz' is growing on me. I quite like Dumbly-Dumping as well, once the context becomes more widely and generally clear too.

lol i see there is one vote for nothing has blitz been here

eddie2 wrote:lol i see there is one vote for nothing has blitz been here

shorely you mean either jobiwan or leolou2...oh wait....

I voted nothing. Not because I condone whatever it is Mr. Blitz has or has not done, or is doing or not doing, or will (potentially) do or not do.

I just figured: what's the point?

Call me jaded.

eddie2 wrote:i really cannot believe they have came back with a warning for this case.

I must say that I agree. There have been other situations in which the egregiousness of the offense was such that the ladder system was ignored. Which is precisely how this should have been handled. But I'm not sure why any of us would expect common sense or good judgement to rule.

But then, theherkman didn't have the ears of those in charge, I suppose...

Looks like a rank envy thread.

Upon reflection Warning was the correct decision. The ONLY thing he can be proven guilty of is joining those public games. Everything else was a witch hunt.

Woodruff wrote:

eddie2 wrote:i really cannot believe they have came back with a warning for this case.

I must say that I agree. There have been other situations in which the egregiousness of the offense was such that the ladder system was ignored. Which is precisely how this should have been handled. But I'm not sure why any of us would expect common sense or good judgement to rule.

But then, theherkman didn't have the ears of those in charge, I suppose...

I understand your thoughts woodruff, but I stand by my support of this decision. There is no actual precedent for this kind of cheating. It is also almost impossible to prove that Dumper was doing this to ensure his reign at the top continued.

I think his words "Bruce, I have been conqueror for almost a year now, and several other times in the past, so, I don't need to cheat, in fact it goes against my own values" are very telling. Now, not only is Dumper a proven cheat, but a proven liar as well. This is unsurprising as the two failings tend to walk hand in hand. The crucial words within the statement are "in fact it goes against my own values". These are the words of a craven hypocrite. This kind of unwise move (writing down such things, only to be taken to task over them later when mendaciousness is proven) along with the hypocrisy, the lying, the cheating and the general run of the character does make it very difficult to have any kind of respect for him. I think in Dumper's world, approbation is important. This approbation can now only come from those who condone such things and therefore is of little or no value.